‘1980s are now calling’ mockery of Romney haunts Obama: Putin takes control in Syria

Obama Romney 80s joke

It was only a few short years ago that President Obama openly mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat to the America. Certain segments of the media thought his “zinger” was downright hilarious. Fast forward three years and Vladimir Putin has annexed Crimea, is primed to do the same in eastern Ukraine, and put himself in the driver’s seat in Syria.

The Huffington Post reported Oct. 22, 2012:

During the presidential debate on Monday evening, President Barack Obama deployed a Seinfeldian zinger to mock former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee. Romney had said that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are “rushing in” as revolutions shake up the Muslim world.

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

What Mr. Obama didn’t realize is that the Cold War never ended for Vladimir Putin, which is odd because the Russian’s public statements have always made that very clear.

Reuters reported Thursday, Oct 1, 2015:

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad’s government, sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group’s commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.

The U.S. and Russian militaries will hold talks at 11 a.m. EDT via video link to seek ways to keep their militaries apart as they wage parallel campaigns of air strikes in Syria, a U.S. defense official said.

Russian jets struck targets near the cities of Hama and Homs in western Syria on the second day of their surprise air campaign, which they launched on Wednesday.

Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the area where it struck is held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.

The problem with the Obama administration is that America’s adversaries around the globe telegraph exactly what their intentions are, and yet Mr. Obama and his hand-picked staff refuse to take them at their word.

Arizona Sen. John McCain pointed out this strange behavior out Wednesday on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell:

John Kerry and his spokesperson said it is not clear what Russia’s intentions are. It was perfectly clear what Russia’s intentions are!”

A flashback to July 21 shows Kerry was also confused by Iran’s vow to undermine U.S. policy, which was made immediately after agreeing to a nuclear “deal” with the Obama administration.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very troubling”.

I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Why is Mr. Kerry always confused? Perhaps it is because he mistakes U.S. fallibility (a trait of all nations) with the idea that threats exist because America is, for all intents and purposes, always at fault.

Mitt Romney knew what he was talking about in 2012, and the president sneered at him. The media laughed along with the “Seinfeldian zinger” – but the real joke was on the American people.

The only people who are laughing now are the Russians, the Iranians, the Assad regime and their allies all around the globe.

Advertisements

Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

ReidLet’s play a little game, shall we? It’s called “Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?”. The reason behind this game is simple: the retiring senator, who laughed off his 2012 presidential election lie about Mitt Romney, is now upset that radio host Rush Limbaugh said what others were already thinking: it looks like someone beat Harry Reid up.

Here is what Mr. Reid told CNN’s Dana Brash on March 31 when asked if he regretted his lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Telling, isn’t it? The ends justify the means to Mr. Reid, no matter how low he has to sink.

Now, here is the Nevada senator complaining to CNBC’s John Harwood about Mr. Limbaugh’s commentary on his battered and bruised body: “It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh. He’s the guy that got all this started. Why in the world would I come up with a story that I got hurt in my own bathroom with my wife standing there? How could anyone say anything like that? I think a lot of people, as I read, they kinda don’t like me as a person. That’s unfortunate.”

Why would anyone not like Harry Reid — besides the fact that he made up a giant irresponsible lie about Mitt Romney during a presidential election?

Harry Reid looks like artificial intelligence out of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” took over his workout equipment and then beat the living daylights out of him. That is what Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out when he said “I don’t believe for a minute that whatever happened to Harry Reid has anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him into it.”

I worked in a gym for three years. I can not think of one exercise that Harry Reid would do (or has the capability of performing) that would leave him looking like an angry bouncer unloaded on him. The official story is that an elastic waistband snapped and sent him sprawling inside his own bathroom.

I ask again: Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

There is one word to describe the rumors that are swirling about Mr. Reid’s battered and bruised body: karma. If a man makes up disgusting lies to smear political opponents, then he has zero moral authority to complain when the karma boomerang comes back and hits him in the face again…and again…and again.

