Why We Miss George W. Bush

I found this picture on Facebook (don't know the original source). The two comments below it:
Person A: This is how you act when you love and respect the military

Person B: ...and when the military love and respect their Commander-in-Chief.

The Choice (Cartoon)

Romney Is The Right Nominee At The Right Time

Folks, I know it has been a tough primary.  And, despite the Ron Paul supporters who are clinging to the primary race with white knuckles, we are now in a general election.  It is Romney against Obama.  And, I think despite the objections of very well-meaning conservatives (and believe me, I am a conservative and once struggled with Romney's candidacy like many), Romney is actually the best nominee we could have at this point.  Here's why:

1)  He is not a zealot.  I know this word is overused and I know that people that don't think they should be called this get called this from the other side.  But, the fact is that though the Obama campaign will try, there is absolutely nothing that they can do to paint Romney as a "right-winged extremest."  The actual right-winged extremists (I say in jest of course) disown him as one of their own.  So, no thinking individual in the middle will buy this accusation.
2)  He is careful and steady.  Though he was regularly accused of having no vigor in his campaign, he actually displays an even more important quality going against Obama:  Romney is a steady.  He will always be careful in his tone and speech.  The content of his stump speeches are carefully planned and as many have said (including Gingrich), his campaign is methodical in its execution of strategy.  This is good.  He is not hot-headed.  After a few years of Obama, this will be very attractive to those all-important moderate who will decide the election.  The fact is, Romney is more presidential in tone than Obama.  This will come out more and more as the election goes forward.
3)  He is focusing on the economy, and he has the background to make this focus legitimate.  Being an executive who was out there growing businesses is exactly the resume we need right now.  He has shown that he will continue to make his message about the economy.  And, I believe, this will eventually be why he wins.
4)  He is tougher than people give him credit for.  Let's face it, he beat the heck out of each of his contenders.  He isn't afraid to sling a little mud.  And, though he will be careful about it, he will campaign hard against Obama.  Romney will stay on message, but will not be afraid to call out Obama's failures.

Those oh-so-important middle-of-the-road voters are going to love Romney the more they get to know him.

Texas Helps Mitt Romney Obtain GOP Nomination

With a consistent message of less government and a focus on Obama's negative impact on our country, Mitt Romney has secured the necessary delegate amount to be called the GOP Presidential Candidate. Today, Texas voters helped push Romney past the 1,144 delegate count. As of 11:37pm, Mitt has 69.26% of the vote. Ron Paul, whose home state is Texas, comes away with only 11.61% and Santorum at 7.91%.

"We did it!" Romney proclaimed in a message to supporters, noting that "it's only the beginning."
"An honor and a privilege and a great responsibility," Romney told supporters at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. "And I know the road to 1,144 was long and hard, but I also know that the road to 11-06 – Nov. 6th – is also going to be long and it's going to be hard and it's going to be worth it because we're going to take back the White House and get America right again."
Romney must now fire up conservatives who still doubt him while persuading swing voters that he can do a better job fixing the nation's struggling economy than Obama. In Obama, he faces a well-funded candidate with a proven campaign team in an election that will be heavily influenced by the economy.
Romney's campaign went on the attack Tuesday, releasing a Web video citing the Obama administration's loan-guarantee investments in four renewable-energy firms that lost money and laid off workers.
The message – "President Obama is fundamentally hostile to job creators" – has been a theme of the Romney campaign since he launched his presidential bid. But sensing an opportunity to reach a new audience, the campaign planned to highlight Obama's support for the failed renewable energy company Solyndra, among other private ventures the Obama administration helped support.
"We need to have presidents who understand how this economy works," Romney told reporters Tuesday. "Sometimes I just don't think he understands what it takes to help people. I know he wants to help, but he doesn't know what he's got to do." (SOURCE)

Voting Day!

I've been waiting all primary to get to cast my vote!  And since I live in Texas- today is my day!  I'm psyched, not just for the presidential primaries, but for all the people I'm voting for today.

Last night my husband and I sat down to research the people we hadn't had much time to research.  State and local people mostly.  It was fun to see what our biggest issues and concerns were.  We decided on three hot topic issues that we were going to start our research off with.  For my husband- he focused on government spending, energy, and immigration.  I was interested in the economy, education, and their general background.  It will be fun to see who wins today!

