Why Romney Is Now Winning With Women

I still remember the day that I learned the most important lesson a man can ever learn about women. It was the first semester of my sophomore year of college. My girlfriend had broken up with me the last semester of the previous year and I still hadn’t figured out why. I had begged her to stay. I told her that I was nothing without her and even cried in front of her. But she still left me for another guy.

What I didn’t understand was that when she had tried to break up with me just a month before, the emasculation of myself seemed to work wonders. She decided we’d give it another try and things seemed to go back to normal. But at the end of that month, she wasn’t snookered by my antics.

Don’t misunderstand, I wasn’t faking. I felt like my world was ending and that she alone held the key to my happiness in life. So it was easy to cry and tell her that I “dwelled in darkness without her.” But I allowed myself to do it because I thought it would work. I thought that getting sympathy could buy me some points with the gentler sex.

I thought that right up until the day I took mental inventory of my recent experiences with women. Since I’d been back as a sophomore, women had been treating me differently. The ones I thought were out of my league were inviting me to have lunch with them. Senior girls were taking walks across campus with me simply because they saw me passing by. Two girls who I’d been friends with for over a year were literally feuding over the “rights” to me to the point that they stopped being roommates.

What had changed? I had. Rather than being a soft spoken weenie whose only skill with women was attempting to solicit sympathy, I had improved myself. I didn’t do it to “get chicks” or win back the girl who’d dumped me. I did it for me. I’d begun a part-time business, started back lifting weights with a buddy, and reunited with friends I had basically ignored when I was infatuated the year before.

I’d become someone that girls wanted to date because I was going places, had a life outside of any one woman, was physically stronger, knew how to have fun and the “looks decent wagon” hadn’t passed me by. I’d earned it.

When I’d cried and begged my ex to stay, she stayed for a little bit because she felt sorry for me. So she felt good in giving me another chance that I really didn’t deserve. But that never works long term. It’s like a sympathy date in high school, it’s a short term relationship because it’s based on sympathy, not attraction and love.

So what does this have to do with Mitt Romney closing the gender gap with Barack Obama? Simple, Obama was a sympathy date in 2008.

He hadn’t earned anything. He had been a senator for less than two years when he started campaigning. He rose to the top because women got warm feelings by voting for him. They felt like they did him a favor. He wasn’t qualified. He hadn’t earned what he got by having a record of successes to point to (or much of any record at all).

But as I said above, the sympathy date is temporary just like the sympathy reconciliation I received. This is especially true of Obama when women are able to see the resume of Mitt Romney. Romney has never been anything but a winner. He’s wealthy, not because he sold a book based on unearned and faddish popularity but because he turned around failing businesses and took the Olympics from debt to profit. He won the governorship of Massachusetts and actually balanced the budget instead of just talking about it – a rare feat these days. He persevered and won the nomination of his party and now he’s standing up to someone who doesn’t have successes to under his belt. In fact, Obama is in a similar spot to where I was the second time my girlfriend tried to break up with me. I relied on what had worked before because that’s all I had. But sympathy didn’t work the second time. She wanted a winner. She wanted a man who had things going for him and was a strong leader in life.

So when women are faced with the choice between a man who’s using the same ole “give me another chance” line she’s heard from him before and a man who doesn’t need another chance because he’s already done the things Obama couldn’t, they’ll likely pick the man who’s already a winner in his own right. The sympathy date rarely happens more than once. And the same is true for the sympathy vote when the country is in need of someone who can actually do what needs to be done.

Free Speech Dying in the Western World

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”

A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.

Read more from this story HERE.

Why is the American Automobile Association, With Over 50 Million Members, Doing Nothing About High Gas Prices?

By My Auto Club. The American Automobile Association (AAA) has for years failed to fight high gas prices to benefit its motorist members. The AAA with 50+ million members is the largest nonreligious member organization in the country.

The AAA gas price surveys always have included the oil cartel’s excuses and red herring arguments for their skyrocketed prices.

The AAA is tasked to lobby in support of motorists. But it has not yet done any lobbying to any state or the Federal government to:

1. investigate the domestic oil cartel for collusion and antitrust violations.

2. investigate the worldwide oil cartel including OPEC and its allies.

3. urge President Obama to stop all help the US occupation authorities are giving to Iraq and its OPEC allies (could be done with a stroke of President Obama’s pen); and investigate the possible support the US occupying forces continue to give to Iraq and its OPEC allies, including enforcing worldwide oil production quotas. Iraq has kept its oil production down at the Saddam Hussein level of March 2003 when the occupation started. The price of gas was $1/gallon in March 2003 and is now $4/gallon.