Edward Snowden: The media’s 2012 election failure bears fruit

Snowden paper

Edward Snowden, depending on who you are, is either a “patriot” or a “traitor.” Until this point I have refrained from commenting on the man because sometimes it is best to take a step back and let the dust settle before charging forward. Now that it has, one thing is clear: The media made the 2012 election about the “war on women” and gay rights in between rounds of cudgeling Mitt Romney (justifiably, to an extent) for his “47 percent” line. Days were filled with on-air jokes about “Big Bird” and other immature sideshows, all the while the NSA was expanding its surveillance on millions of innocent Americans.

Did any serious journalist put pressure on President Obama in the run up to the 2012 election over his expanded drone program, the National Defense Authorization Act, or his “Terror Tuesday” kill list (also called the “Disposition Matrix”)? While the ultimate blame for failure rests squarely at Romney’s feet (the man’s plan for winning over Hispanics was to essentially tell them he hoped they’d all self deport), one can not deny that the mainstream media bent over backwards to keep Mr. Obama’s Bush-on-steroids approach to certain aspects of national security under wraps.

Imagine what the 2012 presidential debates would have looked like if Bob Schieffer and Candy Crowley read magazines like Wired and then asked the candidates substantive questions on national security:

In May 2010, a little more than a year after President Obama took office and only weeks before Stuxnet became public, a new organization to exercise American rule over the increasingly militarized Internet became operational: the US Cyber Command. Keith Alexander, newly promoted to four-star general, was put in charge of it. The forces under his command were now truly formidable—his untold thousands of NSA spies, as well as 14,000 incoming Cyber Command personnel, including Navy, Army, and Air Force troops. Helping Alexander organize and dominate this new arena would be his fellow plebes from West Point’s class of 1974: David Petraeus, the CIA director; and Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. …

What’s good for Alexander is good for the fortunes of the cyber-industrial complex, a burgeoning sector made up of many of the same defense contractors who grew rich supplying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With those conflicts now mostly in the rearview mirror, they are looking to Alexander as a kind of savior. After all, the U.S. spends about $30 billion annually on cybersecurity goods and services.

That’s a lot of money and a lot of power concentrated in one place. Is it necessary?

In May, Alexander discovered that four months earlier someone, or some group or nation, had secretly hacked into a restricted US government database known as the National Inventory of Dams. Maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, it lists the vulnerabilities for the nation’s dams, including an estimate of the number of people who might be killed should one of them fail. Meanwhile, the 2013 “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” gave the US a D on its maintenance of dams. There are 13,991 dams in the US that are classified as high-hazard, the report said. A high-hazard dam is defined as one whose failure would cause loss of life. “That’s our concern about what’s coming in cyberspace—a destructive element. It is a question of time,” Alexander said in a talk to a group involved in information operations and cyberwarfare, noting that estimates put the time frame of an attack within two to five years. He made his comments in September 2011.

That still doesn’t answer the question, but it does provide an important lesson: any cyber assault the U.S. government can dish out on its own people is also generally possessed by its enemies. And that includes “zero day exploits” being used against us:

According to news reports, [defense contractors are] developing ways to break into Internet-connected devices through chinks in their antivirus armor. Like safecrackers listening to the click of tumblers through a stethoscope, the “vulnerability researchers” use an extensive array of digital tools to search for hidden weaknesses in commonly used programs and systems, such as Windows and Internet Explorer. And since no one else has ever discovered these unseen cracks, the manufacturers have never developed patches for them.

Thus, in the parlance of the trade, these vulnerabilities are known as “zero-day exploits,” because it has been zero days since they have been uncovered and fixed. They are the Achilles’ heel of the security business, says a former senior intelligence official involved with cyberwarfare. Those seeking to break into networks and computers are willing to pay millions of dollars to obtain them.

Scary stuff, huh? It’s a shame that multiple news cycles were spent talking about the doomsday scenario predicted by women like Sandra Fluke, who gained a prime time slot at the Democratic National Convention because a radio host called her a slut. But why assume the nation would want to discuss the buying and selling of “zero day exploits” when there are Big Bird jokes to crack?

Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? Is Moe Lane of Red State on to something?

