Posts

Fact Checking the Presidential Debate: Both Candidates Get Failing Grade

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Calvin Woodward. President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spun one-sided stories in their first presidential debate, not necessarily bogus, but not the whole truth.

Here’s a look at some of their claims and how they stack up with the facts:

OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.”

THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those “cuts” away and Obama’s $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.

Obama’s February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects. Read more from this story HERE.

Deficit Math Doesn’t Added Up For Either Candidate

By Thomas Eddlem. The first presidential debate of the 2012 post-primary election season revealed that both Democratic incumbent President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, would increase the national budget deficit more than advertised.

Both candidates claim to have put forward tax and spending plans that would bring the federal budget closer to balance. However, according to the independent analysis of the Congressional Budge Office, both candidates’ plans would actually increase the $1 trillion deficits the federal government is expected to run next year.

President Obama criticized Governor Romney’s tax proposal, charging that he would increase deficits through a “$5 trillion tax cut” and a $2 trillion increase in military spending. “It’s math,” Obama charged, echoing the words of former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. “It’s arithmetic.”

But the math applied by Obama was based on Romney’s proposed cumulative tax cuts and military spending increases over the next 10 years. The 10-year figures are deliberately exaggerated figures since much of the money involved would be in the final few years of the 10-year period, when Romney wouldn’t even be eligible to serve as president even if elected to two terms. Romney countered that “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I would not put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit.” Romney outlined five goals he’d seek if elected as president, the fourth of which is to “get us to a balanced budget.”

Despite Obama’s deceptive exaggerations, Romney’s proposals would not only fail to get the federal government to a balanced budget, it would increase the federal deficit immensely. Romney has failed to propose spending cuts that would match his substantial tax cut proposal (which includes cutting income tax rates 20 percent across the board) and proposed increases in military spending (some $200 billion in 2016 alone). Read more from this story HERE.

Obama the Debater: Making Jimmy Carter Look Awesome

/1 Comment/in /by

Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter, President Obama flailed all around the debate stage last night. He was stuttering, nervous and petulant. It was like he had been called in front of the principal after goofing around for four years and blowing off all his homework.

Not since Jimmy Carter faced Ronald Reagan has the U.S. presidency been so embarrassingly represented in public. Actually, that’s an insult to Jimmy Carter.

The split screen was most devastating. Mitt Romney spoke forthrightly, with carefully studied facts and details at the ready. He looked right at the president and accused him of being miles out of his depth.

Mr. Obama? His eyes were glued to his lectern, looking guilty and angry and impatient with all the vagaries of Democracy. This debate was seriously chaffing him.

What exactly was Mr. Obama’s strategy here? Did he figure with so many people unemployed in this abomination of an economy he should go for the sympathy vote? Like voters could relate to a guy who is just scared pantsless that he is about to lose his job?

Read more from this story HERE.

Videos: Two Hilarious Political Comedies Featuring Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, others

/5 Comments/in , /by

After justifiably getting beat up by many of our loyal subscribers over posting the Paul Ryan “lip reading video,” we’ve taken it down.

The video that was originally posted featured a “video-shopped” Paul Ryan saying a number of sometimes humorous things. As one subscriber noted, however, it also included some profane stuff that we had not caught originally, so we took it down.

What we found interesting (and disturbing) was how it was exceptionally difficult for the average viewer to see that Ryan was not actually saying what the video creators had dubbed in. In other words, seeing isn’t necessarily believing.

____________________________________________

We’ve left the next video up but, if you are overly sensitive about your candidate, please don’t watch it.

It’s a recent production that matches up the GOP primary candidates in a “Mortal Kombat” type mock up:

Lowering Debate Expectations: “I’ve Barely Prepared for This Debate. Gonna Wing It!” – Mitt Romney

/1 Comment/in , /by

“While Mitt Romney has done 20 debates in the last year, [Obama] has not done one in four years, so there’s a challenge in that regard.”—Obama campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki, Sept. 17

“President Obama is the most gifted speaker in modern political history, so it is hard to imagine anyone outscoring him in debate points.”—Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul, Sept. 20

“Mitt Romney I think has an advantage, because he’s been through 20 of these debates in the primaries over the last year. He even bragged that he was declared the winner in 16 of those debates.”—Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs, Sept. 23

“The president is obviously a very eloquent, gifted speaker—he’ll do just fine. I’ve, you know, I’ve never been in a presidential debate like this and it will be a new experience.”—Mitt Romney, Sept. 25

“Mitt Romney, in his experience in business, is extremely well-prepared for the process of fielding ideas on the fly and, you know, responding to them off the cuff. Whereas the President has, for the last four years, he’s been—you know, sometimes the only voice in the room, and I don’t know that he’s faced an adversary as strong as Romney during daily briefings.”—Obama campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki, Oct. 1, 6:45 p.m.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Romney and Ryan 2012, by Rivoli Revue

/0 Comments/in /by

A video/song in support of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan by my friends Ron and Kay Rivoli:

Independents Breaking Toward Romney, Media Silent

/11 Comments/in , /by

Not long ago, Independents were the go-to demographic for determining who would win elections. How the Independents swung, so too would the election.

