What’s New Today
Story # 1 is today’s signs of desperation. #2 is another reason for desperation as more
and more businesses are voting with their donations. #3 looks at the coming election and sees a
landslide. #4 talks about the bigotry of
the left. #5 diagrams out Voter
Fraud. #6 is a video comparing Sandra
Fluke with Rachel Elizabeth of Chick-fil-A.
#7 we finally see Klavan on the Culture look at the vocabulary of the
Media.
Today’s
Thoughts
Liberals feel business success comes from the
benefits bestowed by government while business
failures are caused by the greed of
entrepreneurs such as Bain Capital and Mitt Romney. Heads they win, tail you lose.
The lies coming out of the Obama camp
are extensive and transparent. So why are they doing this if they keep
getting caught? Because they know the voters won’t vote for Obama
so they need to give them something to vote against.
Mr. Joe Soptic said that after he lost his job, he found work as a school
custodian about six months later and had the option to put his wife on his
insurance plan. But he opted not to. If this ad had been reversed, that is put out
by the Romney campaign; wouldn’t the
Obama supporters be characterizing Mr. Soptic as a free rider?
President
Obama in a speech in Denver touting equal pay ended up complaining that the first lady doesn’t get any pay for what she does “even though that's a tough job!"
1. Signs of Desperation
The Story So Far: two days ago, the Obama
administration – using the fig-leaf/cutout of Super PAC Priorities USA –
accused Mitt Romney of being a murderer because
a company that Romney used to own closed down a steel mill (several years
after
Romney left that company) and that meant that the wife of the husband who lost
his job at that steel mill (one Joe Soptic) didn’t have any insurance after the
wife left
her job several years
after
the layoff and several years after all of
that the wife
was diagnosed with cancer and then died. As Erick notes in the link
above:
if that’s an acceptable logic
chain that legitimately leads one to a charge of murder, then (to give just one
example) this administration murdered US Border Agent Brian Terry and Eric
Holder needs to give himself up right now.
But wait! It gets even more convoluted. You see, the Media is
balking at taking this line of attack seriously, and the Obama administration
has already done its best to distance itself from the Priorities USA ad, to the
point
where Obama for America (OfA)
spokesman Stephanie Cutter denied that they had any knowledge of Soptic’s
story.
So… who’s that voice at the end of
this conference call, Stephanie? Your evil twin?
The audio is from Guy Benson; it’s from a May 2012 conference call where Mr.
Soptic recounted his story – without mentioning the details that Romney wasn’t
with Bain at the time of the layoff; that his wife still had healthcare until
she lost her job, years later; and that five years passed between M’. Soptic’s
layoff and Mrs. Soptic’s cancer diagnosis – and
Stephanie Cutter was not only on the call. She introduced
Joe Soptic, then wrapped up his testimony….
Desperation is an ugly thing to look at and the Obama
campaign is looking uglier and uglier.
The lies are flowing more and more freely.
2. Business
People are voting with their contributions
Four
years ago, employees of New York-based Goldman gave three-fourths of their
campaign donations to Democratic candidates and committees, including
presidential nominee Barack Obama. This
time, they’re showering 70 percent of their contributions on Republicans.
That’s
the biggest switch among the 25 companies whose employees have given the most
to candidates and parties since 1989, according to data through June 30
compiled by Bloomberg from the Center for Responsive Politics, a
Washington-based research group that tracks campaign donations. Goldman isn’t
alone; 13 of the companies’ employees
are now giving more to Republicans after backing Democrats four years ago.
“A switch in party preference of
this magnitude is virtually unheard of among major companies with an
established presence in Washington,” said Rogan Kersh, provost
at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Dallas-based AT&T Inc.
employees, who
divided their contributions evenly between the parties in 2008, are now giving almost two-thirds of them to
Republicans. Chairman Randall Stephenson gave $30,800 to the Republican
National Committee in February -- his biggest donation in more than two decades
-- six weeks after the Obama administration rejected a proposed merger with
T-Mobile USA Inc.
