President Romney Avoid Obama's Tread On Tea Party

The Cato Institute put together a presentation on the Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party. This information is key to understanding the mistake made by President Barack Obama against the tea party. A mistake that doomed the presidency of Barack Obama and left America divided and economically damaged. It is a mistake that President Mitt Romney must avoid for the good of the country. President Obama proved incapable of compromise and instead ignored, opposed and tread upon the tea party.

President Obama could have found compromise with the tea party if he had listened to our concerns. First, the tea party was not solely comprised of Republicans who opposed him. The tea party is a grassroots movement that continues to gain support in 2012.

About half of the tea party is comprised of libertarians who share some commonalities with liberals. Economics and lifestyle liberty are highly valued by libertarians. Lifestyle liberties include gay marriage and opposition to the anti-drug war. While the tea party is focused upon economic liberty issues, a competent politician uses common ground as a basis for negotiation and compromise.

President Romney has an easier path in shaping a coalition with the tea party to help fix America's economic problems. However, Barack Obama could have listened to the concerns of the tea party and formed a powerful political movement. Democrat President Bill Clinton compromised with Newt Gingrich's Republican Congress during the late 1990's to solve the economic issues of the day.

One key reason that President Obama did not compromise was due to his dangerously rigid progressive ideology. Barack Obama was unable to recognize that anger against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in September 2008 had lead to his election. TARP angered future tea party supporters and partisan Republicans. Senator John McCain failed to challenge the TARP program as anger mounted in his core constituent group.

President Obama could have administered TARP while pursuing a more conservative economic policy. Instead the Democrats pushed through a failed stimulus package widely known as "Porkulus" in February 2009. The program famously featured jobs that "was not as shovel ready as we had thought" as President Obama put it. The President continued the failed policy through September 2011 with "Porkulus II." These programs ran up trillions of dollars in national debt while ensuring union labor jobs, funneling money to political donors and "picking losers" in the green energy sector.

President Romney has an excellent opportunity to reverse these failures with broad-based support for fiscal austerity and economic conservatism. If Mitt Romney does not make these tough economic decisions, it may be seen as betrayal of the tea party support that currently accounts for 6 out of 10 Republican primary voters.

Future Vice President Paul Ryan is the leading voice for economic sanity as Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget. This will help team Romney, but the tea party will be watching closely. Tea party libertarians are neither loyal and devout Republican partisans nor supportive of authority.

The goal of the tea party movement is to restore economic liberty. The movement knows that liberty requires diligence. The diligent efforts of tea party organizers, activists and supporters has lead to growing popular support for nearly four years.

If tread upon by a Romney administration, the tea party movement is capable of reaching out to disaffected liberals. Americans will be facing a difficult economic situation in 2013. The mainstream media will quickly turn hostile to the Romney administration.  Administration lies like 9/11 Benghazi would be met with vicious reporting. Left-wing media and organizers will be receptive to criticism against a Romney administration from battle tested tea party activists who appeal to their sentiments on loyalty, authority and sanctity.

President Romney avoid this mistake, Don't Tread on Me.

Tea Party Vs Obama Administration in VP Debate

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is not the leader of the tea party, but he will do. In 2009, the tea party formed to oppose the trillion dollar deficits and crony capitalist corruption of top down, trickle down big government. We tea party types did not seek to impeach or even vilify President Obama. We just wanted to be heard.  If the president had embraced our proven solutions, the world would be a much safer and happier place today.

Millions of tea party Americans and yours truly would give our right arms to debate President Obama or even Joe Biden. The goal would be to convince the administration and the American people of the correct course and scope of government. A few witty swipes would be taken in such a debate, but in 2009 or 2010 it would have saved millions of American families and untold foreigners from many of the recent massive economic hardships.

The closest event of this nature was Paul Ryan's epic take down of ObamaCare in February 2010. In six minutes, Rep. Ryan eviscerated President Obama's "Affordable Care Act." In the end, the president pushed the bill through regardless of Rep. Ryan's warnings, proving Barack Obama's intractable nature. Here is the clip:

"...a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors."

In April 2011, Rep. Ryan proposed the first U.S. Budget to pass in several years. It passed in the House of Representatives, but the Democrat controlled Senate and the President failed to approve the bill. Due to this Democrat failure, America has continued wandering economically without a clear path.

The VP pick of Rep. Ryan has been the highlight of the 2012 election cycle. There are few others who can fill his shoes on the important fiscal issues facing America. If there is a flaw in the Paul Ryan VP pick, it is that there are no proven replacements for him in the House of Representatives to chair the budget committee.

If a magic lamp's genie had granted the tea party three wishes, the upcoming Ryan/Biden VP debate may have made the list. After Mitt Romney's unmasking of our fictionalized president, the Ryan/Biden VP debate will be the icing on the cake. The upcoming debate should be put in movie theaters as a "Joe Biden double feature" with epic disaster movie "2012."

