Another Night at the DNC Convention

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." — Benjamin Franklin

I am writing this blog while jumping between the DNC’s Vagina Monologues and a more serious program — the Giants/Cowboys football game and the opening of the 2012 NFL season.

Before the game begins and Bill Clinton speaks there are a few things I would like to point out a few things the Democrats will and will not say at their convention.

They will continually focus on their war on women theme, a theme that is losing ground, especially among married women who have to run households. While abortion and free contraceptives may be high on the list of younger, single women but married women have to worry about the price of groceries and gas.

They will continue to trot out progressive women such as the presidents of Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., NARAL, and Sandra Fluke, all in favor of the government paying for the killing of babies.

According to an article in the Weekly Standard the 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

“That last part--"regardless of ability to pay"--is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. Obama wants Medicaid to pay directly for elective abortions, and ObamaCare will allow beneficiaries to use federal subsidies to purchase health care plans that cover elective abortions. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it. In other words, public funding of abortion — a policy President Obama actively supports — is as unpopular as banning abortion in the case of rape, a policy on which the media have focused their attention over the past two weeks despite the fact that neither presidential candidate supports it.”

They will continue to focus on the theme that it’s not Obama fault that we are in the fix we are in. They will blame George Bush, the Tea Party, the weather, and ATMs.

They will continue to hype the 4.5 million jobs Obama created, but they will not get into the weeds of the details in explaining the jobs that were created. According to a CNN fact check the number may be correct but there is much more behind those numbers that are not so favorable to Obama:

“The facts:

The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.

Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.

And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.”

….

“The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.”

Here are a few things they will not talk about.

1. The National Debt. Now exceeding $16 trillion, the national debt and our debt to GDP ratio has never been worse despite the fact that Obama ran on a platform of debt reduction.

During the 2008 campaign he roundly attacked President Bush for borrowing from China to spend money we didn’t have. Now it seems that as long as Obama is spending the money, the national debt doesn’t matter. Under his policies it is projected that the debt will be 200% of GDP by the 2030’s. Obama has already presided over a more than 25% increase in government spending in just three and a half years. Unlike the RNC convention in Tampa, there surely won’t be a National Debt Clock hanging in the arena in Charlotte.

2. The Real Unemployment Rate. Everyone knows the unemployment rate is hovering over 8% and the president has to deliver his message to a nation that hasn’t seen the employment bounce-back promised from the $1 trillion in stimulus. However, what you won’t hear at the DNC are the real numbers — 23 million people unemployed or underemployed making the real unemployment rate, including those who have stopped looking for work at a staggering 14.9%. Unemployment is also being concealed by the between 3-4 million people who have been added to the Social Security disability insurance program since Obama took office.

3. Gas Prices. Obama hit President Bush hard for rising gas prices in 2008 and promised Americans relief at the pump. When he took office, the national average for a gallon of gas stood at $1.95. Today, on Labor Day, it’s nearly double, and yet he scarcely mentions it. How could he after appointing an Energy Secretary that believes it would somehow be good to have gas prices similar to Europe or after spending $1 billion on a failed so-called green jobs program? Obama’s stonewalling of the Keystone XL pipeline is also further evidence that the president is too focused on making the Chevy Volt viable rather than doing anything to lower gas and energy prices for Americans.

4. More than one third of Americans are on Government Assistance. Obama seems to be all for the culture of dependency, but don’t expect him to trumpet the idea that more than one third of the country is now receiving some form of means-tested government assistance. That number is up from about 24% under Bush. Of course, this welfare state isn’t a creation of the President, but between ObamaCare and his recent gutting of the work requirement for welfare recipients, Obama is well on his way to building his progressive utopia. The Romney camp should emphasize this point. Americans will find it depressing and distasteful.

5. The Federal Jobs Created. For all the talk about the unemployment rate and sluggish private sector growth, Obama has presided over the creation of nearly 150,000 new unionized government jobs during his term. This included thousands of new workers to manage ObamaCare at the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a big slap in the face to the unemployed in this country when you consider that the average salary for a federal worker is now in excess of $70,000 plus benefits. Federal workers who benefit from union protection are often doing far better than their private sector counterparts these days. And while GOP governors have been reducing the public payrolls on a state level, Obama has continued to grow the federal bureaucracy.

A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill:

“Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance:

Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

They also strongly suggest Democrats need to convince voters the election should be a choice between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, rather than a referendum on the president.

Obama’s biggest problem remains voter unhappiness with his handling of the economy.

Fifty percent of voters said they were “very unsatisfied” with Obama’s stewardship of the economy. Another 8 percent said they were somewhat unsatisfied.

More voters in The Hill’s poll think Romney will win the fall election than think Obama will win — despite state-by-state polls that suggest the president would have an edge in a number of swing states if the election were held today.

The poll found 46 percent of voters believe Romney will win the Nov. 6 election, compared to 43 percent who said they expect Obama to win.”

Click here to view the data from the Hill Poll.

There is a great article from across the pond in the Telegraph on why we should tune into the Romney-Ryan show and how the debate in America is beginning as to whether or not democratic socialism with its cradle to grave benefits can continue to be funded by free market capitalism. In the September 1^st article Janet Daley writes:

“Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the center ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programs which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phony money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

So it would be deeply misleading to imply that this campaign will be a contest between what Britain likes to call “progressive” politics and some atavistic longing for a return to frontier America where everybody made a success of his own life with no help from anybody but his kith and kin. In the midst of the impassioned and often nasty debate about the future of health care, in which Ryan was depicted as a granny-killer, there has been some serious Republican thinking about the universal provision of medical care for pensioners (or “seniors” as they are called in the US). Because, you see, the debate over there has gone way beyond welfare reform: the need to restrict benefit dependency among the underclass is an argument that has been won. What is at issue now is much more politically contentious: universal entitlements such as comprehensive Medicare and social security are known to be unaffordable in their present form. Ryan, the radical economic thinker, suggests a solution for Medicare in the form of a voucher system. Patients could choose from competing health providers, with a ceiling on the cost of procedures and treatments, instead of simply being given blanket no-choice care. Thus, the government would get better value for money, and individuals would have more say in their own treatment. Now why doesn’t anybody here think of applying that mechanism to the NHS? Oh, yes, some people have – but nobody in power will listen to them.”

It takes a Britt to see what is happing in the United States and why this election is boiling down to one simple question — can we afford democratic socialism anymore?

Bubba’s Speech.

As mentioned earlier I did not watch Bill Clinton’s speech while the football game was on, but I did catch the reply later on Fox. I guess I an somewhat of a masochists that after watching the team I had picked in the football pool lose I chose to continue the pain by watch Bill Clinton.

It's a fact of life in Washington that what one party considers a principled stand, the opposition considers pigheadedness. Compromise? That's the other guy's problem.

But when former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, he portrayed President Barack Obama as a pragmatic compromiser who has been stymied at every turn by Republicans. There was no mention of the role that the president and the Democrats have played in grinding compromise to a halt on some of the most important issues facing the country.