MSNBC Exercises Freedom That The Fallen Heroes Fought For

Despite their reprehensible hate-mongering, MSNBC reminds us of the precious freedom we have in this country to express ourselves however we want to, even if you are a sacrosanct pseudo-intellectual pundit on America's least-favorite "news" cable network.  This is the free press, like it or not.  Their right to say that fallen soldiers are not heroes is a demonstration of the freedom given MSNBC by those very soldiers.

In case you haven't seen the video, here is a link to it:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/05/27/chris-hayes-im-uncomfortable-calling-fallen-military-heroes#ixzz1w6mBDLvo

And, each and every one of those fallen soldiers would do it again, so that this pinhead can continue to speak his mind.  Now, who are the real heroes?

Happy Memorial Day

Today we express gratitude and remember those who have sacrificed much for our country, our freedoms, and our way of life. Thank you.

Palin Endorses Orrin Hatch

This is a pretty big deal.  The Tea Party leadership is split as it eyes the Senate seat held by Orrin Hatch in Utah.  He has been facing a feisty campaign from Dan Liljenquist, a Tea Party favorite and recipient of much-desired support from Dick Armey's Freedomworks.  For those in Utah, it has already been a bit of a nasty campaign (as much as it can be in Utah) with Orrin Hatch getting attacked as a moderate, which is truly about the worst thing one can be called these days.

So, for Sarah Palin to endorse Hatch, we see a divide from the ultra-Right.  Apparently deciphering "moderates" isn't as easy as one might think.

Here's a video of Palin explaining her endorsement: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/22/Palin-Endorses-Hatch-For-7th-Term

From the local Utah Fox station:
Palin announced her backing for Orrin Hatch in a post to her website Tuesday evening, calling him “part of the one percent of national politicians who I think should be reelected.”

Her endorsement comes almost precisely a month after Hatch came within several dozen votes of avoiding a primary contest in his bid for a seventh term in the Senate.

Hatch is known for reaching across the aisle on occasion, though in her endorsement, Palin touted his opposition against the health care reform led by President Barack Obama, as well as opposition to Obama’s nominees for the Supreme Court.

“We know he will use his seniority and influence to dissuade politicians from continuing to raise the debt ceiling without any plan to balance the budget and end these dangerously unsustainable deficits,” she wrote. “And unlike some others, Orrin has gone out of his way to embrace the Tea Party movement.”

Rubio Gets It Right: Obama Most Divisive President In US History

Florida senator Marco Rubio slammed President Barack Obama in a South Carolina speech delivered last night to a large gathering of Republicans. 

“For all the policy disagreements that we may have with the president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago, with his promises to unite America and lift it up,” Rubio said about Obama, referring to his 2004 DNC speech and 2008 presidential run.

But, Rubio said, President Obama has changed: “The man who today occupies the White House and is running for president is a very different person. We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years.”

Rubio, who might be the next Republican vice presidential nominee, also said that Obama and his Democratic party are on a "destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate" path. 
"The president and his party’s view of America’s government and our lives is a failed one. It hasn’t worked. His ideas that sounded so good in the classrooms of Harvard and Yale haven’t really worked out well in the real world," said Rubio. "They get frustrated. They can’t win on their record, and so they’ve chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate."

Rubio also used the speech to introduce himself and talk about his personal story.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-obama-most-divisive-figure-modern-american-history_645218.html

Which Presidential Candidate Do You Most Agree With?

If you want a fun way to see how you agree with the candidates, take a quiz at   http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz . 

My results are below. While I know Romney and I agree, I was really uncomfortable about what I might have in common with Obama. (There are a few issues I am still deciding on and when I adjusted those answers, I supported Mitt 95%, Paul 87% and Obama 9%. That alone should help me make up my mind!) It also demonstrates the overlap between Romney and Paul. Those saying they are polar opposites really misunderstand one or both of their views.

Candidates you side with...

94%

Mitt Romney

I side with Mitt Romney on issues of Social, Domestic policy, the Economy, Healthcare, Science, and the Environment. More info

79%

Ron Paul

I side with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, Healthcare, Foreign Policy, Science, and the Environment. More info

Barack Obama

I side with Barack Obama on issues of Foreign Policy. More info 21%

Obama Born In Kenya?

"Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." 

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel. 