[Other countries are spying on] us and that is how the game is played, and I didn’t ask for a twenty-something arrested-development anti-American man-child to arrogantly decide that American national security was less important than his frankly puerile transnational fantasy ideology. In fact, I would like the American government to go collect said man-child, and try him for espionage, please.

I would say Mr. Lane makes a rather astute observation: Edward Snowden could have held a press conference with Ron Paul and Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders and a wide range of pundits from across the political spectrum. He would have been hailed as a hero. From there he would accept the consequences, and if that involved a perp walk (imagine the fallout for the Obama administration for making such a move), so be it.

Instead, he went to China. And then to Russia. And now … who knows.

All we do know is that Edward Snowden is talking to people who do not care about the well being of Americans and who certainly do not care about the well being of individuals within their own countries. Snowden has sullied his own reputation by hiding behind thug regimes of the highest order.

In 2016, should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic nominee, history will repeat itself. The media will not want to talk about national security because a.) a female candidate is the perfect excuse to return to the “war on women” mantra and b.) talking about dead American bodies in Benghazi makes it hard to assume the mantle of Greatest … Secretary … of … State … Ever. “For-Eva Eva. Eva. Eva. Eva. Eva. Eva. Eva?” When this happens, remember Edward Snowden and demand more. The fate of the nation depends on it.

Romney has given 110% — Now it’s your turn

Is there a conservative alive who can say that Mitt Romney hasn’t given 110% to this campaign? Regardless of the disagreements I have with him, I must say that he has put forth an honorable, inspiring run for the highest office in the land. I believe he would make a fine Commander in Chief.

Now it turns out that he’ll be making one last whirlwind tour through a few swing states to encourage turnout, and I have to say: If you are a conservative and you don’t find a way to the polls tomorrow, you should hang your head in shame.

Aides said Mr. Romney would visit campaign offices in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Until now, his staff had said that a rally in New Hampshire Monday night would be his last event of the campaign.

The move reflects just how close the contest remains — Mr. Romney is determined to squeeze as much time in swing states as possible before polls close.

Like any good businessman, Mitt Romney figured out what he needed to do to get his campaign running on all cylinders. He went from a “59 point” plan a year ago to a succinct, persuasive pitch to do the following:

  • Cut spending and work to balance the budget
  • Unleash American natural resources to become energy independent
  • Undo unnecessary regulations that burden small businessmen and take as many uncertainties off the table as possible — giving them a reason to take a chance on expansion.

The logistics in running a national campaign must be mind-boggling. To go toe-to-toe with a sitting president, who has a war chest and the bully pulpit at his disposal — and to expose him as a paper tiger during your first debate with him — demands respect. In one night — one night — Mitt Romney dismantled a narrative that President Obama spent millions of dollars and months to build. He went from someone the American people didn’t like, to even parity with the president, and he did it despite a corrupt media apparatus that has done its best to shield the president from his own words and his own record.

Personally, I am confident that independents are going to break hard for Romney in a matter of hours, and at the end of the day propel him to victory. Deep down, many of those moderates who pulled the lever for President Obama in 2008 know that he promised to reverse the rise of the oceans (literally), but what they got was high unemployment (7.9%), $16 trillion in debt, and yearly deficits over $1 trillion dollars. Alone in the booth, I believe they will vote for Mitt Romney tomorrow in droves.

Regardless of what happens when the final tallies come in, conservatives owe it to Mitt to do their part tomorrow. We owe it to the country to do our part tomorrow. Vote, blog, use any number of social media platforms, call friends and family members, or help out in whatever way you can. There will always be people out there who are smarter, faster and stronger than you, but there is never an excuse for not putting forth your best effort. There are many things that are outside of our control, but giving 100% to the task at hand is a choice you always have the power to make.

Tomorrow, I plan on voting for love of country. I encourage you to do the same.

Joss Whedon, hypocritical millionaire, attacks Romney

Joss Whedon likes to rant about corporations — unless they’re associated with Marvel and paying him millions of dollars, in which case he keeps his yap shut and pockets enough to keep him safely part of the “one percent” for the rest of his life. How many poor people had to shell out a large chunk of their paycheck to take the kids to see ‘The Avengers,” and how much of that cash is lining Whedon’s pockets? Don’t ask — he’s busy demonizing Mitt Romney.