4. stop tax increases on gasoline and diesel.

The two largest AAA clubs are the Automobile Club of Southern California (with about 7 million members), which owns the AAA clubs in Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii, and parts of Northern New England (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire), Missouri, and Alabama; and the Automobile Club of Northern California, which owns the AAA clubs in Utah and Nevada. Both have totally failed to lobby. No bills have been sponsored, no ballot measures been initiated.

Time for the AAA to rise up for its member-owners. The multi-billion dollar rip-offs must stop.

Obama Abandons the Border

Along the Arizona/Mexican border, dozens of heavily armed spotters man look out points on mountain peaks commanding the shimmering, parched landscape below. They usually man these posts for two weeks at a time, taking provisions with them to last the entire 14 days. They are equipped with night vision technology, powerful binoculars and high tech communications able to keep them in touch with command centers miles away.

But these aren’t US military personnel or law enforcement, they are soldiers of powerful Mexican drug cartels, who own these crossing points where vast amounts of drugs and human traffickers stream into the United States. These spotters are on the look out for the US border patrol who is tasked with keeping these invaders out. Hamstrung by the vast areas of desolate country they have to patrol, as well as having to respect environmentally sensitive areas which the cartels could care less about, our forces are out manned and outgunned.

Like the Cohen Brothers movie, “No country for old men,” the undercurrent of this landscape is harsh, lawless and violent. It is ruled by brutal men, who do not hesitate to resort to violence in order to protect their investment in drugs and human trafficking. Headless bodies and rape trees tell the tale of how brutal this place can be.

Mule trains of human and drug traffickers on foot, some carrying burlap sacks filled with drugs, walk into the United States under the watchful eyes of the spotters high above them. Once they reach a staging area, they change clothes so they look more American and discard what they had been wearing. They also discard the burlap bags as they transfer the drugs to vehicles. These smuggling corridors are littered with abandoned vehicles,plastic bottles, cans, clothing, shoes, food, black plastic bags, and empty burlap sacks.

You would think, that at the very least, the EPA would be enthusiastically suing the cartels for despoiling the desert environment…as enthusiastically as they sue and harass our own US corporations and industries.

We are having a war waged against us on our southern border. This war is filling our country with dangerous illegal drugs and swamping us with undocumented illegal immigrants who are overloading our social services.

A border state trampled and drowned by illegal and criminal invaders, Arizona was dealt a severe blow a few months ago by the Obama administration. They were told not to call Dept of Homeland Security for help with their immigration enforcement problem because Homeland security wasn’t going to answer.

Evidently President Obama was in a snit when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally. So President Obama decided to circumvent the intent of the ruling by another executive order and withdrew federal immigration enforcement help and cooperation from Arizona.

Even Justice Scalia wrote a scathing indictment against the Obama administrations intimidation of Arizona’s efforts to protects its borders when he penned: ” Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

President Obama’s decision to suspend laws on immigration and harass the State of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens from a criminal invasion, is indeed mind boggling.

___________________________________________________________

Ed Farnan’s articles are also carried in:

Irish Central
Energy independence-Politics & More
Carrollstandard.com
Tea Party Cheer
Tea Party Patriots
AMAC

Joe Biden & The Nation Lost Thursday’s Debate on All Counts

Last night at the Vice Presidential debate in Kentucky, the nation got to witness the last vestiges of dignity get stripped away from the office of Vice President. This administration’s all out quest to remain in power saw truth and dignity sacrificed for that goal.

Joe Biden’s conjured up inner outrage lead to a spectacle on stage never duplicated in past debates of this magnitude. Smiling bizarrely while the conversation centered on our soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, Biden even laughed out loud ( insanely?) while the conversation shifted to the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. Joe was seen by many as a deranged and cranky old man last night.

But one positive aspect for “green energy” emerged. Many folks in the alternative energy business thought Joes expensive teeth could be a new found source to power solar panels, as he flashed them constantly and inappropriately last night.

The only ones who seem to roar with approval are the far left, who were looking for blood after Mitt Romney dismantled President Obama in last weeks debate. But Romney, unlike Biden, did his work without rudely and thuggishly butting in while the President was talking.

Instead of battling Paul Ryan using ideas and truth, Biden was like Stephen King’s Pennywise the clown armed with a crude club. Biden interrupted Ryan in mid sentence 82 times and even butted into the moderator mid sentence several times for good measure.