In 2008, Barack Obama carried Independents in Ohio by 8 points and in Florida by 7 points. That victory among Independents contributed a great deal to his 2.8-point win in Florida and his 4.5 point win in Ohio. A victory by Romney among Independents could tilt both key states in his favor.

Curiously, Independents seem to be mostly ignored this election cycle, and their presidential vote preference is almost unanimously ignored by the MSM. Instead, “women” have replaced Independents as the key demographic. This emphasis and sudden fascination conveniently ties in nicely with the Democrats’ fictitious “War on Women” meme.

In both Ohio and Florida, Barack Obama’s “clear leads” all come from heavy over-sampling of Democrats, not from winning the crucial Indie vote. In fact, most of the polls that show Obama with big leads also show Romney handily winning Independent voters. Yet, somehow, Obama manages to increase his performance from 2008 despite Independents now opposing him.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: A Member of the 47% Speaks-`I’m Supporting Obama because of my Obamaphone!’

/2 Comments/in , /by

Pro-Obama protesters waving signs outside of a Romney event near Cleveland included this lady who explained that she was supporting Obama because he gave her, and everybody else in Cleveland, a free “Obama-phone.” I think we’ve found a member of the 47% that Romney will never win over:

Must Watch Video: Radio Hosts Suspended for Encouraging Listeners to Put Up YouTubes Saying, “Muhammad Sucks A**”

/12 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday, two popular radio hosts in northern California encouraged their listeners to “swamp the world” with articles and YouTube’s saying, “Muhammad sucks a**.”

They also suggested that videos be produced suggesting that “Muhammad’s a goat rapist” and that websites be set up with addresses like “MuhammadBarnLove.com.” Why? They’re convinced that this will either force the Islamic radicals to “grow up” or we’ll “get it on” and take care of the problem.

The hosts observed that Islam is a religion of submission, not peace. One host said Muslims want to “Set fire to the olive branch.”

They also stated that our “sacred principles,” namely the First Amendment, permit all Americans to “denigrate any damn religion [they] want” and that “if Mitt and his guys don’t jump on this, they aren’t fit to be dog catcher, much less President.”

Finally, they asserted that some of the supposedly offensive videos may have been “made up as an excuse to blow up stuff.”

These comments may have cost the hosts their jobs:

America’s Churches Must Speak Out: Pulpit Freedom Sunday, October 7, is their Opportunity

/3 Comments/in , /by

The 2012 U.S. presidential election season is getting vicious, and the nation recognizes that there is a great deal riding on this election. Despite the constant bantering and outright verbal attacks (between friends on Twitter and Facebook), the widespread interest is frankly much better for American than listless hopelessness. People care.

As it does on a regular basis, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is getting after churches for caring too much. Americans United has sent out a letter warning churches not to engage in politicking because, “tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) groups from supporting or opposing candidates.” The letter even warns about voter guides that are too one-sided in how they address the issues.

Most churches would like to keep their 501(c)(3) status and continue to offer tax deductions for tithes and offerings. They therefore tread very carefully during election time. Some pastors, however, are weary of being muzzled. These believe the church has a responsibility to address political issues, just as men of God have done throughout history, and they want to fight for their First Amendment right of free speech in their churches. These pastors will be speaking out very clearly about political matters and will offer their views on specific candidates on October 7, which has been dubbed Pulpit Freedom Sunday. If lawsuits ensue, these pastors hope that they will result in a Supreme Court decision to overturn the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 amendment to the tax code forbidding politicking in churches.

In an analysis of the history behind the Johnson Amendment, James D. Davidson of Purdue University said in 1998, “The ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state. The First Amendment speaks of religious freedom; it says nothing that would preclude churches from aligning themselves with or against candidates for political office…” Davidson argues that it was then-Senator Lyndon Johnson’s push against McCarthyism and effort to hold Democratic control over the Senate that motivated the amendment in 1954.

Even now, though, there’s no law that says churches cannot offer a microphone to political causes. They may right now, under current law, preach for or against candidates all they want. Churches and charities just may not keep their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status if they engage in overt campaigning.

What Should Churches Do?

Jesus told his disciples, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.”(Matthew 5:14) That applies first and foremost to the Spirit of God in us, shining out in our everyday lives. Living for Jesus Christ and putting him first in our lives is the most vital thing we can do, whatever our political positions.

Because the government of the United States is in the hands of the people, though, Americans are in a greater position to move things politically than were the people of First Century Rome. We Americans have a responsibility to oversee our representatives, to hold them accountable, and to make our voices heard. Individual Americas, whatever their religious beliefs, are not only free but should speak out to make sure that our local and federal public servants are doing their jobs well.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Obama Voters Got Burned in 2008; Now Changing Their Vote

/0 Comments/in /by

Although I don’t believe that Romney will turn this country around, he’s a far cry better than Obama.

The following ads feature voters that recognize they’ve been snookered and are striking a different path in November.

Let’s hope Romney-Ryan doesn’t let them down, too.

Here’s the short 30 second ad:

And the longer version:

This series of ads is sponsored by a group that says, “Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 share why they’re changing their vote in 2012 and will be casting their ballot for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in November. Learn more at WhyIChangedMyVote.com.”