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead." (SOURCE)

Romney Rolls Out Debt Clock

"Gosh, when we put that clock up, we made that clock back in the New Hampshire primary days and it began with 14 back then. Now its fifteen, six eighty five, it'll be sixteen coming soon. It is not at all what he promised," Romney said. "This presidency has been a disappointment, and the people who have been hurt by this disappointment are the American people." (SOURCE)

Obama Rewrites History

Obama rewrites history to propel his agenda.

"The Obama White House is drawing ridicule for appending the official online biographies of nearly every president over the last century in order to link President Obama's accomplishments to the former commanders in chief. 

The Obama team went into the pages of U.S. presidents dating back to Calvin Coolidge to add friendly looking "Did you know?" fact boxes to the end of their bios. Those additions were used to plug a host of Obama administration initiatives, ranging from the health care overhaul to the so-called "Buffett Rule" to his green-energy policies. 

For instance, the following line was added to the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan: "In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule." (SOURCE)

Now, let's clarify. Do you really believe that Reagan was speaking of the Buffett Rule when he was discussing tax code?

"The White House is coming under heavy criticism from conservatives for the changes, and not just to Reagan's page. 

Late Tuesday, the White House defended itself, claiming the staff was merely adding links to other pages.

"No biographies have been altered," a White House official told Fox News. "We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.gov content, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site." 

The additions do include links, but they're more than that. Each one finds a way to tout an Obama administration policy or practice in the process. 

There's this at the bottom of the Franklin D. Roosevelt biography, for instance:
"On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations." 

And this, at the end of President Lyndon Johnson's, drawing a link between his signing of Medicare and Obama's signing of the health care overhaul:
"President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965 -- providing millions of elderly health care stability. President Obama's historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the 'donut hole.'"
The changes also link Harry Truman's call for civil rights to the Obama administration's push to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." And they link Jimmy Carter's creation of the Department of Energy to Obama's push for an "all of the above" energy approach today. 

The Obama accomplishments cited range from the significant to the mundane.
On the bio of John F. Kennedy, the Obama staff cited the current president's decision to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a "presidential proclamation," as a way to link the current administration to Kennedy's -- which launched the Peace Corps.
The only post-Coolidge president whose page is so far untouched is that of Gerald Ford.
Conservative blogs and publications ripped the White House Tuesday for the move, even starting a Twitter hashtag #ObamaInHistory to mock him. The Republican National Committee launched a tumblr page called: "Obama in History -- World Changing Events You Didn't Know Obama Played A Part In." "
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/white-house-under-fire-for-adding-obama-policy-plugs-to-past-presidents-bios/#ixzz1v2s9YLpR

More Reasons Why Obama is Bad for Black Americans

An interesting video from a Ron Paul supporter, who repented for voting for Obama in 2008, and is now a Ron Paul supporter.

The description of his video says, 

Undeniable Truths. Just open your closed eyes.Bush hired more Blacks, Obama did the opposite.Obama addresses ALL other Group issues except the Negroes.Obama approves of Gay Marriage, but NOT the 70% Black Illegitimacy Rate.Negroes go to jail more often.Negroes have higher unemployment.Negroes have higher Food Stamp and Welfare Rates..Negroes have higher illiteracy rates.Negroes have higher illegitimacy rates.

Breaking News: Ron Paul to Stop Actively Campaigning

Read the article here.

Here is another good article, including quotes from his son, Rand Paul.

In an e-mail to supporters, Mr. Paul said he would no longer actively campaign in states that have not yet held Republican presidential primaries. To do so, he said, “would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

Is Obama Alienating Black Voters?

It's no secret that I believe Obama's policies are bad for minorities, particularly black Americans.   But now it seems like Obama is alienating black voters even more.

Recently Obama announced his support for gay marriage.  In light of his announcement, black pastors everywhere took to their pulpits, not only in in support of traditional marriage, but against Obama.

When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.

“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.

He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.

In 2008, exit polls showed that 70% of African Americans opposed same sex marriage- one of the biggest reasons why Prop 8 in California was supported.

What do you think?  Is Obama alienating the same base be needs for re-election?

George W. Bush - Vindication

(Source)

Santorum Endorses Romney, Tentatively

After having a private, no media meeting with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum endorses Romney with the hopes of defeating Obama in November.

"Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum endorsed his one-time fierce rival Mitt Romney on Monday, a move that may help the party's presumptive White House nominee win over religious conservatives.Santorum said in an unusual late-night statement that the two have differences, but that he came away from a meeting with the ex-Massachusetts governor impressed with Romney's "deep understanding" of economic and family issues central to the campaign."Above all else, we both agree that President (Barack) Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious," Santorum said."Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime," he said in the statement, which was emailed to supporters....Santorum had been reluctant to give an endorsement, but he said that changed after a "clear-the-air" meeting with Romney in Pittsburgh on Friday. The question of endorsement did not come up, but Santorum said the conversation was candid and focused on issues."During our meeting I felt a deep responsibility to assess Governor Romney's commitment to addressing the issues most important to conservatives, as well his commitment to ensuring our appropriate representation in a Romney administration," he said."The family and its foundational role in America's economic success, a central point of our campaign, was discussed at length. I was impressed with the governor's deep understanding of this connection and his commitment to economic policies that preserve and strengthen families."Santorum said he agreed with Romney on "the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman.""

Up until now, it appeared as though Santorum supporters were flirting with the idea of supporting Ron Paul.  Time will tell if this endorsement brings supporters Romney's way.

Government-enforced Charity Weakens Society

My most recent article from Examiner.com:

As Paul Ryan battles it out with patronizing Catholic “scholars,” it seems like a good time to have a basic discussion about what charity is all about in the first place.  As Ryan’s recent speech at Georgetown demonstrated, he is not going to take his criticism quietly on the issue of religion and national debt.  "I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts ... on the social teaching of our church," Ryan declared. "Of course there can be differences among faithful Catholics on this. The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it."

This was, of course, in the midst of protests and after a group of Georgetown University faculty members sent a scathing letter to Ryan asserting that he is misrepresenting true Catholic doctrine in his proposals to cut the budget.  One of the organizers of the letter had this to say, as reported in the Huffington Post: “Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching. This is nonsense. As scholars, we want to join the Catholic bishops in pointing out that his budget has a devastating impact on programs for the poor.” 

Ryan, rightly, has made it clear that his intent is to save the country from debilitating debt which our children’s children will never hope to pay off if the course is not corrected now.  However, at this point, any reduction of welfare for any of the current expansive programs that span our country from shore to shore is seen as mean-spirited and unmerciful.

However, one particular question often is left out of this debate.  These self-appointed spokespeople for all-things-Catholic posit an underlying assumption that if government assistance is reduced, the direct outcome will be a harmful impact on the poor.  Ryan makes the argument, of course, that the economy will compensate because those individuals will be able to attain gainful employment.  (Also, despite what seems to be the prevailing interpretation of his budget, he is not removing all government assistance for the poor, and actually has taken care to make these programs work more efficiently.)

The real question, though, is: why are so many convinced that forced charity is the answer?  Why do religious individuals believe government assistance is superior to private giving?  How did we get to a place where reducing government aid translates to not caring for our poor?  Is it not the responsibility of families, churches, neighbors, and faith-based organizations to attend to our poor?  Does charity began at home or does it begin in Washington?

Our society is confused indeed if the primary mode for caring for others is via enforcement instead of choice.  It is much easier to give someone else’s money than your own.  It is also much easier to believe that your charity is “fair” if you know that everyone else is required to give as well.  But, what type of country does that turn us into?  When did it become the epitome of generosity to tax to raise alms for the poor? 

Indeed, the poor, wayfaring man is everyone’s responsibility.  But, the blessings of charity certainly cannot be attained if that charity if forced.  The growth of a person is not realized if the sacrifice that should have spurned that growth was taken by someone else instead of given freely by the individual.  This is parallel to exercise.  Does one benefit from jumping jacks if someone else comes and lifts a person up and down?  No, the effort must be made by the individual. 

The widespread impact of millions of individuals in a society being forced to support our increasingly-massive welfare system instead of being given a choice to do the right thing will certainly lead to reverberations that weaken us as a people.  Those who oppose Ryan and his bold fiscal blueprint on religious grounds need to be able to answer to this assertion.

Michelle Malkin: Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be "Julia"

I was just about to write a reaction to Obama's new "Julia" propaganda, but saw Michelle Malkin's article and thought it was so well done, I decided to bring it to you here:

Quick, hide under the covers. The nation's storyteller, Barack Obama, unveiled a frightening new fable on the Internet intended to scare women away from supporting fiscal conservatives in November. But as is increasingly common with Obama's social media propaganda initiatives, "The Life of Julia" immediately flopped.