It wasn’t long ago writer-director Joss Whedon, fresh off the $1.5 billion-plus grossing Avengers movie, went on a memorable anti-corporate rant for the ages.

“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” he told the [Comic-Con 2012] audience. …

Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.” …

We have people trying to create structures and preserve the structures that will help the middle and working class, and people calling them socialists,” Whedon said. “It’s not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal […] it’s some people with some sense of dignity and people who have gone off the reservation.”

Only months ago, you either agreed with the Scooge-McDuck-swimming-in-cash Whedon, or you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at $16 trillion dollars of national debt and considered the current “structure” unsustainable, you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at yearly deficits over $1 trillion dollars and what was going on in Greece and Spain and Italy and most of Europe and wanted to change course, you were “off the reservation.”

Now, just a week before the 2012 election, Whedon is back — and this time the witty, “dignified” director (who wears button up shirts with nothing underneath so you can see his “dignified” waxed chest) is using humor to attack former Gov. Mitt Romney.

You see, if Mitt Romney is elected president it will bring about the Zomney Apocalypse:

“Romney is ready to make the deep rollbacks in health care, education, social services, reproductive rights that will guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting: all crucial elements in creating a nightmare zombie wasteland. But it’s his commitment to ungoverned corporate privilege that will nosedive this economy into true insolvency and chaos, the kind of chaos you can’t buy back. Money is only so much paper to the undead. The 1% will no longer be the very rich — it will be the very fast. [Mitt Romney isn’t] afraid to face a ravening, grasping horde of subhumans, because that’s how he sees poor people already.”

Joss Whedon looks at our current national debt — $16 trillion and counting — and he doesn’t think we’re insolvent right this very second. No, it’s only after Mitt Romney is elected that we will be on the road to insolvency. Joss might be a good movie director, but he’s really lousy at math, perhaps because he has more money than he knows what do with. He could always give most of it to the government or poor people if he wanted … but he chooses not to.

The dirty little secret that Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to know about is that we’re already broke. We’re very, very broke. We are insolvent right now, and doing nothing will bring about chaos that “money can’t buy back.”

When is the last time you heard Joss Whedon talk about Greece, its debt, its riots, and the “chaos” that was brought about by the kind of “structures” that millionaire liberal movie directors crave for? Answer: Never.

While serious people try and figure out a way to uphold the promises the government made to current retirees, while changing the system to ensure its existence for future generations, Hollywood film directors spend their time trying to convince their fans that Republicans see poor people as “sub-humans.” The fact is, the United States makes social mobility easier than anywhere else in the world. I’m sure we can even point to a few of Whedon’s Hollywood friends as examples of  how one can go from rags-to-riches and from riches-to-rags, but that’s material for another day.

Poor people are definitely not “sub-humans,” but government programs that surreptitiously convince individuals to abdicate important life decisions have the potential to rob them of their humanity. The end result of the kind of programs Whedon seemingly advocates for creates, for example, Obamaphone Lady. Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to acknowledge the insidious changes to the human spirit that government dependence creates, because he wants you focused on the shortcomings of corporations.

So ask yourself: Would the world be better off without Marvel? Would the world have been better off without the WB Network, which aired Whedon’s television series Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It seems as though Joss Whedon likes when money exchanges hands — particularly his hands — but doesn’t like it that other people are perfectly free to spend their capital as they see fit.

If anyone is acting like a mindless zombie these days, it’s Joss Whedon.

Related: The Avengers: Marvel’s finest hour
Related: Joss Whedon: Now that I poop $100 bills, let’s embrace socialism

End game: Obama courts women willing to wear giant birth control costumes

This is how President Obama’s campaign sees women — weirdos who are willing to dress up as a giant package of contraceptives at the direction of Planned Parenthood or White House political adviser David Plouffe.

