The post below was spreading round the web yesterday, I have reposted it to keep it moving along and persuading the as yet undecided US voters.
Conservative bloggers in the #VRWC unite to defeat Obama
A half-dozen conservative bloggers have united and will all have the same post on their blogs today in an effort to help defeat President Obama. Please read this post in its entirety and be sure to go visit each bloggers site via the links. I would also encourage anyone to reblog or link this post to get the word out to as many people as possible. Romney may not be the first choice for some of these contributors, but we can all agree that Obama must go so help us spread the word! Join us to help the undecided vote to stop the destruction of America!"Why bankruptcy is preferable to bailouts" by Spellchek
President Obama has been on a chest-thumping tour touting the success of
the bailouts both in the auto industry as well as the financial
industry.Supporters and critics alike have focused upon what constitutes
a success.Some will calculate the cost to the taxpayers.Others will
focus on the jobs saved.It is these glass half-empty/half-full arguments
that highlight the crux of the problem.Bailouts v. bankruptcy is not an
apples to apples comparison.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.
"The Libyan Scandal" by What Would The Founders Think
Politicians lie. There is nothing that is earth-shattering about this
statement. Presidents are politicians and they generally adhere to the
stereotype.
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of morality, that one can understand how this callous president could refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road lead?
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of morality, that one can understand how this callous president could refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road lead?
"Barack Hussein Obama & The Race Card" by Mind Numbed Robot
Barack Hussein Obama was swept into office by a wave of voters willing
to give the new guy a shot. He offered a chance to redeem America from
its original sin and at the same time promised to end the bi-partisan
bickering of politics as usual in the DC beltway. He was a relative
unknown on the national scene and took every advantage of that fact.
After all, when a candidate doesn't have a record to campaign on, it's
much easier to paint himself as the elixir for the times.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.
"US Relations With Islamic Countries — Another Reason To Vote For Romney" from Conservatives on Fire
Obama came into office with zero experience in anything useful. But,
narcissist that he is, he was sure that because his middle name was
Hussein and because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was a
child and because he had dreams from his Kenyan father that he could
single-handedly resolve all the problems between the Muslim nations of
the world and America.
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States. We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in 2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And, if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And, following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States. We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in 2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And, if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And, following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!
"Supreme Court is Another Reason to Vote Romney This November" by Motorcitytimes.com
I didn't support Romney in the primaries. However, after it became clear
that he was going to become our nominee, I had an offline discussion
with a smart and passionate Ron Paul supporter.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
"America's Need for Energy" by WyBlog
President Obama calls his energy strategy "all of the above". That's actually a good
description, because he's gung-ho for everything that's above the earth and
abosolutely opposed to using anything found below ground.
Coal? Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can, putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry, we can't drill for it, and we surely can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels anywhere near an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is instability. Those coal plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking. Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5 per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.
And there you have it. Six very good reasons to vote against Barack Obama and
for Mitt Romney. On November 6th the choice is yours.
Coal? Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can, putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry, we can't drill for it, and we surely can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels anywhere near an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is instability. Those coal plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking. Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5 per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.
Choose wisely!
No comments:
Post a Comment