“We
don’t comment on personal contributions,” said Claudia Jones, AT&T’s
spokeswoman.
General Electric Giving
Employees of GE are giving 63
percent of their contributions to Republicans this year, almost a mirror image
of their distribution in 2008 when Democrats received 66 percent of their
donations….
Another sign of desperation for the Obama campaign as even
as they hold power they are losing donors.
That isn’t the way it’s supposed to be.
Businesses are practical and give to insure access. The Obama Administration’s hostility toward
businesses has changed the rules and the results.
3.The Coming Landslide
… In consequence, none of these
psephologists has reflected adequately on the
significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of
Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected,
on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob
McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that
took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a
strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is
a harbinger of what we will see this November.
Yes, Barack Obama is ahead in some
polls. And, yes, it looks like a neck-and-neck race. But that is because the President is spending everything that he has
right now in a desperate attempt to demonize Mitt Romney, and it is because
Americans are not yet paying attention. Obama’s
support is a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep….
…Romney wants to win. He is a man of vigor, and he has a wonderful
case to make. He is a turn-around artist, and this country desperately needs
turning around. Barack Obama has no
argument to make. He can only promise more of the same -- yet another
stimulus and higher taxes on the investing class. All that Romney has to do if he wants to win is to make himself
presentable, and that should not be hard. He is handsome, tolerably
well-spoken, and accomplished. If, in the debates, he stands up to the
President, he will seem the more presidential of the two – and that will do the
trick, as it did in 1980.
The question that everyone will pose
to himself on the first Tuesday in November is this: “Do I want four more years of this?” And Romney can drive it home:
“Do you want four more years of massive unemployment? Do you want four more
years of food stamps? Do you want to lose the job that you have? Do you want to
be out of work when you get out of college? Or do you want to see this country
get moving again? Barack Obama took his
shot – the stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. And where has it left us?
With the most anemic recovery in the history of this country!”…
…Second, he needs to force Obama to
make errors. To this end, he needs to
get under the President’s skin. He did this to Newt Gingrich in Florida, and it
worked like a charm. Obama is even
vainer than Newt, and he cannot stand mockery. Moreover, he hates Romney
with all the resentment that phony intellectuals ordinarily harbor for
successful businessmen. The gentler the mockery in this case, the lighter the touch, the more devastating
it will be. Romney’s theme should be that the poor fellow is just not up to the job and that he should be
left free to spend all of his time doing what he really enjoys -- playing golf.
The SuperPACs may be able to carry the ball on this…
…In the meantime, you should not be
afraid. This is going to be fun, and our
margin of victory is going to be large.
I agree the margin is going to be big. Obama will not be able to alter the facts
that the economy is in horrible shape.
Throughout our history, the economy has been the factor that has
defeated Presidents running for reelection.
4. Liberals and Religious Bigotry
…
For decades, the American left has aggressively attempted to redefine
constitutionally enumerated rights to favor one or more groups over
others. If the Declaration of Independence were to be rewritten by
today's liberals, it might begin something like this:
American progressives hold these truths to be self-evident:
- All cultures and religions are
equally meritorious (except for Christianity)
- There is no objective truth (until and
unless progressives declare the truth)
- You cannot legislate morality
(Therefore, everything is "moral" -- except Christian morality)
- Progressives celebrate diversity
and are tolerant,
inclusive, and accepting of all fellow humans (except conservative, white
and Christian people)
- Progressives are intelligent,
thoughtful, reality-based, and benevolent
Objective?
Diverse? Inclusive? Thoughtful? Reality-based?
Benevolent? Not really. Progressives
-- liberals -- are the worst offenders of their own axioms when they talk about
the "evils" of those who dispute liberal versions of facts, policy,
or, especially, morality. The bigotry liberals direct toward those
with whom they merely disagree is staggering.