Why? Because 1) self-sufficient women voters aren't as sheeple-ish as Democratic strategists make them out to be, 2) conservative activists are overtaking Obama's zombie army online, 3) non-delusional Americans don't want cradle-to-grave utopians turning their country into the next Greece or Spain, and 4) responsible grownups are getting sick and tired of radical Saul Alinsky-style tall tales from the progressive Pied Piper.

Using snazzy graphics and interactive slideshow features, BarackObama.com spins a glowing narrative of imaginary Julia's life from age 3 to 67. But "Julia" is a pathetic figment of the progressive imagination. She simply cannot function without the lifelong intervention of federal patriarchs.

Instead of two parents preparing her for school, Obama credits Head Start bureaucrats with ensuring that Julia is "ready to learn and succeed" in kindergarten.

Instead of individual teachers, private mentors, home-school organizers or charter school leaders, Obama extols his federal Race to the Top program for implementing the high school "classes she needs to do well" in college.

Instead of thrift-minded families who save for their own kids' higher educations (or who opt for non-college alternatives) and who encourage those kids to work in private-sector summer jobs, Obama praises his "opportunity tax credit" and Pell Grants for putting Julia through college.

Instead of acknowledging how costly Obamacare mandates have caused individual-market health care insurers to drop plans altogether, Obama promotes the government-manufactured umbilical cord tethering "children" like Julia to their parents' health care plans until age 26.

Instead of accepting that the costs and consequences of a woman's sexual choices should be a matter of personal responsibility, Big Daddy Obama heralds his religious liberty-crushing birth control/abortion mandate for allowing Julia to "focus on her work instead of worrying about her health."

Despite the fact that most private health care plans already covered maternal screenings, prenatal care and related screenings before Obamacare passed, the president attributes Julia's pregnancy well-being to the law.

To see this liberal ideal of a woman, click here.

Why Mitt Romney Will Be The Next President

As we finally move toward the end of the primary season and Mitt Romney has all but has won the nomination, it seems like a particularly good time to preview the coming months and what will end up being likely one of the nastiest general elections in recent history.

But, before moving forward, it seems appropriate to consider the state of the GOP.  Given that this was such a topsy-turvy primary cycle, it is likely that some Republicans and self-proclaimed "true" conservatives are still licking their wounds.  The use of the term “self-proclaimed” is not to say that those who are upset that Romney is the all-but-certain nominee are not real conservatives.  Simply, the use of this term is to say that that many of this crowd tend to believe they are the only ones with “true” convictions and that anyone who has supported Romney longer than a few weeks and not by default only cannot be “real” conservatives.  This fallacy pre-supposes that a thinking, conservative individual, such as myself, could not have chosen him months ago, before many thought his nomination certain.  Having said that, this is not the time to spike the football as it were, so I will digress and move forward.

The bottom line is that regardless of the reasons for the underlying (and sometimes uber-vocal by some) apprehension that Romney is not the right guy, Romney has to unite a party, bring together some that are happy with him, some that have come to terms with his eventual nomination, and others who are downright disgruntled.

Humorously, as it has been from the beginning for many, Ron Paul’s supporters still have child-like certainty that Paul will somehow embezzle enough delegates from unsuspecting states.  Also, the Ron Paul supporters continue to think that Paul is the great hope for all that is wrong in this country.  In their eyes, all of Paul’s opponents are “statists,” not much different than the current statist occupying the White House.  This type of absolutist mind-set is both what unites them and what will ensure their permanence in the fringe of American politics.

Either way, Romney is as he should be gearing up for the fall campaign.  And, while Romney shakes his etch-a-sketch to design his strategy against Obama (which is appropriate despite the uproar this comment raised a few weeks ago), his opponent is sharpening his knives.  Obama and the full Chicago team have long-anticipated a Romney win, already running ads against him in the primary and calling him out by name in campaign events designed as official White House business. 