That was among the lines by the former president and others Wednesday that either cherry-picked facts or mischaracterized the opposition. Here is what AP had to say about a few of Clinton’s remarks:

CLINTON: "When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, but in the real world, cooperation works better. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy and compromise is weakness. One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation."

THE FACTS: From Clinton's speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.

One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the outline of a proposed "grand bargain" budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011.

The deal would have required compromise from both sides. It slashed domestic spending more than most Democrats wanted and would have raised some taxes, which most Republicans oppose.

Boehner couldn't sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.

In another instance, Obama appointed a bipartisan group, known as the Simpsons-Bowles Commission, to recommend ways to fix major fiscal problems like Social Security and Medicare. The commission issued its recommendations but fell three votes short of formally endorsing them. And Obama mostly walked away from the report. He later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported.

But that ensured the tough compromises would not get made.

The problem with compromising in Washington is that there are few true moderates left in either party. The notion that Republicans are the only ones standing in the way of compromise is inaccurate.

CLINTON: Clinton suggested that Obama's health care law is keeping health care costs in check.

"For the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4 percent, for the first time in 50 years. So, are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are."

THE FACTS: That's wishful thinking at best. The nation's total health care tab has been growing at historically low rates, but most experts attribute that to continued uncertainty over the economy, not to Obama's health care law.

Two of the main cost-control measures in Obama's law - a powerful board to keep Medicare spending manageable and a tax on high cost health insurance plans - have yet to take effect.

Under the law, Medicare has launched dozens of experiments aimed at providing quality care for lower cost, but most of those are still in their infancy and measurable results have yet to be obtained. Former administration officials say the law deserves at least part of the credit for easing health care inflation, but even they acknowledge that the lackluster economy is playing a major role.

Meanwhile, people insured through the workplace by and large have seen little relief from rising premiums and cost shifts. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for job-based family coverage rose from $13,375 in 2009 when Obama took office to $15,073 in 2011. During the same period, the average share paid by employees rose from $3,515 to $4,129.

While those premium increases cannot be blamed on the health care law - as Republicans try to do - neither can Democrats claim credit for breaking the back of health care inflation.

CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."

THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.

While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."

Sure enough, the tech-heavy NASDAQ composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the NASDAQ dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the NASDAQ has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.

Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.

CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."

THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even his wife."

Of course the Kool-Aid drinkers of the left and some independents will not bother with facts. When Clinton made that remark on facts the audience roared approval and Clinton smirked that little smile of his. But, as John Adams said the trail of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre; “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Obama has struggled to win over working-class whites since the 2008 primaries, when he prevailed despite losing that voting bloc to Hillary Clinton. He received votes of about 40% of whites without college degrees in the 2008 general election.

An average of recent Quinnipiac and Pew surveys show that he is now closer to 34%. That's close to the danger zone. In 1984, Walter Mondale got 31% of their vote and was clobbered by Ronald Reagan.

Robert Schmuhl, professor of American studies at the University of Notre Dame, says that while Clinton is still wildly popular among Democrats, "whether Obama becomes the beneficiary is an open question."

He notes that Obama seems to be working harder to woo other groups.

"The Obama campaign is niche-oriented, bent on locating and mining votes from specific constituencies," he said. "We've seen it already in cultivating women, Latinos, gays and, of course, African Americans.

Others voice stronger doubts Obama can use Clinton to win over the white working class.

“That's Obama's goal, though I question how much effect a speech by Bill Clinton can have two months ahead of the election," said Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia. "First, a lot of those blue-collar workers will be watching football. Second, those who do watch may like Clinton better, but does that mean they'll vote for Obama? That's quite a leap."

There are other Democratic politicians who could appeal to working-class whites, but if the Obama campaign tried to persuade them to speak at the convention in Charlotte, N.C., they were unsuccessful.

Yesterday in Charlotte the Democratic National Convention began as amateurishly as President Obama’s first term has been. Three times Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles tried to get a majority of Democratic delegates to agree to add God and Jerusalem back into the Democratic Platform. Three times he failed. But on the third time, he declared he heard a two-thirds vote for changing the platform. I would note that I saw a video clip of this and the two-thirds was what was showing on Villaraigosa’s teleprompter. This was a preordained vote.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz lied again saying there was no fight and called it a “technical change”, but the Democratic delegates booed putting God and his holy city back into the Democratic Platform.

The Democrats and most of the mainstream media live in a symbiotic relationship and feedback loop. When Todd Akin says something dumb, the media seizes on it and attacks Todd Akin and the GOP. For the past several weeks the media has fixated on how out of touch the GOP is, its platform is, and its Presidential candidate is.

At the same time, the media has been largely silent on the Democratic Platform except for yesterday’s ridiculousness. Even then, the media mostly failed to point out that the Obama campaign said it had approved the platform removing God and Jerusalem, while going to great lengths to point out Obama intervened to put them back in.

Meanwhile, the Democrats booed God and his holy city the day after claiming we all belong the government as if it is some sort of Rotary Club.

This becomes the fatal problem for the Democrats — the media reinforces that the Democrats are grounded in reality and connected to America when they are not.

The Democrats actually have a very extremist position on abortion. The media that spent so long focused on the GOP’s position has barely dealt with the Democrats. Why? Because most of the mainstream media is in ideological lockstep with the Democrats on this. It’s hard to tell the Democrats they’ve gone too far astray from mainstream America when the mainstream media is over on the left-hand side to begin with.

The Democrats, in other words, overplayed their hand on the War on Women and there is no media voice they listen to saying, “Hold up, you’ve gone too far.” Most of the media is with or to the left of the Democrats on this. For a year now you and I have been hearing about the growing secularization of and atheism in America. I now see that’s no longer a coincidence, but another effort to feed the Democrats’ feedback loop in much the same way polls were being churned out in the press in 2010 showing how popular ObamaCare would be despite all objective polling showing it was not.

Consequently, the Democrats turned Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren into cult heroes on feminism and liberal issues. Barack Obama utters, “you didn’t build that” and the Democrats start their convention telling us we all belong to the government. They get rid of God and Jerusalem, give a podium to two disastrous speeches by Fluke and Warren that I’m willing to bet did more harm than good, hand much of the rest of the convention over to abortion rights activists, see MSNBC hosts wear buttons with uteruses on them, and think that they are connecting with middle America because the media is not raising red flags in the way the media does with the GOP.

The feedback loop between the Democrats and the media has pushed the Democrats well outside the mainstream and I believe there is a silent majority looking at this festival of the bizarre in Charlotte in absolute revulsion. They hear “fair share” and cringe. They hear Bill Clinton ask if people are better off than they were four years ago and are shocked the Democrats yell back “yes.”

The Democrats have made the one always fatal mistake anyone can make in politics — they’ve believed their own press.

By the way the Giants lost to Cowboys 24-17 and I lost the first pick in this year’s football pool.