Liberals believe in free speech,
unless it offends someone's tender sensitivities (meaning only that liberals
disagree with it). They protest the "wealthiest 1%," but exempt
from their condemnations billionaire liberals and wealthy movie and rock stars,
most of whom share the same ideology. Many liberals believe corporations -- and capitalism itself -- to be
evil, even though the capitalist system and many of the corporations of
which they disapprove have created the products and standard of living liberals
enjoy.
But
the American left reserves its ugliest
bigotry for Christians. When liberals speak or write about practicing
Christians, especially evangelical Christians and, in this presidential
election year, Mormons, no slander is
unacceptable and no religious custom is off-limits. America's most
prominent liberal has condescendingly denigrated Christians as "bitter
clingers" to guns and religion. Liberals have (seriously) asked:
"Do All Evangelical Leaders Believe Gays Should Be Put to Death?” They
worry about reports that evangelicals are voting in record numbers. And they invent scenarios which question
whether religious convictions resonate in the political arena. Every
Christian, of any age or gender, is fair game for liberal animosity -- or left-wing
redefinition. Liberals bash Christians
with impunity, because Christians are...well...Christian, and behave in a
Christian manner from which liberals fear no reprisal. Ironic, huh?
And opportunistic, too.
No one on the left would dare
speak of Muslims the way they do about Christians. Doing so would violate
the liberal orthodoxy of multiculturalism, but, more importantly, such behavior
might invite retaliation from some in the Muslim community. Apparently,
there is nothing like a savage history and a continuing, credible threat of
violence to immunize a group from liberal animus, to focus the liberal mind,
and to encourage liberals to attend to their own affairs….
Its open seasons for the left on Christianity.
5. Voter Fraud: Does it exist?
In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic
lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is
a problem that doesn't exist.
Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by
Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout.
That argument becomes much harder to
make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by
conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official
Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter
fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota
is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not
only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen.
Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was
impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people
had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725
votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies
dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first
canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206
votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner
by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the
election.
During the controversy a
conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter
fraud. Comparing criminal records with
voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote --
who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race….
So far a
total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an
election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by
Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote,
strongly favor Democrats, it appears voter fraud is a problem that can change
election results.
6. Fluke vs Rachel (Chick-fil-A
employee)
This is a video of The Five discussing Sandra Fluke vs
Rachel Elizabeth. Tell us what you think
in the comments. Who is classier? Who is more opportunistic?
7. Klavan on the Culture: MSM Glossary
After watching and listening to mainstream media news reports of the
presidential race, you may have begun to realize that our
journalists use words in a different way than the rest of us. This
is because they are highly trained news experts who
have developed a precise technical language in order to explain things
more exactly. So to help you decipher their coverage, I’d like to offer a
partial glossary of terms that may come in handy over the next couple of
months.
Let’s begin with the word g
affe. Now and then you may hear a
news “person” say something like, “Mitt Romney made a
gaffe!”
or “Mitt Romney’s foreign trip was full of
gaffes!” or “Wow,
that Barack Obama, he’s so darned wonderful, he never makes a
gaffe!”
and you may wonder what that particular word means.
Gaffe comes from the french word for “hook.”
A gaffe is
something a Republican says that is absolutely true, but that can be twisted
like a hook to sound false or embarrassing by the journalist using the
gaffe.
For instance, when Mitt Romney
recently said that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that cultural
differences between the Israelis and Palestinians accounted for Israel’s
greater success, he was trying, in his silly, fumbling way, to say that
Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and that cultural differences between the
Israelis and Palestinians accounted for Israel’s greater success. But even
though these statements are not only wholly factual but also obvious, a
chronically dishonest PLO official pretended to be outraged, thus giving
journalists the opportunity to put in “the gaffe.”…
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/08/06/a-mainstream-media-glossary/?singlepage=true
Klavan is always fun. You can read or
watch the rest of his findings by clicking the link above.