The real show this fall will be the street-style campaigning that will be exhibited by the Obama campaign.  This will be Chicago-style politics on the national level.  One recent example is the now-famous Obama campaign commercial alleging that Romney would not have made the call to go after Osama bin Laden.  As Romney correctly retorted, “even Carter would have made that call.”  This ad sparked a debate about the appropriateness of politicizing bin Laden’s death.  Those engaging in this debate are humorously wasting their energy.  The fact is that Obama will engage in this type of “spiking the football” all throughout the election cycle. Truly, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

So, for those of us concerned about the reckless, audacious, and seemingly willful drive exhibited by our current president to shove this country’s future off a cliff, the question becomes: is Romney up to it?  If this is a campaign about book-smarts vs. street-smarts, straight-laced and square against unflappable and hip, then Romney loses. 

However, people should not mistake this election for the last one.  Romney-the-candidate is much more sophisticated than McCain-the-candidate; and Obama 2008 is much less exciting than is Obama 2012.  Not only does he finally have a record for all to examine, his message is no longer one of hope, no longer one of courage, no longer one of optimism.  Instead, it is one of disappointment, disillusionment, and regret.  While Obama will do all he can to try to explain to the country why the rising gas prices are a good thing and how the unprecedented debt is really less important than his many other accomplishments (whatever they are), his attempts to explain away the current state of the country will be a difficult sell, to say the least. 

Also, what Romney’s critics on both sides fail to see (though this is what the Obama campaign fears the most), is that Romney’s supposed square-ness is actually a strength, a great strength.  Romney is not just a good guy, he is an honorable family-man.  Romney is not just a “member of the 1%,” he is a strategic thinker, successful by his own merits and as hard-working and shrewd in his actions as one would expect from a great American success story.  Romney is not just calculated, as many of his “more conservative” rivals called him, he is actually deliberate and dignified.  Romney will not try to fight the same battle Obama will fight.  He isn’t interested in Chicago-style politics; he will remain above the fray.  At the same time, he will not be afraid to call out the record that has been established over the past 3.5 years by the current administration.

And this is why Obama will lose.  He will lose because this country, deep down, knows that what we need right now is a grown-up.  By the end of this nasty election, people will be hungry for dignity.

Gingrich Bids Adieu

After months of barely limping along, Newt Gingrich finally suspended his campaign for presidency.

"In a crowded hotel ballroom steps from a Washington, D.C.-area subway stop Wednesday afternoon, Gingrich officially ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.


“Today, I am suspending the campaign, but suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship,” Gingrich said, with wife, Callista, at his side. 

Although he did not officially back Mitt Romney, he offered lukewarm words of praise for the man who beat him, saying that “this is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan.” Given that it is a choice between Romney and President Barack Obama, Gingrich argued “the gap” between the two “is as wide as any point in American history.”"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75838.html#ixzz1tm8BOaNV

End Of The World??

"Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen in 2012, according to a new poll.

The end of the Mayan calendar, which spans about 5,125 years, on December 21, 2012 has sparked interpretations and suggestions that it marks the end of the world.

"Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming," said Keren Gottfried, research manager at Ipsos Global Public Affairs which conducted the poll for Reuters." (SOURCE)

Do you fall in this 15%? If so, what preparations do you make? Food storage? Financial reserves? Living each day to the fullest??

Geithner Too Political

One thing that we have come to expect from the Obama administration is that the entire administration puts Obama's politics above any of their own jobs.  Timothy Geithner, for instance, is the Treasury Secretary.  But, he seems to spend a lot of time slamming Republican ideas.  From nationalreview.com:

Is Tim Geithner the most politically partisan treasury secretary in history? Certainly sounds like it these days. As the government’s chief financial officer, he’s spending a lot of time firing campaign barbs at various Republicans and their policies.

Geithner has blasted Mitt Romney by name on several occasions. He frequently attacks Representative Paul Ryan and the GOP budget. And he recently fired a broadside at top-Romney economist Glenn Hubbard, who is presently dean of the Columbia Business School.

Responding to a Hubbard op-ed in the Wall Street Journal — which calculated that the president’s spending plans would require an 11 percent tax increase on people earning less than $200,000 a year — Geithner said, “That’s a completely made-up, remarkably hackish observation for an economist.”

So, instead of focusing on our country's troubling financial condition, he seems to want to demonize others who are trying to come up with ideas to save our country.  Extraordinary.  Mr Geithner, please focus on your job.

One of the great consequences of firing Obama this fall will be the firing of his whole staff.