Positives and Negatives From Tampa

“Before I ran for district attorney, two Republicans invited my husband and me to lunch, and I knew a party switch was exactly what they wanted. So, I told Chuck, “We'll be polite, enjoy a free lunch, and then say good-bye.'' But we talked about issues -- they never used the words Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. We talked about many issues, like welfare, is it the way of life or hand up? Talked about size of government, how much should it tax families and small businesses? And when we left that lunch, we got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and said, “I'll be damned, we're Republicans.'' — New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, Republican National Convention, August 29, 2012.

I have always been a big fan of Governor Susana Martinez and in 2010 I devoted my blog to her. On May 21, 2011 I also blogged about her and the Hispanic vote. So I am not a newcomer to the conservative leadership of Ms. Martinez. In fact I have friends who live in Albuquerque who absolutely love her and say she is the best thing to come to the New Mexico State House in years, especially after the failed and corrupt administration of Democrat and Clintonista Bill Richardson.

Last night Susana Martinez showed the rest of America who she is and the delegates at the convention loved it. Martinez, like Mia Love, Nikki Halley, and Condoleezza Rice, all women of color or Hispanic ethnicity showed the American Public that the Republican Party is not a party of old white guys as the Democrats and media like to portray it. In fact these women, along with Marco Rubio, Brian Sandoval (Governor of Nevada), Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul Allen West, and Paul Ryan are the future of the GOP. The days of the Rockefeller eastern Republicans are fading into history. We can thank the Tea Party for this as each of the people mentioned were supported by the Tea Party and had to primary out RINO Republicans. This was definitely a positive development from Tampa.

Negative:

Los Angeles Democratic Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday dismissed GOP efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters.

"You can't just trot out a brown face or a Spanish surname and expect that people are going to vote for your party, or your candidate," he said during a press conference. Villaraigosa, a philandering, corrupt adultery, who runs Los Angeles by virtue of the demographics in the Los Angeles just doesn’t get it. These people were elected as governors and senators, not “trotted out.” Oh, how low you have to stoop when your party is a corrupt failure.

Also the Media Research Center reported ABC hosts GOP-bashing Univision anchor over airing Susana Martinez's RNC speech:

“Instead of airing Latina Governor Susana Martinez's speech at the Republican National Convention, ABC chose to host liberal Univision anchor Jorge Ramos who had dire words for the Republican Party.

"I think Republicans have a real, real challenge trying to get Latinos. Because just a few words in Spanish from Susana Martinez over principle is not enough," warned Ramos while ABC showed video of Martinez speaking. "[I]if they insist on talking about immigration, they're going to lose even more of the Hispanic vote," he also said.

Ramos has been an immigration advocate while appearing as a journalist with Univision. He begged for immigration reform in a Time magazine interview.

Yet ABC aired his liberal screed against Republican immigration policy while one of the party's prominent Latino politicians addressed the convention.”

How bad can it get?

Positive:

Condoleezza Rice’s speech was a big hit. Her theme of the American Dream covered everything from foreign policy, trade agreements, and national security to welfare and school vouchers. Probably the most memorable, and I am sure to be replayed, was her reference to her personal story when she said:

“And on a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced that even if she cannot have it hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.”

As an educator Ms. Rice had this to say about education in the United States:

“And your greatest ally in controlling your response to your circumstances has been a quality education. But today, today, when I can look at your zip code and I can tell whether you're going to get a good education, can I honestly say it does not matter where you came from, it matters where you are going? The crisis in K-12 education is a threat to the very fabric of who we are.

My mom was a teacher. I respect the profession. We need great teachers, not poor ones and not mediocre ones. We have to have high standards for our kids, because self-esteem comes from achievement, not from lax standards and false praise.

And we need to give parents greater choice, particularly, particularly poor parents whose kids, very often minorities, are trapped in failing neighborhood schools. This is the civil rights issue of our day.”

Once again you see a conservative black woman with talent and brains standing tall in the GOP tent. Condi Rice is no “token trotted out” for eye candy. She is an accomplished concert pianist, served as national security advisor and secretary of state for the eight years of the G.W. Bush administration through some of the most dangerous times in our nation’s history, and is now a dean at Stanford University.

Negative:

Rising Republican star Mia Love's Wikipedia page was vandalized overnight with racist and sexist epithets.

The attack comes as Democrats and liberal media outlets criticize or downplay the GOP's effort at showcasing diversity at their convention in Tampa.

Love, a Utah city mayor and congressional candidate who is black, delivered a brief but rousing address Tuesday night at the Republican National Convention. The daughter of Haitian immigrants told her family story, throwing in some jabs at President Obama's "divided" America for good measure.

Bloggers were quick to spot some inflammatory changes to her Wikipedia page that night. Though the changes have since been removed, screen grabs posted to various websites show one section called her a "dirty, worthless whore" who sold out to big business. Another section again called her a "sell-out" to the "right wing hate machine," before accusing her of being exploited "like the House N----- she truly is."

The Wikipedia page changes came as the party's other non-white stars in Tampa were either criticized or played down this week.

On Tuesday, MSNBC appeared to gloss over much of the minority politicians' addresses.

Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Center and senior editor with Newsbusters.com, said the only minority speaker who got significant air time on MSBNC from 7 p.m. until the end of the lineup was South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is Indian-American.

He said he understands the media have to cover Tropical Storm Isaac but suggested there should be a priority on highlighting minority speakers at the RNC.

"There's been this undercurrent in the media that the Republican Party has a diversity problem, that they're not reaching out to minorities," he said. "It's been something you've heard about for months. Well, this is the Republican Party reaching out. If they're reaching out and nobody covers it, who's seeing them do it?"

Of course I am not surprised by these vulgar statements by liberals. Do we not — all of us — know full well what the Democrat Party has become? Seriously, I thought it was pretty well established that the mainstream democrat is a vulgar, hateful hypocrite who projects his/her inner contradictions and self-deceptions on his/her enemy.

Positive:

Paul Ryan’s speech was a home run. He did what he had to do — convince independent voters that it is okay to like Obama, okay to have voted for Obama, and okay to want to replace Barack Obama. His speech was not for the GOP. His speech was for independents.

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney know that as the Democrats amp up the negativity, they have to give independents an incentive to keep independents in the race and for them. Paul Ryan succeeded.

Back in 2009, Rush Limbaugh addressed CPAC. The media covered it live, hoping it would damage the GOP. Instead, his off the cuff remarks put the Democrats on defense for months. He made the case that we have to support individuals over the collective, small government over big government, and choice in life (outside of killing kids) over one size fits all mandates.

Republican leaders shied away from those themes until the tea party came along and seized them. GOP leaders still shy away from them. Remember, the weekend Paul Ryan was picked, the GOP leadership was apoplectic that they’d now lose because of Medicare.

Instead, the GOP is now winning on the issue.