Biden was able to get away with many complete and false statements yesterday with the aid of the moderator, who cut off Ryan’s responses before he could rebut a Biden falsehood….. Of course Joes own thuggish behavior made it difficult to complete a thought.

What is left today is a bucket full of fact checks that show Joe had an utter disregard for the truth, ranging from the Libyan embassy scandal to Medicare, to Iran and our relations with Israel.

Today many women were expressing their disappointment in the Vice Presidents demeanor last night. To them he appeared to be a bully, especially when he pointed his finger at the moderator and lectured her. Some women said Biden reminded them of ex boyfriends who wouldn’t take no for an answer. Or more ominously, the type of overbearing man they would fear to work around.

The left was cheered by this spectacle and feel vindicated, however we are quickly losing the ability to have an honest debate in this country, if last night is an example of our present discourse.

At this rate, we will be choosing candidates for their gladiatorial skills, rather than their oratorical skills.

___________________________________________________________

Ed Farnan’s articles are also carried in:

Irish Central
Energy independence-Politics & More
Carrollstandard.com
Tea Party Cheer
Tea Party Patriots
AMAC

Constitutional Expert: Obama has “Profound Disdain for the Constitution”

President Barack Obama is running roughshod over the Constitution, legal scholars say, by disregarding it, changing laws outside the legislative process, and extending federal power in unprecedented ways.

The president has “profound disdain for the Constitution,” said David Rivkin, a lawyer at the BakerHostetler law firm in Washington, DC.

“Across a whole host of policy areas, President Obama and other high officials in his administration have pushed the envelope of anything attempted before,” said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional expert at the Cato Institute.

Under the president’s judicial philosophy, legislation ideally “streamlines government action” so it can “grow and experiment,” all while overcoming barriers like the checks and balances built into the Constitution, said Charles Kesler, a professor of government and constitutional scholar at Claremont McKenna College.

A pending lawsuit against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act exemplifies several aspects of the complaints legal scholars have against the president’s treatment of the Constitution.

Read more from this story HERE.

Why Socially Conservative Blacks & Hispanics Tend to Vote Democratic

How is it possible that two groups who have historical legacies of being religious could vote in elections overwhelmingly for the political party that promotes and legalizes “sin” (homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, taking God out of the mainstream, sloth, etc.) – the Democrats? Blacks have consistently voted in the 90% range for Democrats, and Latinos have voted in the 60-70% range.

The answer to this question can be found in a great statement made recently by Glenn Beck. He said, “When somebody has an agenda, they don’t want to hear the truth.” That is, they let their dominant agenda trump any other agenda they might have. In this case, blacks and Latinos are letting their racial and ethnic identity trump their religious identity. He also said that when this is the case, the more radical are even sometimes given to “lying” (in political ads and speeches), stealing (votes) and cheating (in getting unqualified people to vote)” to advance their agenda. (More “sins”.) And if someone isn’t representing the truth, they automatically are in lies (untruths).

Some of the groups that have at least some agendas and ideologies not based on truth would be: liberals, racists, feminists, hedonists, homosexuals, environmentalists, political parties, various religions/denominations, secularists, various addictions, illegal aliens – including blind addiction to happiness and pleasure, and various personal agendas that aren’t in harmony with nature as designed by its Creator.

And speaking of illegal aliens, why do democrats and democrat judges work hard to make sure that ID’s aren’t required for voting? That doesn’t make sense, when ID’s are required for nearly everything else. The only possible conclusion is that they don’t want their many attempts at voter fraud to be stymied (dead people, felons, pets, multiple votes, illegal aliens, etc.).

A problem with people who have agendas (as the Glenn Beck quote stated) is that they are hard to reason with because based on the tenets of their agenda, they allow a blind, knee-jerk, lock-step loyalty to those tenets to overrule their ability to reason, as they just parrot the sound bites of those tenets. And the fact that they often use name-calling and emotion to push those sound bites and silence their opponents – especially within their racial, ethnic or special-interest group – implicitly says that they don’t have enough confidence in the tenets of the agenda or ideology that they are aligning with to be able to calmly and intelligently present and defend them and persuade others.

Read more from this story HERE.

A View from the Left: Did Obama Just Throw the Entire Election Away?

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night:

Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney – even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president’s a**:

By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin…. Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign. Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points. In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).

Read more from this story HERE.