The debate will aired on most major news networks on Thursday, October 11 from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm PST. CSPAN has excellent coverage starting at 5:30 pm PST for those who wish to skip the political pundits. The debate will be moderated by ABC News’ Martha Raddatz.

Martha Raddatz is a friend of Barack Obama as the President attended her wedding in 1991, per the Daily Caller:

Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

Regardless of the stacking of the deck in favor of the Democrat incumbents, and current VP Joe Biden's 40 year debating career as a U.S. Senator, Rep. Paul Ryan is the obvious favorite on Thursday. In addition to the tea party's four years of economic preparation, Rep. Ryan is honing his skills as you read this. Paul Ryan has been preparing for the debate with attorney Ted Olson, who's wife was killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Republican attorney famously argued in federal court for same sex marriage and against Proposition 8. Paul Ryan is against same sex marriage.

At a LGBT dinner in Washington D.C. in March, the renowned attorney called the battle against Proposition 8 “the highlight of my life” and “this is the most important thing we’ve done in our lives,”

Olson served as Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration, and as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Administration of Ronald Reagan.

Vice President Joe Biden has been in Wilmington, Delaware preparing for the debate with senior campaign adviser David Axelrod. Biden increased his debate prep from four to six intense days after the first presidential debate.

This will be good!

Obama Lying to Women About Rape

Enough. The entire "legitimate"/"forcible" rape discussion is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. That the media continues the lie is a disgustingly bias mutilation of the American system. The fact that this is now spun into a statement on women's health care is simply intolerable.

Allow me to set the record straight, then you can decide to continue reading or not.

Republicans are not against women's health, they are opposed to the government forcing Catholics and others into paying for abortions. The entire #WarOnWomen is a fantasy created to scare women into voting for Barack Obama.

Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin mistakenly used the term "legitimate" in place of "forcible" when discussing rape. Everyone in the news business understands the difference between statutory rape and "forcible rape." The difference is the lack of consent.

The term "forcible rape" is a legal definition used to distinguish between statutory rape and non-consensual rape. The term is used by legislators and law enforcement in the United States and in United Nations statistics.

Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether (the FBI's definition, for example, used to exclude all rapes except forcible rapes of females)

Statutory rapes are legally different and carry different criminal penalties than forcible rapes.

These definitions have important consequences to legislation. For example, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R)  recently removed the term "forcible" from legislation that may have harmed young victims of statutory rape, by forcing them to contact their rapist for child support before being able to qualify for state childcare assistance.

Lets look at the full context of the Todd Akin statement, in the event there is any doubt that his intention was to distinguish between statutory and forcible rape. His full comments during the Jaco Report interview is available here. The abortion and rape comments occurring in part two around the 1:56 mark:



After watching the entire context, it is clear that Rep. Akin

• Rep. Akin was very emotional at the moment he was speaking.
• Does not believe that it is impossible to get pregnant from a rape.
• He meant to distinguish between statutory rape and forcible rape. A point which he further explains here.

In addition to the Missouri Senatorial Candidate's recent comments, the media has attempted to tie Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan to the misstatement. The connection is attempted through the expressed legislative language "Forcible rape" within a recent proposed bill. A bill that neither Rep. Paul Ryan nor Rep. Todd Akin wrote, but both had supported as cosponsors in an effort to reduce public funding of abortion. The bill was titled: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."

In the original language, it also allowed exceptions in cases of "forcible rape." The term provoked an outcry from critics, who said that rape is by definition committed by force and that lawmakers were seeking to exclude from coverage certain kinds of rape by adding the modifier - for example, cases in which the victim was underage or unconscious.

The bill now would allow exceptions in all cases of rape.

A spokesman for Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), a chief sponsor of the bill, said Thursday that lawmakers decided to change the term because it was being "misconstrued."

(Update) Politifact has joined us in this fact finding mission:

For perspective, we checked the cosponsors of both the 2010 and 2011 introductions of the bill using THOMAS, the congressional database.

The version introduced July 29, 2010, included among its eventual 186 cosponsors all 20 Texas Republicans plus two Democrats -- Solomon Ortiz of Corpus Christi and Henry Cuellar of Laredo -- from the 32-member Texas delegation.
...
We looped back to Angle with our findings on the cosponsors and the intent of the bill. Angle told us that he believes the Texas Republicans showed by cosponsoring the bill that they supported making a legal distinction between rape and forcible rape.

Additionally, the bill had sparked a heated debate in which major far left abortion advocates became unhinged.

The "Protect Life Act" would prohibit federal funding of abortions under the national health care overhaul. It also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions.
...
The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display at Tuesday's Senate Democratic news conference. Lautenberg said the Pitts and Smith bills sound "like a third-world country that's requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces even if they don't want to do it."