With less than three weeks before the election, polls for Mitt Romney are looking good. Trend lines have given conservatives a boost of confidence, and the liberals who once said this election was in the bag are suspiciously quiet. Some, like Bob Beckle, are still saying “it’s over,”  but the prediction now applies to Mr. Obama. While I am on record as saying that the first debate was Romney’s “Rocky IV” moment, there are aspects of his momentum that can traced to the Obama campaign’s strange calculation: Most women are single-issue voters who are one Planned Parenthood roll call away from buying a giant contraceptive costume to wear to a campaign event.

As National Journal notes:

[W]ith white women, several polls suggest that Obama’s advantage has narrowed or vanished since his disastrous first debate.

Most ominous for Obama is evidence that the slippage has occurred not only among usually Republican-leaning blue-collar white women but also their white-collar counterparts. Largely because most college-educated white women hold liberal views on social issues, the Democratic nominee has carried them in four of the past five presidential elections; in 2008, 52 percent of such women backed Obama. Until Denver, national surveys consistently showed him winning a majority of these white-collar women. Number-crunchers in Romney headquarters believe their candidate is unlikely to prevail unless he can reduce that margin.

Several polls since the Denver debate say that Romney has done just that. Both this week’s ABC/Washington Post national survey and the cumulated results from the past two weeks of Gallup nightly tracking polls found that Obama had fallen behind Romney among college-educated white women and was attracting 45 percent of them or less, according to data provided to National Journal.

The Obama campaign saturated the airwaves early on with attack ads that painted Mitt Romney as some sort of cutthroat businessman who looked at people and saw numbers on an accounting spreadsheet. They painted Romney as a guy who dreamed he was Scrooge McDuck, hoarding gold coins acquired from the exploited “masses,” and the stolen uteri of unsuspecting females.

And then Denver came — and Romney said this about deficits:

“I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.

And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral,” 

So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way, (Mitt Romney, 4/10/12).

When you intellectually hit someone over the head with the fact that not only are we bankrupting the nation with reckless spending, but that it is morally bankrupt to leave our kids and grand kids saddled with a mountain of debt, it resonates. That is something women care about. Because they’re smart, they know that the nation has a spending problem, as opposed to a revenue problem. Because they’re smart, they know that if you lower the tax rate on small businesses and it jump starts economic growth, the nation will actually see its tax revenues increase.

The Obama campaign once had promoted an ecard that read: “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” While this was thrown down the memory hole in Orwellian fashion when it blew up in their face, there is an aspect of the line that rings true. Our kids are a part of us. Our grandchildren are a part of us. And so, in that sense we should vote like our “parts” depend on us. Mitt Romney treats women like complex spiritual beings, as opposed to myopic drones mentally stuck in 1920.

While Mitt Romney obsesses about job creation, the Obama campaign obsesses about binders and Big Bird. We’ll see how that works out for them in only a matter of weeks.

Binders and Big Bird: Obama campaign becomes Billy Madison

The Obama campaign has become all about kid stuff: Big Bird and Binders. While Mitt Romney obsesses over job creation and debt, Obama’s supporters obsess over which passing reference from each debate can be turned into a multi-news cycle punchline. They’re like Billy Madison without Adam Sandler’s likability.

The Obama campaign is in trouble. Big trouble. And that’s because it is increasingly making itself about small things. Kid stuff, like Big Bird and binders. Forced to defend President Obama’s dismal economic record over the past four years, his disciples look to latch onto anything that could be turned into a meme or a Saturday Night Live sketch.

There’s one problem with their strategy: independent voters with half a brain aren’t in the mood for jokes. The United States had over 40 months of 8 percent unemployment. Currently, the jobless rate stands at 7.8 percent. The nation is $16 trillion dollars in debt and we just had an American ambassador slaughtered in the Middle East by terrorists. The guy who ran on the soaring vagueness of “Hope and Change” now has a record to defend, and it’s not one that has your average American in the mood to crack jokes.

Immediately after the second presidential debate, a liberal friend of mine said it was a bad night for Mitt. I told him to take off his partisan goggles, and he made a joke about binders. Fair enough, but it’s illustrative of where Obama’s supporters are at the moment, which happens to be somewhere outside the realm of reality.