Last night, Paul Ryan brought Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC themes full circle into the next generation with a youthful, smiling face that makes it hard for the Democrats to attack. He related to women, to moms, to small businesses, and to families. Paul Ryan made multi-generational points that it is time for a change. He used his personal story to introduce himself and bolster his claims. He made the argument that we must support individuals over the collective. He made the point that we must cut the federal government. He made the point that people should not be dependent on one size fits all federal programs and mandates.

He appealed to independents and the base. He remains one heck of a pick for Mitt Romney.

Paul Ryan is a winner.

Barack Obama’s campaign had several weeks to define Paul Ryan and failed. Now Paul Ryan just defined himself in a way that resonates with swing voters.

Negative:

Within minutes the Obama media were all over Ryan for his reference to the closing of the GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan’s home town when he said:

“President Barack Obama, came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those are very tough days. And any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My own state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it.

Especially in Janesville where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.''

That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that's how it is in so many towns where the recovery that was promised is no where in sight. Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. 23 million people unemployed or underemployed. Nearly one in six Americans is in poverty. Millions of young Americans have graduated from college during the Obama presidency, ready to use their gifts and get moving in life.

Half of them can't find the work they studied for, or any work at all. So here's the question, without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?”

Sally Kohn authored a hit piece disguised as fact checking on the Fox News opinion page:

“Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.”

Monday, Feb. 2, 2009 the Wisconsin GazetterXtra.com reported:

“The concerned relative had it partly right.

Too bad about the GM thing, but I hear the Janesville plant is getting a new medium-duty truck,” the relative told a salaried employee of the auto plant in Janesville at a holiday gathering.

Full-size sport utility vehicle production has ended at the local General Motors plant, but medium-duty truck production is continuing—not starting—in Janesville.

And it likely will continue into May, when the lights finally go off in the facility that has been producing vehicles since 1923.

When GM officials announced last June that SUV production would cease in Janesville, they also said that medium-duty truck production would conclude by the end of 2009, or sooner if market conditions dictate.

Orphaned by the loss of its big brother in December, the Isuzu line and its 50 or so hourly and salaried employees continue to build about 25 trucks four days a week in what has become a nearly empty plant.

The Isuzu line is operating in the north end of the 4.8 million-square-foot plant, an area that was once the plant’s tire building.

In a partnership with Isuzu, local workers build the NPR truck, which is commonly used as a delivery vehicle.”

So it seems workers at that GM plant in Janesville were indeed working in February of 2009. In fact, they worked on that joint GM/Isuzu project producing new vehicles until May 2009, under President Barack Obama.

The media is declaring Paul Ryan’s speech full of half-truths when they rarely do that to Barack Obama’s campaign speeches? Seriously, this was a campaign speech of big ideas and the media would denigrate it by screaming that Paul Ryan left out key details when, in fact, they weren’t really relevant to the big ideas or themes and some just weren’t added because of time. Meanwhile, Barack Obama claims ObamaCare will solve our national debt problems and the media goes blind to his flat out lies.

Perhaps Ryan should have noted when it comes to jobs once again Obama has failed with his GM bailout. One of Obama’s big lies was that by pouring money down the rat hole of General Motors he saved thousands of good paying jobs in the auto industry. This is pure baloney.

According to TradeReform GM producing 70% of autos outside U.S. Dan Akerson (GM CEO) states that seven out of ten GM automobiles are built outside the U.S. they have 11 joint ventures with Chinese government controlled auto manufacturers. Also they are moving their R&D to China.

The truth of this election is that it is showing just how in the tank for Obama the vast majority of the media really is. They should be embarrassed, but first they have to get their messiah re-elected. It’s time for the fact checkers to check the fact checkers. Ryan had it exactly right, and the fact checkers have made a mockery of their own profession by stepping all over their own biases to refute Ryan. You can read more on this issue in Ed Morrissey’s column in Hot Air.

Negative:

Among the plethora of negative and racists attacks on the Romney, Ryan and other GOP speakers — attacks that were not unexpected nor a surprise — one of the more egregious attacks came from Juan Williams. Williams is a regular commentator on Fox News and a person fired from liberal NPR and vilified by his compatriots on the left. It was the conservative element at Fox that got him hired as a regular at a much higher salary.

On Tuesday night, as part of a panel consisting of Charles Krauthammer and Britt Hume, Williams labeled Ann Romney as a “corporate wife who hasn’t struggled in her life” when he said:

“Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, on the other hand looked to me like a corporate wife. And, you know, the stories she told about struggles, that’s hard for me to believe. I mean, she’s a very rich woman. I know that and America knows that.”

Consider the fact that Juan Williams said he had a hard time believing a woman with five children who has overcome breast cancer and is currently fighting M.S. – both of which are conditions that affect women more than men – simply because she has money is appalling. If a conservative commentator had made such a comment N.O.W. would probably be marching outside their studio right now.

A ‘corporate wife’? What exactly is a ‘corporate wife’? I guess it might make sense if Romney got remarried after his business success and one wanted to attack his spouse as a trophy wife, but the Romneys have been married for 43 years, long before the days of Bain Capital. And while the Romneys are indeed very wealthy now, and Mitt Romney was the son of a millionaire governor, he donated his inheritance and built his success on his own — with Ann Romney alongside him every step of the way.

Did Williams have trouble believing that Teresa Heinz Kerry, a woman of rather extensive wealth, too had suffered in life? Not exactly. In May 2004 Williams stated:

“The senator’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, also offers a strong link to independent older women, especially widows and divorcees. In her interview with Barbara Walters, Heinz Kerry revealed that a doctor once recommended she have an abortion because of medical problems, but a miscarriage ended the pregnancy. That personal revelation cut a clear path for her husband to the abortion rights position central to the concerns of so many single women voters.

Regardless of whether female voters are ultimately swayed by the women of the Bush or Kerry clans, one thing’s for sure: Their vote certainly isn’t being ignored.”

Juan, your agenda is really showing.

“I don’t care how much money you have, would you rather have a good healthy life or all the money in the world? I think she would rather be poor than have MS and breast cancer. My wife suffered from breast cancer some twenty years ago and I know how that terrible disease affects women. I also have a very close friend who is suffering MS and, again her life is far from being a picnic. She struggles through life each day combatting this crippling disease. Perhaps if Mr. Williams had a loved one close to him suffering these diseases he might take a different view.

Plain and simply put, Juan’s comment was insulting and fit in lockstep with the Democrat’s talking points to paint Mitt Romney as a corporate CEO’s that must be evil because he worked his way to the top.

What they’re saying is, here’s a guy who’s had everything handed to him, you know, he’s just this corporate CEO, this cold, calculated person, and they can’t understand your struggles because they’ve never had them.

This is the entire approach to the election from the Democratic Party.

Yesterday Williams wrote a weak defense of his comments as a Fox News opinion piece. He attempted to clarify and excuse his vulgar remarks by stating:

“Last night on Fox’s special coverage of the Republican Convention, I said that Ann Romney reminded me of a corporate wife during her speech. In the hours since I made that comment, I have gotten a lot of static and a flurry of negative feedback through Twitter and Facebook.