Mark Steyn: I Hate Big Bird For What He’s Done to the USA

Apparently, Frank Sinatra served as Mitt Romney’s debate coach. As he put it about halfway through “That’s Life”: “I’d jump right on a big bird and then I’d fly . . . ”

That’s what Mitt did in Denver. Ten minutes in, he jumped right on Big Bird, and then he took off — and never looked back, while the other fellow, whose name escapes me, never got out of the gate. It takes a certain panache to clobber not just your opponent but also the moderator. Yet that’s what the killer Mormon did when he declared that he wasn’t going to borrow money from China to pay for Jim Lehrer and Big Bird on PBS. It was a terrific alpha-male moment, not just in that it rattled Lehrer, who seemed too preoccupied contemplating a future reading the hog prices on the WZZZ Farm Report to regain his grip on the usual absurd format, but in the sense that it indicated a man entirely at ease with himself — in contrast to wossname, the listless sourpuss staring at his shoes.

Yet, amidst the otherwise total wreckage of their guy’s performance, the Democrats seemed to think that Mitt’s assault on Sesame Street was a misstep from whose tattered and ruined puppet-stuffing some hay is to be made. “WOW!!! No PBS!!! WTF how about cutting congress’s stuff leave big bird alone,” tweeted Whoopi Goldberg. Even the president mocked Romney for “finally getting tough on Big Bird” — not in the debate, of course, where such dazzling twinkle-toed repartee might have helped, but a mere 24 hours later, once the rapid-response team had directed his speechwriters to craft a line, fly it out to a campaign rally, and load it into the prompter, he did deliver it without mishap.

Unlike Mitt, I loathe Sesame Street. It bears primary responsibility for what the Canadian blogger Binky calls the de-monsterization of childhood — the idea that there are no evil monsters out there at the edges of the map, just shaggy creatures who look a little funny and can sometimes be a bit grouchy about it because people prejudge them until they learn to celebrate diversity and help Cranky the Friendly Monster go recycling. That is not unrelated to the infantilization of our society. Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.

Read more from this story HERE.

Extremism in the Defense of RINOism Is No Virtue

Politics is a funny thing. Sometimes, the seemingly counterintuitive can become the reality, what you would not expect – based upon common sense – nevertheless is what happens. Much of this has to do with the fact that in a political system such as ours, it is easy for factional interests to become entrenched, pursuing politics for the sake of remaining in power rather than for the good of those they claim to represent. In such cases, you will find the entrenched power acting in ways that, to the uninitiated, often seem obtuse and nonsensical.

Such seems to be the case with the Republican Party. Conservatives have observed time and time again that the Party which supposedly represents their interests in our system nevertheless seems to take them for granted. Worse than this, often the entrenched interests within the Party hierarchy – commonly referred to collectively as the Establishment or the “GOP-E” – seem to be actively hostile to conservatives within the Party, often going to great lengths to stifle and block them at every turn.

There are few places where this becomes more apparent than in the way the GOP-E deals with conservative candidates who defeat moderate, Establishment candidates in primary races, or who misstep and provide an opening to the GOP-E for attack. Indeed, the Republican Party seems to be the only Party in living memory that actively seeks to destroy the electoral chances of its own candidates just to enforce the entrenched Establishment’s vision for the Party. In doing so, they don’t just hurt conservatives within their Party, but they actual help the Democrats retain seats and have greater opportunity to damage the nation as a whole.

The Democrats certainly don’t do this. Instead, that Party is more than happy to run seemingly right-leaning candidates in conservative districts in an effort to bolster their own chances for taking and retaining power. In 2008, a goodly portion of the Democratic wave was made up of quasi-conservative office-seekers attacking Republicans from their right flank, taking conservative congressional districts all across the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West – traditionally areas of Republican strength. The GOP-E, for its part, has no problem reminding conservatives that in left-leaning districts, the Republicans who run need to be more towards the center – and in this they have a valid argument, up to a point. Yet, the GOP-E seems to also want centrist or liberal candidates for the Republican Party even in districts and states that conservatives can easily win. Hence, the seemingly nonsensical push for thoroughly unnecessary “moderate” Republicans, which only ends up undermining conservative enthusiasm, loyalty to the Party, and ultimately donation and turnout on Election Day. The GOP-E goes to great lengths to undercut conservative candidates across the country, placing its own narrow Establishment interests ahead of those of the nation and the Party as a whole.

Take, for instance, the curious case of Todd Akin, running for the Senate in Missouri. Read more from this story HERE.