For a guy who didn’t do so hot last night, the CNN snap-poll and the MSNBC focus groups seem to suggest otherwise.

Obama won the overall debate, 46-39%, but Romney beat him senseless on all the important individual issues like the economy, health care, deficit, and taxes.

Unlike the CBS poll, CNN polled registered voters, not just undecideds.

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%
Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.
Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.
Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.
Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%.

The worst news is that 25% of voters switched their vote to Romney and 25% went to Obama. In other words, Obama didn’t move the ball, which is what he needed to do.

Romney’s goals last night were nothing like Obama’s. Romney simply needed to look presidential. He needed to look a like a reasonable, intelligent man who could be trusted in the Oval Office. The first debate established his credibility with 70 million Americans, and the second was an opportunity to further flesh out his ideas and win over voters. He did that — and then some.

When voters are alone in the voting both they will think first and foremost about the economy. Romney pounded the president on that all night, and he landed some serious blows.

He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan. Didn’t get there.

He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. …

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

These are the issues that concern the American people at this time. They do not care about Big Bird. They do not care about how Mitt Romney phrases an anecdote about his attempt to hire highly qualified women for his cabinet. And as long as President Obama’s supporters want to laugh at trivial matters while the country faces serious issues, they will be setting themselves up for a crier on November 7th.

Johansson, Longoria and Washington: No on Romney, yes on China’s one-child policy

Kerry Washington wants to talk to you about Mitt Romney, except Moveon.org has disabled the ability to leave comments on its Youtube video. Regardless, the cross-wearing Washington wants women to know that they should vote for President Obama so their “right” to kill babies is safeguarded. Too simplistic a stance? Disagree? Unlike Hollywood celebrities, I don’t go out of my way to terminate a good debate.

The great thing about the presidential election season is that without a doubt Hollywood liberals will come out swinging for the Democrat. Just three weeks before voters get to choose between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington have taken part in MoveOn.org’s multi-million dollar campaign to convince you Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to control uteri.

As was the case with “Sesame Street,” the false dichotomy rears its ugly head once again. With PBS, the argument goes that if the government stops funding the very lucrative character known as Big Bird, then he will cease to exist. Now we’re told by The Black Widow and one of the Desperate Housewives that if the government doesn’t fund Planned Parenthood it too would disappear from the face of the earth — aborted, if you will — by the population at large.

Mitt Romney believes life starts at conception. If one believes that, it follows that the individual would want to protect the right to life of the most vulnerable among us (i.e., unborn babies). We can argue whether or not life begins at conception, but I’m reasonably sure that Ms. Johansson would have reservations about a woman who wants to be able to abort her child all the way up until contractions begin. If that’s the case, then she has tacitly agreed that the government has a vested interest in protecting the unborn — it’s really only a matter of deciding at which point in development it has the authority to step in.

Question for our Hollywood trio: Does it bother you that Vice President Joe Biden doesn’t question China’s one-child policy (the one where millions upon millions of females are slaughtered due to a cultural preference for men)?

What we ended up doing is setting up a system whereby we did cut by $1.2 trillion upfront, the deficit over the next 10 years. And we set up a group of senators that have to come up with another $1.2 to $1.7 trillion in savings or automatically there will be cuts that go into effect in January to get those savings. So the savings will be accomplished. But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

Joe Biden indicates to our Communist friends that he doesn’t see life as precious — he sees it as a potential debt problem. Biden “fully understands” a policy that is predicated on the idea that humans are a form of economic punishment … sort of like President Obama.

It is telling that Hollywood celebrities don’t have time to raise public awareness for Pakistani girls like 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai, who was shot by the Taliban for wanting an education, but they do have time to tell voters Mitt Romney would “overturn Roe vs. Wade” (an odd assertion, since that would be something that would have to be done through the Supreme Court — the same body that couldn’t bring itself to declare Obamacare unconstitutional).