Many people took offense to that criticism so I think it is worth explaining exactly what I meant.

First, I was making a criticism of the speech-- not of Mrs. Romney.

….

My reaction was to the political speech. It was intended to help the presidential candidate with women voters. The goal was to let the audience know he is a caring person and not a hardened businessman lacking a heart.

Where the speech lost me was in her representation that the Romneys could understand the struggle of the average American family because they, too, had struggled. Those comments felt to me as if this was something she had often expressed in formal settings while representing her husband. This representation was not at all persuasive to me because their “struggle” is vastly different than the economic struggle of most Americans.

My criticism is about the economic angle of the speech.

The most effective political approach to me -- as a political analyst— would have been for Mrs. Romney to say that she knows she is fortunate, knows she blessed and she wants the best for others too.

That message is the perfect counter to any thoughts that her husband is out of touch with the lives of average Americans. It would have put the issue of their wealth in proper perspective as the American Dream and conveyed that they feel blessed to be in position to help others.”

Okay Juan I understand Teresa Heinz Kerry, a women who was once married to a billionaire Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, who made his money from selling ketchup, is good and Ann Romney is a phony for raising six kids into responsible adults and suffering through two major illnesses. Shame on you Mr. Williams! And, if Sean Hannity, you buddy and protector, on Fox News does not take you to task for your comments he is a phony too.

Finally the last and perhaps the most egregious attack on the Romneys came from the media — in particularly Yahoo News. During live coverage of the Republican National Convention here in Tampa, Yahoo News Washington bureau chief David Chalian provided the perfect example of the pervasive anti-Republican bias Mitt Romney faces in his bid to unseat President Barack Obama.

In video broadcast Monday night by ABC and Yahoo over the Internet, Chalian can be heard claiming that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann are unconcerned about the fate of residents of the New Orleans area who are currently being hit by Hurricane Isaac.

“They aren’t concerned at all,” Chalian can be heard on the live broadcast. “They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.”

The anti-Romney joke was made while Chalian was on an active microphone, apparently unaware that his quips against the former Massachusetts governor were being recorded and broadcast live.

Unmentioned by Chalian was the fact that the Republican National Committee canceled the entirety of Monday's program or that President Obama did not cancel any of his regularly scheduled campaign fund-raising parties that night.

Too Yahoo News’ credit they offered an immediate apology and sacked Mr. Chalian. Yahoo News issued the following statement:

“David Chalian’s statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended.”

The cast and management at MSNBC really, really want their viewers — all 20 of them now, I believe — to understand that the Republican Party is raaaaaaaaaaaacist, and that the GOP convention is nothing more than a bunch of white men talking and applauding. They are so desperate to sell their agenda of latent Republican racism that they simply averted their eyes every time a speaker that didn’t fit their lone talking point took the stage:

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.

Say, wouldn’t the practice of ignoring people of color be considered raaaaaaaaaaaacist? And what did MSNBC use as a replacement for all of these speakers last night?

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

No doubt, they were trying to keep their 20 19 17 viewers up to date with all of the antics of raaaaaaaaaaaacist Republicans, and so had no choice but to block out Republicans like Mia Love, Ted Cruz, and Artur Davis. I’ve seen news reports from Communist countries that had less Orwellian message control than this.

Why did they just happen to block all of these speakers? Obviously, it’s not a coincidence. They’re afraid of two outcomes by showing these speakers, the first of which is the exposure of the intellectual vapidity of their repeated accusations of raaaaaaaaaaaacism. The second is the possibility of acknowledging that conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate, which might encourage more people of color to consider its policies, especially with the powerful personal stories told by Mia Love and Ted Cruz. Instead of dealing with that reality, MSNBC chose to deliberately misinform their 15 14 12 viewers. Fortunately, the MSNBC lineup (with the apparent acquiescence of Comcast) is so busy marginalizing themselves that it really doesn’t matter anymore.

Tonight the RNC convention will end with speeches from Marco Rubio and the nominee himself Mitt Romney. I am sure the puny little bloggers sitting in their underwear in their parent’s basement are warming up their computers as I write this and the so-called mainstream media journalists are gathering to compare notes as to how they can tear Romney down as they have done with the other speakers. This includes people like Brian Williams and that phony Tom Brokaw

News Busters reported that on NBC: Williams and Brokaw used Condi Rice’s speech to depict Republicans as narrow-minded:

“On NBC’s live Wednesday coverage of the GOP convention both Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw used Condoleezza Rice's speech to paint the GOP delegation as close-minded on immigration, education reform and Barack Obama’s background. Right after the former Secretary of State's speech, Williams snarked: "Portions of that speech could have been delivered at next week [DNC] gathering in North Carolina. Some candid talk to tepid applause on immigration." He then added that Rice made the "rare utterance at a GOP convention of the American truism that zip code determines education in our country."

For his part, Brokaw took a shot at the GOP crowd as he chided: "What was so striking to me was one other line that she had: 'It does not matter where you come from it matters where you are going.' Well to a lot of delegates, on this floor, it does matter where President Obama came from. Because they've been very critical of his Kenyan father, who had a different faith than many of them would embrace and they've raised lots of questions about where his ultimate loyalty is.”

You can read more about the biased coverage of the RNC Convention at News Busters, if you have the stomach for it. And for a history of the media’s biased, and sometimes vulgar, reporting on Republicans check out the Media Research Center’s report; The Media vs. the GOP: Intolerant, Anti-Women, and Always Too Conservative.

That’s enough for now. It’s on to Charlotte, North Carolina for the Vagina Monologues.

Can Paul Ryan Clean Up the Chicago Mob?

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” — John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law — 1765

One of my favorite shows in the days of black and white television was the Untouchables (latter made into a movie in 1987). The Untouchables were a group of 13 U.S. federal law-enforcement agents, led by Eliot Ness, who, from 1929 to 1931, worked to end Al Capone's illegal activities by aggressively enforcing Prohibition and tax laws against Capone and his organization. In their conduct, they became legendary for being fearless and incorruptible, earning the nickname "Untouchables."

The Untouchables were led by treasury agent Elliot Ness who was an ethical, honest, and fearless law enforcement officer who was charged with cleaning up the mob activities and violence in Chicago lead by the notorious gangster Al Capone. Ness and his agents would go after the illegal stores of alcoholic spirits with tommy guns and axes. They would break up barrels of the illegal beverages, raid speakeasies, and arrest bootleggers. Final they were able to get Al Capone on tax evasion.

Since that time Chicago has been known as a city controlled by a political mob with the latest example of this being Barack Obama who was discovered and rocketed to national notoriety by the Chicago Democratic Party machine, a machine that has a long history of corruption and illegal activities.

Why do I bring this up? Because I can't help but see the ghost of Eliot Ness when I look at Paul Ryan. The paradigm is the same. Of course, this time evil is cloaked in a rogue presidency, and they are making the laws, but the battle is the same: right and wrong, good and evil, etc. And Ryan, like Ness, is righteous and uncompromised.