The emotional nature of the debate made any mention of abortion a misconstrued mess in the minds of the far left. This is the entire genesis of the false narrative attempting to tie Paul Ryan and the distinction between statutory rape and forcible rape to a Missouri candidate who mistakenly used the term "legitimate."

Rep. Paul Ryan has since clarified the situation by making a public statement that the term "forcible rape" is stock language when writing laws.

Can the media and the Obama campaign now stop with the lies? No.

President Obama and his allies in the media are a bunch of liars who try to use scare tactics against women. It is simply DISGUSTING. The government controlled media and the Democrats are a disgrace.

Economic Report: Tea Party Congress Job Creation

Two days ago, we reviewed Bill Clinton's Spitting Lies about Barack Obama's leadership. Today, America's jobs numbers were updated. We updated portions of our report to keep you armed with the best data available.

The DNC convention speeches were full of lies, but here is one very important lie that we can review with official numbers.

Bill Clinton: "So here is another jobs score. President Obama: plus four and a half million. Congressional Republicans: zero."

President Clinton credited President Obama with creating jobs and preyed upon the ignorance of most Americans by failing to credit the tea party congress with any job creation.

Enter the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We will be using the number of employed Americans. These are not seasonally adjusted employment numbers because those adjustments are just guesses. Consider that as the population of adults grows, more people should be employed. This is decidedly different than using unemployment numbers.

History: Job growth 2002 to 2007 under President George W. Bush

During the 107th Congress, Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003, the budget controlling House of Representatives was Republican controlled while the Senate was Democrat controlled. The 108th Congress and 109th Congress, Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2007, were completely under Republican Control. Through this period, 10.098 million jobs were created.

Job growth 2007 to 2011 under Senator/President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats

In January 2007 the Democrat party took control of both houses of the 110th Congress. The 111th Congress continued absolute Democrat control, but added the Presidency of Barack Obama. It takes between 6 months and one year for fiscal policy to affect the economy. The Congress controls fiscal policy with the president holding only veto power. The "Impeach Bush" congress began to pursue economically destructive policies. The result was the loss of 10.506 million jobs from peak to trough (bottom).

Let's bend over backwards to be fair to Senator Obama after he became President Obama. Let's excuse his contribution to Democrat economic legislation for a moment. In that case, President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress lost 2.837 million jobs between Jan. 2009 and Jan. 2011.

The economy hit rock bottom in January 2010. It was an election year, which typically is a positive for the economy. Tea parties formed and started calling for economic sanity. Restrictions were requested for crony capitalist programs, including the bankruptcy of GM in which unions were given stolen money from thousands of bond holders. There was an economic bounce of 3.3 million jobs as Americans gained confidence due to tea party activism on top of standard economic cyclical factors.

The bounce ended on March 23, 2010 as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed without any Republican support. Over the next two months, Americans learned how destructive the law would be for economic and personal freedom and 2.525 million jobs evaporated. It was clear that the Senate would likely remain Democrat controlled in the November 2010 elections, fading hope for an immediate repeal.

The Democrats and President Barack Obama can rightfully claim .79 million new jobs from the absolute bottom of the recession. The tea party was not in congress and it is only fair to point out that some job growth occurred. If not for the Affordable Care Act, the economy may have launched upon a typical recovery path.

Job growth 2011 to present under Congressional Tea Party Republicans

Once the tea party Republicans gained control of the 112th Congress in January 2011, confidence began to return. Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat attacks demonized the calls for responsibility as "racist." Despite the constant legal and media attacks against the tea party, the majority of Americans heard the tea party economic solutions through alternative media like The San Diego Local Order of Bloggers.

The tea party congress "saved or created" 4.959 million jobs through August 2012 using President Obama's math. Much of that growth is due to opposing damaging Democrat policies. Another economic factor is simply restored confidence that grownups are in control of the House budget committee under Chairman Paul Ryan. The House of Representatives controls the federal budget and passed the Paul Ryan budget in April 2011.

The Democrat party had not pass a legally required federal budget for three years while in complete control of the government. The Democrat controlled United States Senate said no to the Paul Ryan budget and has left many jobs bills stalled. There is hope that some recent jobs bills will be approved in the Senate because Democrat control is up for vote during this year's election.

In response to Bill Clinton, the score on the economy is:
Congressional Republicans (2011-2012): 4.959 million 
President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats (2009-2011): -2.837 million
Congressional Democrats (2007-2011): -9.716 million

Despite being hamstrung by the Democrat controlled Senate and President Obama, America's faith in the tea party congress has paid off. Much of the sensible economic policy is attributed to Rep. Paul Ryan and the House of Representatives budget committee. Congress will be hard pressed to replace the leadership of Rep. Paul Ryan.