No, Ms. Longoria, I am not scared of men like Mitt Romney. My wife is not, either. However, I am very much afraid of liberal men like Bill Maher, who value death more than they value life:

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he’s “consistently pro-death” — and “not one of those people who thinks all life is precious.” Even dogs can create life, he said in an Oct. 7 interview on satellite radio. …

“I am for the death penalty, although I do believe in more DNA testing,” Maher continued. “My motto is, ‘Let’s kill the right people.’ I’m pro-choice. I’m for assisted suicide. I’m for regular suicide. I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving. That’s what I’m for.”

Joe Biden is cool with death, provided it allows the Chinese to pay their bills on time. Bill Maher is cool with death, provided it clears up traffic congestion just long enough for him to make that his 8:30 p.m. dinner reservation.

Barack Obama? Good question. I suggest listening to him discuss the Born Alive Act as a Senator from Illinois. My personal opinion is that a man who calls a baby a “fetus” after it’s been born is one confused individual, even more so than the vapid Hollywood starlets who offer their services for MoveOn.org attack ads.

Big Government hooks human gerbils on shiny pellets

Barry Goldwater warned us that Welfarism would turn “dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual beings” into animals. We didn’t listen, and now we have a nation filled with human gerbils looking for a government pellet every four years.

I went out to dinner with a Hispanic friend of mine two weeks ago and we were discussing the upcoming election. He’s well on his way to starting his first small business, and has had a conversion-of-sorts since voting for President Obama four years ago. As I dug into my steak, he spoke about the Republican Party’s inability to make significant inroads with certain minority groups. My response: “On some level it doesn’t matter, because if we fast forward 300 years it’s obvious that the future of the United States is not white. At some point in time these groups will be forced to embrace or shun the principles that maximize individual freedom.”

My children will not be white. My sister’s children will not be white. The U.S. demographics as they stand indicate that at some point there will simply be, for all intents and purposes, Americans. We are a nation of mutts, and in time terms like “white” and “black” will generally be rendered silly. And so, intelligent conservatives only care about a few basic questions: What will the Americans of the future believe? What will they stand for? Will Americans hold fast to the principles of our founders, or will they be citizens of a United States in name only?

‘Obama Phone’ lady is the latest example of a human gerbil, who is promised a shiny government pellet every four years in exchange for a trick (i.e., voting for the hand that feeds her). She is the end result of a failed ideology. Liberal blogs have of course tried to slime anyone who shows the video as racist, when the truth is that conservatives do not care about race. In fact, political correctness has reached a point where not caring about someone’s race is considered racist.

I care about a federal government that saps the will of its people. I care about a federal government that robs people of ambition and desire and the belief that they can do great things with their life. I care about the consequences of instilling in individuals a learned dependence that changes them from beings with limitless potential into hollowed-out husks that bump into each other for a few decades until death comes calling.

As Barry Goldwater so eloquently put it in The Conscious of a Conservative:

Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits — which, in the majority of cases, he pays for — he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power — the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. Even more important, however, is the effect on him — the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it. …

[We] can shatter the collectivists’ designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.

Conservatives should work hard to articulate the principles of free markets, limited government, and individual freedom, but they should never comprise those principles by offering ethnic groups “goodies” for a vote. MSNBC hosts who feed on racial swill like to say that Republicans live in an “alternate reality,” when nothing could be further from the truth. Tyranny is colorblind, whether it’s in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China. Only myopic little nitwits with names like Toure or Chris Matthews see serious public policy differences as a battle between “black” and “white”. The issue is Liberty vs. Tyranny, and conservatives are not the ones who are shilling for the tyrants.

My good friend, who has come to reject Obama’s ideology since 2008, is not alone. There are many like him. As election day nears, it’s up to you to find those friends and family members who fall into that category, and make a strong case for conservatism. If you’re pressed for time, I highly suggest reading Goldwater’s The Conscious of a Conservative. It’s a quick read, and essential knowledge for anyone who wants to better articulate their love for freedom and liberty.

Now get out there and change some minds.

A tale of two Big Birds: Mark Steyn vs. Charles Blow

Charles Blow of the New York Times says if you pick on Big Bird you answer to him. That seems like an empty threat, given that he’s protected his Twitter account from anyone who disagrees with him. It’s unfortunate that he thinks the extremely lucrative Big Bird needs the same protection.