Eliot Ness took on mob boss Al Capone and his army during the Prohibition Era. He assembled a special force of agents who were known for their incorruptibility — "the untouchables." Like Ness, Ryan came from humble beginnings. And he believes firmly in individual rights.

According to the Republican National Convention Blog, "Paul Ryan developed his political philosophy reading the works of free market authors including Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead.'"

When he was announced as Romney's choice for vice president, Ryan's words were a direct rebuke to Obama's socialist rhetoric of class warfare:

"We look at one another's success with pride, not resentment, because we know that as more Americans work hard, take risks, succeed, more people will prosper, more communities will benefit. And individual lives will be improved. ... America, America is just more than a place, though. America is an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. That's right. That's who we are, that's how we built this country. That's who we are. That's what made us great. That's what made us great. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

Ryan has, according to the Washington Times, "a very conservative voting record during his seven terms in Congress, including repeated votes against spending bills, unemployment-benefit extensions and most of President Obama's agenda."

The Times noted his stellar record on reining in out-of-control government spending — a record that betters those of most of his fellow Republicans: "His chief breaks with most Republicans usually came on spending bills, where he regularly voted against his party leadership when they controlled the chamber before 2007. In 1999, he voted against expanding the Peace Corps, and voted against expanding debt relief to impoverished nations."

I believe that Paul Ryan, an intellectual leader, and his ilk are the antidote to what ails this suffering nation. Barack Hussein Obama and his band of moochers, looters, and destroyers are no match for the likes of him. I underestimated Romney, and I am glad to say it. Paul Ryan was an inspired choice. What a clear and clean message. Despite the media's war on American exceptionalism, capitalism, individual rights, business and businessmen, the producers, the family, and conservatism, Romney did not blink. He picked an uncompromised conservative (and in doing so gave the media the middle finger). Romney chose well.

Dennis Prager states in a recent column in the Patriot Post questioning will a weakened American character defeat Paul Ryan:

“The Republican vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, is the Democrats' political version of the Anti-Christ. He believes in self-reliance; the left believes in reliance on the state. His moral values are shaped by religion (Catholicism); the left is frightened by religious Christian politicians (and athletes, and members of the armed forces, and talk show hosts, and, for that matter, clergy). He believes in individualism; the left believes in collectivism. He believes in small government and powerful citizens; the left believes in large government and dependent citizens.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party claims to be overjoyed at his selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

The Democrats' glee -- even if exaggerated -- emanates from their belief that Americans will reject Ryan's economic and social plans to reduce the American debt, unleash private economic growth (the only type there is), and reform unsustainable government programs such as Medicare.

Democrats believe that if Americans perceive that their entitlements may be affected -- even if only beginning a decade from now, and even if the American debt is thereby cut by one third, and even if they, as well as the country, will ultimately benefit -- so many Americans have become so used to government benefits, the Republicans stand little chance of winning the upcoming elections.

In other words, and tragically, the left and Democrats are relying on the decline of the American character that left-wing policies have produced (not only here but in Latin America, Europe, and everywhere else). The Democrats are hoping that older Americans are (irrationally) frightened by Medicare reform even though these reforms will not affect them, and that younger Americans will likewise reject these reforms because they are counting on receiving Medicare as it now exists.

Left-wing social policies are predicated on giving more and more Americans more and more benefits and demanding less and less from them.

The left's party, the Democratic Party, seeks to have the state pay for Americans' health care, give record numbers of Americans food stamps (now in a form similar to ATM and credit cards so that no stigma be involved), provide their children with school meals and provide women with child care and contraceptives, while enabling more and more Americans to pay no federal taxes to pay for any of these benefits.”

Prager concludes:

“Since the Democrats could not win any national election with the votes of liberals alone -- according to Gallup, self-described liberals constitute just 21 percent of the electorate -- the great question of the 2012 American presidential election is this: Have the left and Democratic Party sufficiently weakened the character of enough Americans to enable the demonization of Paul Ryan to lead Barack Obama to victory?”

To the true believers on the left, re-electing Barack Obama is not a matter of what is or is not good for the country; rather, for the majority on the left, the primary motivation is geared solely toward defeating their sworn enemy: conservatives and Republicans, whom many falsely believe are a right-wing horde determined to create a theocracy and impose old-fashioned morality. But what they fear most from the right is a determination to reinstitute unfettered individual freedom and concomitant economic growth, which would relegate the American left to the back bench of American society.

Thus, to them, what the policies of Barack Obama and his radical minions are doing to the long-term fate of nation is immaterial as long as Obama regurgitates his support for the various causes that are near and dear to the coalition that makes up the left. There are two common threads to the belief system of American progressives: 1) an omnipotent central government controlled by them, and 2) an assumption that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from an equally bottomless pit of wealth. But this is not the same nation that experienced unprecedented prosperity from 1946 to 2007. It is not the same nation in which these narcissists on the left grew up, never knowing national adversity or trauma.

The manner in which these progressives, and their titular leader Barack Obama, are conducting themselves in the current campaign season is indicative of their arrogant and immature mindset. To the vast majority on the left, this campaign is merely a game played out on the playground of American politics, wherein they childishly engage in name-calling and temper tantrums reminiscent of spoiled brats determined to get their way, regardless of the consequences.

Thomas Sowell writes about the choice of Paul Ryan:

“This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.

But, if what they want is emotionally satisfying rhetoric and a promise to give them something for nothing, to be paid for by taxing somebody else, then Obama is their man. This is not to say that the public will in fact get something for nothing or that rich people will just pay higher taxes, when it is easy for them to escape taxation by investing overseas -- creating jobs overseas.

Even if most Americans do not have their own taxes raised, that means little, if they end up paying other people's taxes in the higher prices of goods and services that pass along the higher taxes imposed on businesses.

There are no doubt voters who will vote on the basis of believing that Obama "cares" more about them. But that is a faith which passeth all understanding. The political mirage of something for nothing, from leaders who "care," has ruined many a nation.”

It is time to grow up and understand that the America that could absorb all the excessive spending, promises, and left-wing fun and games is no more. This nation cannot survive on its present course, and if that course is not dramatically reversed, those on the left will suffer as much as if not more than the bulk of the American people they are trying to rule. History has shown repeatedly that when an overwhelming political and social catastrophe strikes a nation, the people turn against the ruling class, often with a vengeance. In the United States, that ruling class is presently dominated by the American left.

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's vice presidential candidate, the choice could not be more clearly defined.

Pro-America vs. anti-America

Individualism vs. Statism

Capitalism vs. socialism

This campaign should be not called "restore America." It should be "Free America."

Did Romney Make the Right Pick?

“Self-government stands or falls on integrity, not only in those who represent you but in the enactment of law. This indecency soiled our freedom and embarrassed the democracy we promote in other nations. And this may not be the last of it. To enact its transformative agenda, this leadership employs the Machiavellian saying that the end justifies the means. America was born in a revolution against that whole idea. Soon it will be the norm.” — Rep. Paul Ryan, Address to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, March 31, 2010.