After Mitt Romney took President Obama to the cleaners in the first presidential debate (so much so that Bill Maher said it looked like President Obama spent his $1 million Super PAC donation on weed), liberals needed to latch onto something. They found it: Big Bird. What kind of inhumane, heartless bastard would want to “kill” Big Bird? The answer is no one, but since we’re dealing with adults who act like Sesame Street watching toddlers, we get a false dichotomy — either the government funds PBS or Big Bird will cease to exist.

President Obama’s supporters think they have a winner with the death-to-Big-Bird rants, when in reality their temper tantrum makes it clear to independent voters that they are not up to handling the serious financial problems America faces.

First, let us look at Mark Steyn’s reaction to the affair:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives nearly half a billion dollars a year from taxpayers, which it disburses to PBS stations, who in turn disburse it to Big Bird and Jim Lehrer. I don’t know what Big Bird gets, but, according to Senator Jim DeMint, the president of Sesame Workshop, Gary Knell, received in 2008 a salary of $956,513. In that sense, Big Bird and Senator Harry Reid embody the same mystifying phenomenon: They’ve been in “public service” their entire lives and have somehow wound up as multimillionaires. …

[W]hether or not everybody loves Sesame Street, everybody has seen it, and every American under 50 has been weaned on it. So far this century it’s sold nigh on a billion bucks’ worth of merchandising sales (that’s popular toys such as the Subsidize-Me-Elmo doll). If Sesame Street is not commercially viable, then nothing is, and we should just cut to the chase and bail out everything. …

If Americans can’t muster the will to make Big Bird leave the government nest, they certainly will never reform Medicare.

Now, let us look at the reaction of Charles Blow of the New York Times:

Since 1969, Big Bird has been the king of the block on “Sesame Street.” When I was a child, he and his friends taught me the alphabet and the colors and how to do simple math. …

Big Bird and his friends also showed me what it meant to resolve conflicts with kindness and accept people’s differences and look out for the less fortunate. Do you know anything about looking out for the less fortunate, Mr. Romney? …

Let me make it simple for you, Mr. Romney. I’m down with Big Bird. You pick on him, you answer to me. …

I don’t really expect Mitt Romney to understand the value of something like PBS to people, like me, who grew up in poor, rural areas and went to small schools. These are places with no museums or preschools or after-school educational programs. There wasn’t money for travel or to pay tutors.

I honestly don’t know where I would be in the world without PBS.

First of all, not a lot of people can “answer” to Charles Blow because he’s locked his Twitter account (an odd step for someone who writes for a major American newspaper). Charles is untouchable — kind of like Big Bird.

Steyn’s central argument is that Big Bird is worth big bucks. The makers of Sesame Street and the top brass at PBS have done quite well for themselves. Public Broadcasting is very lucrative for the guys in charge. The kind of content that PBS provides is at the touch of our fingers. It’s everywhere, and it’s cheap. And so the question becomes: Should the American taxpayer be subsidizing this? The answer is no. And if we can not even bring ourselves to let Big Bird leave the nest … is it any wonder why we have government-mandated health care that encourages children to stay on their parent’s medical coverage until they’re 26 years old?

Charles Blow’s piece, in contrast, is purely emotional. He “honestly doesn’t know” where he’d be without Sesame Street. That’s an incredibly sad admission, but if he’s honest about it, let’s examine the subject a little more closely.

Again, absent government funding, the content provided by Sesame Street would essentially still exist. Investors would buy the rights to Big Bird. (Even Mark Levin has said that he would do so.) The Sesame Street crew would end up on Nickelodeon or ABC family or any number of shows on basic cable. Sesame Street and its decades of glory are available on DVD, on Youtube, etc. Big Bird might even wind up in kiddie crossovers featuring Dora the Explorer and “Blue” from Blue’s Clues. Think of the possibilities, Charles!

The Vice Presidential debate is coming up. President Obama’s team is so desperate I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Biden started harping on Big Bird just to keep the conversation going for another week. If he does, more power to him. It’s a debate us conservatives are more than happy to have. And guys like me don’t lock their Twitter account like Charles Blow, either.