On Friday night my daughter called me a 11:30 pm to tell me she had seen a Fox News alert stating that Mitt Romney was going to announce his VP pick on Saturday morning and it would be Paul Ryan, the Representative from Wisconsin. She wanted to know what I thought of Ryan and Romney’s pick. Being awaken from my first hour of sleep I was not very cognizant with my thoughts.

My first reaction was that with Ryan gone from the House we would lose a champion for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. I had heard so many pundits bloviate on Romney’s potential VP pick giving reasons for their favorites. Some wanted Marco Rubio because of his Hispanic ethnicity and the fact Florida was a swing state. Some wanted Senator Portman of Ohio as Ohio is considered a swing state. Others wanted Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana and still others were in favor of Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Very few thought it would be Paul Ryan.

I made it a point to get up on Saturday morning to watch Romney announce his VP selection with a backdrop of the aircraft carrier USS Wisconsin from Norfolk, Virginia. I listened to both presumptive nominees address the wildly cheering assembled crowd and I began to draw my conclusions to Romney’s choice.

During the day I watched the masterminds of the GOP climb on the Paul Ryan bandwagon and claim that Romney’s selection was nothing but brilliant. Many claimed that Romney paid homage to the Tea Party by chasing the Wisconsin Congressman — who has been a Tea Party favorite. Even Sarah Palin jumped on the Ryan bandwagon with posts on her Facebook page. So who is Paul Ryan?

According to Wikipedia Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin. He earned a B.A. degree from Miami University in Ohio. Following his studies, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding Republican Mark Neumann. He is now in his seventh term.

As chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has focused on fiscal policy and has proposed privatizing Social Security and replacing Medicare for those Americans under 55 with a voucher program. Ryan introduced a plan, The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 which included significant changes to Medicare. He then helped introduce the similar The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012.

Following his first election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, he had a walk-in delivery van converted into a “Mobile Constituent Service Center” that allowed him and his staff to meet with his constituents at rural locations across Wisconsin's 1st congressional district.

In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed key provisions of the depression-era Glass–Steagall Act which regulated banking. In 2002, he voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug law. In 2004 and 2005, Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security; Ryan's proposal ultimately failed when it did not gain the support of the then-Republican presidential administration. After the next election, he was chosen as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as the bailout of GM and Chrysler. In 2011, he was selected to deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union address. In 2012, he accused the nation's top military leaders of using "smoke and mirrors" to remain under budget limits passed by Congress. Ryan later said that he misspoke on the issue and called General Martin Dempsey to apologize for his comments.

In May 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310 which would increase defense spending, including spending for the Afghanistan War and for various weapon systems, to the level of $642 billion – $8 billion more than previous spending levels.

If it sounds like I am being negative towards the pick of Ryan you are mistaken. I always thought it would be Marco Rubio because of his Cuban ancestry and because Florida was such a big deal in the coming election. Florida will still be a big deal and Rubio will have to work hard to bring it into the GOP column, especially since Ryan has been portrayed as anti-seniors and so many retied folks vote in the Sunshine State. On the other hand Ryan could bring Wisconsin into the GOP column if the Tea Party gets out and organizes like they did for Scott Walker.

Last week Charles Krauthammer wrote a column that I consider one of his best in quite a while, titled “The case against re-election.” In it, he examined Obama’s failed programs and legislation and the potential campaign strategy for Mitt Romney. Krauthammer’s most important point focused on how important it is for Mitt Romney – and now Paul Ryan – to campaign against Obama on ideological grounds. Krauthammer stated:

“There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.

The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of an additional $5 trillion of accumulated debt.

The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama’s Roanoke riff telling small-business owners: “You didn’t build that.” Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastructure without which you would have nothing.

Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?”

Exactly. And this is the question that Americans should have asked in 2008. But they were too preoccupied with the erupting financial crisis and Iraq fatigue to pay close attention to the ideological train wreck that was, and is, Barack Obama. No one should be surprised by what Obama has done, nor should they have been shocked by revealing, non-teleprompted comments such as “you didn’t build that” (“spread the wealth around“, anyone?). The Obama Rule was plain to see all along.

Barack Obama’s ideology has been out there, exposed to anyone who bothered to listen (certainly not the mainstream media). His ideology is, and always has been, his problem. Not his lack of experience. Not his birthplace or his religious affiliation or any of the other things that some on our side have blathered about.

It’s the ideology, stupid.

Krauthammer’s makes a stellar case for the Romney/Ryan camp to run strongly on ideology:

“The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.”

Conveniently, Mitt Romney made this strategy much easier on Saturday. By selecting Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, he has made a stellar ideological choice. Ryan’s ideology is diametrically opposed to the Leftist mindset of Obama and his Democrat friends and provides a wonderful contrast to Mitt Romney’s more “stewardship-focused” story on the campaign trail.

On March 31, 2010 Paul Ryan gave a speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. In that speech, Ryan displayed his deep understanding of the profoundly broken “progressivist” ideology of Barack Obama and articulated a powerful opposing viewpoint focused on self-government, unalienable rights, the Constitution and limits on government power. his speech should be read by every American who opposes the intrusive, anti-liberty agenda of the Obama Progressivists. A few key items:

“Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots…but the “causes” of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power … or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity … or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism … or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you’ve never seen before!”

Ryan said this in 2010, but it is equally applicable (if not more so) now. But wait, there’s much more:

“The Progressivist ideology embraced by today’s leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by “nature and nature’s God.” The truths of the American founding can’t become obsolete because they are not time bound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.

A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it’s regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.”

I have argued for several years that we cede ground to the Democrats and Leftists by using the term “progressive” when referring to their philosophy. As Ryan states, nothing they prescribe remotely resembles “progress”. It is regressive. It returns us to the Middle Ages, where the King (government) ruled over the peons. Government dependency does not improve lives – it enslaves them to their King. Ryan’s description of progressivist regression takes us back to the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders stated “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” (Replace “King of Great Britain” with “President of the United States” and you have a perfect fit.).

Ryan continued in his address:

“Self-government stands or falls on integrity, not only in those who represent you but in the enactment of law. This indecency soiled our freedom and embarrassed the democracy we promote in other nations. And this may not be the last of it. To enact its transformative agenda, this leadership employs the Machiavellian saying that the end justifies the means. America was born in a revolution against that whole idea. Soon it will be the norm.

The Constitution and the consent of the people are all that stand between limited and unlimited government power. Zealous ideologues with the best of intentions brush aside the limits on power in order to get whatever they believe is good for the people … no matter what the people believe. Our system of freedom can survive an assault, but it won’t survive if the people are frightened, or angry, or asleep at the switch. A great Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, once said: “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.” We can thank our current leaders at least for this: they have awakened the nation to the danger of taking self-government for granted.

Congress is not only enacting a social welfare state agenda over the objections of the people. It is failing to address the problems that threaten to engulf our country, principally economic decline and entitlement-driven debt crisis. The coming election will be a referendum on the agenda of our current leadership. Either it will give them a mandate that says “more of the same,” or it will end the abuse of power and put America back on the path of growth and freedom.”

Again, this was a prescient speech – it applied in 2010 and it does again in 2012. Unfortunately, the election of a conservative House of Representatives only took us partway to a solution. Now we must defeat Barack Obama and his Democrat crooks and liars in the Senate.

Ryan’s finale was a great:

“The question is, do we realign with the vision of a European-style social welfare state, or do we realign with the American idea?

My party challenges the whole basis of the Progressivist vision of this country’s future. We challenge their attack on American exceptionalism. We challenge their claim that bureaucratic centralization is the only way the US can meet the economic and social challenges of our time.

Those leaders have underestimated the good sense of the American people. They broke faith with independents, Republicans, and their own rank-and-file. They walked away from the foundational truths that made America the wonder and the envy of the world. The price of their infidelity will be high.”

That is indeed the question. What is the vision that the people of the United States wish to pursue? That of a social welfare state buried beneath entitlement spending, or of a free nation with minimal governmental intrusion and a lessened chokehold of taxes and regulations upon its citizens as envisioned by our Founders?

Again, Krauthammer is right. He likes what he sees in the Ryan nomination as he stated on Saturday morning on the Fox News Channel as reported by The Daily Caller.

“But second is also the shift in grounds, the dynamic of the debate — the argument from stewardship, from who can do a better job. to ideas,” he continued. “When Ryan spoke, he mentioned our rights are from nature and God. That’s a fairly fundamental idea. It isn’t even a policy. It’s a philosophy. He wants to make the debate about the philosophy of government and the policies that then follow. And I think by doing this they are now running on what is essentially an argument, ‘No to the status quo.’ It’s a complete reversal of 2008. Obama in 2008 was hope and change. ‘You don’t like status quo, we’ve got ideas.”

……

“Now here are the Republicans four years later saying, ‘well, you had your shot at charisma with this idea of hope and change. It’s not hope and change. It’s a dismal, sort of declining America. We have the ideas. We have the policies. We’re willing to risk on them. We are willing to lead on them, lead from in front.

“And that’s what I think shifts the whole debate. It is a dynamic one about future, ideas and change. Change is now on the side of Republicans, where as it was on the policy of this side of the Democrats in 2008. And they can make a coherent case of that as we heard Ryan doing in his introductory remarks.”

Ryan certainly makes a coherent case for change…now, just as he did in 2010. His conservative ideology, matched with Mitt Romney’s executive experience and business acumen is a superb combination for the GOP ticket. Paul Ryan is a man who should be Vice President, and Mitt Romney is the man who should be President.

Daren Jonescu writes in American Thinker what I consider a relevant commentary on the section of Ryan and the shift in the debate for the coming election:

“The GOP has so damaged its reputation with conservatives that even a rare reasonable decision is met with a measure of cynicism from some quarters. Beneath the inevitable immediate wave of enthusiasm for the choice of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate, one also notices a faction of naysayers, one likely to grow as the initial excitement dies down: constitutionalists who see the Ryan selection as just the same old, same old from the Republican Party establishment.

The very fact that the establishment approves of someone is now regarded by many as prima facie grounds for suspicion. Thus it is that the choice of Ryan is garnering extremely cautious kudos from some conservatives, and a resounding "So what?" from others.

They are right to be skeptical, after having watched their champions and agenda being repeatedly muffled or held at a distance by the GOP inner circle precisely when they and their message are most urgently needed. During these critical years of civilizational life-or-death struggle, the traditional moderate argument against highlighting conservative principles — "conservatives are unelectable" — has been blown full of holes by the rise of the Tea Party, the 2010 midterms, Scott Walker's victorious stand in Wisconsin, and so on. Yet the establishment has continued to resist the call to constitutionalist renewal. Why, then, should conservatives trust the GOP?

While perhaps not trusting, however, one can, following Reagan's Cold War slogan, “seek to verify”. Wondering whether Ryan will live up to expectations is reasonable. He was, after all, one of the first prominent conservatives to get behind the establishment candidate during the final stages of the GOP primaries. He voted for Bush's prescription drug plan. He voted for TARP, and the auto bailout. And one can, no doubt, find other questionable decisions and votes over the years.

On the other hand, he is the man personally responsible for the moment's only viable comprehensive attack on the nation's debt. He has put his neck on the block legislatively, not merely "advocating" entitlement reform in the abstract, which most Republicans do as a matter of talking-point duty, but actually putting his name on a specific plan to begin unraveling the entitlement threads with which the suffocating sack of fiscal irresponsibility has been sewn shut over America's future.

Liberals dislike him for the best reason — namely, because they fear him. He articulates the nature of the nation's fiscal crisis, and the need for entitlement reform, with a clarity that pre-empts the typical accusations of "heartlessness" that the left hurls mindlessly at everyone who opposes unconstitutional government. And while those who see the enormity of the catastrophe awaiting America might argue — correctly, I believe — that the final Ryan budget, on its face, does not go far enough, one must not lose sight of the inevitable gulf between the ideal and the practically realizable. Had Ryan proposed legislation that would do what this moment really requires, the plan would likely never have made it past John Boehner's trash bin.

Instead, Ryan's plan, shortcomings notwithstanding, has played a central role in shifting public discussion of the economy, and specifically of the debt, onto more rational ground, making calls for substantial overhaul a mainstream idea, rather than something easily dismissible as a libertarian pipe-dream.”

….

“The greatest real cause for concern with Ryan popped up in Romney's introduction of him in Norfolk, Virginia. Romney lauded him as a man who does not "demonize" opponents, and who can "find common ground" with "people of both parties."

Those are pretty words, but they completely miss the tone of the moment. Western civilization is in a pitched battle for survival with forces that would undo the great practical achievements of modernity -- political and intellectual freedom, widespread prosperity, and material comfort -- in favor of a return to the mass degradations of the worst forms of authoritarian government. The vanguard of those regressive forces has found its American home within the Democrat Party. Its continued success depends entirely on the opposition failing to recognize the seriousness of the stakes.

This is not the moment to lead through "collegiality." If "Finding common ground" is the campaign slogan for 2012, Obama wins, and America is all but lost. A more suitable slogan would be "A line in the sand." The left's march "forward" must be resisted without reservation, and with every tool in the conservative belt, whether that sounds collegial or not.

Ryan has the principles and intellect to play an important role in this effort. The question he must answer now, particularly as Romney's running mate, is whether he has the stomach for it.

In the meantime, those who enjoy quick knockouts can look forward to the vice presidential debate.”

The next 85 days will be very interesting as the debate changes from Obama’s record to the vision for America’s future. This is a debate that is sorely needed. Will we follow the philosophy of Madison and Jefferson or will go down the road to a progressive state run by statists masterminds.