P.S.

One final graph detailing how the economy may have performed if not for the Affordable Care Act known as ObamaCare.

Bill Clinton Spitting Lies

The amount of lies and misrepresentations spit out by Bill Clinton was staggering. Some of the lies were sticky and one in particularly stuck to his lip for the entire speech. The slobber on his lip must have distracted many Americans who watched his speech.

We have known that the media has a slobbering love affair with President Obama, but come on! Ok, as a member of TheSlobs.org, we have no room to talk. So, let's get down to business...

The Clinton speech was a target rich environment for fact checking. In the interests of my own sanity, let's pick just one very important lie.

"So here is another jobs score. President Obama: plus four and a half million. Congressional Republicans: zero."

President Clinton credited President Obama with creating jobs and preyed upon the ignorance of most Americans by failing to credit the tea party congress with any job creation.

Enter the dragon, otherwise known as truth by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  We will be using the number of employed Americans. These are not seasonally adjusted employment numbers because those adjustments are just guesses. However, you should consider that as the population of adults grows, more people should be employed. This is decidedly different than using unemployment numbers.

Job growth 2002 to 2007 under President George W. Bush

The 107th Congress, Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003, the House of Representatives was Republican controlled while the Senate was Democrat controlled. The 108th Congress and 109th Congress, Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2007, were completely under Republican Control. Through this period, 10.098 million jobs were created.

Job growth 2007 to 2011 under Senator/President Barack Obama and Democrat control of Congress

In January 2007 the Democrat party took control of both houses of the 110th Congress. The 111th Congress continued absolute Democrat control, but added the Presidency of Barack Obama. It takes between 6 months and one year for fiscal policy to affect the economy. The Congress controls fiscal policy. The "Impeach Bush" congress began to pursue economically destructive policies. The result was the loss of 10.506 million jobs.

The economy hit rock bottom in January 2010. It was an election year, which typically is a positive for the economy. Tea parties formed and started calling for economic sanity. Restrictions were requested for crony capitalist programs, including the bankruptcy of GM in which unions were given stolen money from thousands of bond holders. There was an economic bounce of 3.3 million jobs as Americans gained confidence due to the tea party.

The bounce ended on March 23, 2010 as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed without any Republican support. Over the next two months, Americans learned how destructive the law would be for economic and personal freedom and 2.525 million jobs evaporated. It was clear that the Senate would likely remain Democrat controlled in the November 2010 elections, fading hope for an immediate repeal.

Job growth 2011 to present under Tea Party Control of Congress

Once the tea party gained control of the 112th Congress in January 2011, confidence began to return. Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat attacks demonized the calls for responsibility as "racist." Despite the constant legal and media attacks against the tea party, the majority of Americans heard the tea party economic solutions through alternative media like The San Diego Local Order of Bloggers.

The Democrats and President Barack Obama can rightfully claim .79 million new jobs from the absolute bottom of the recession. The tea party was not in congress and it is only fair to point out that some job growth occurred. If not for the Affordable Care Act, the economy may have launched upon a typical strong recovery path.

The tea party congress has brought 5.527 million jobs through July 2012. Much of that growth is due to opposing additional damaging Democrat policies. Another factor is simply restored confidence that grownups are in control of the House budget committee under Chairman Paul Ryan. The House of Representatives controls the federal budget and passed the Paul Ryan budget in April 2011.

The Democrat party did not pass a legally required federal budget for three years while in complete control of the government. The Democrat controlled United States Senate said no to the Paul Ryan budget and has left many jobs bills stalled. There is hope that some recent jobs bills will be approved in the Senate because Democrat control is up for vote during this year's election.

It is fair to say, that Democrat economic policy from Jan. 2007 through Jan. 2011 caused massive job loss.

P.S.

Here is a graphic with the relevant data in one pretty spot for your sharing, slobbering and blogging needs.

One other Democrat deception of note:

Gov. Mitt Romney took Massachusetts from 50th in employment to 28th.

This is a common Obama campaign talking point, but Patrick’s phrasing (“by the time he left office”) makes it especially inaccurate. The 47th ranking is the average for Romney’s entire term, when in fact Massachusetts started out at 50th place and ended up at 28th by the end of Romney term.

Tea Party vs. GOP: The Future

Mitt Romney will win the election in November. He has grassroots support from the tea party and the selection of Paul Ryan has cemented it. Gov. Romney must now concentrate on independent and moderate voters and make the case that he is the better choice for America. In that, Mitt will not fail.

Mitt, being a moderate Republican who won in Democrat controlled Massachusetts, is well suited to the task of winning moderate votes. As a man with a business background, he is better equipped to run America than his opponent. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a better team, and they have my support.

With that said, once elected they will have to win my support on a day by day basis. This is because the GOP establishment opposes the grassroots movement. This is true in San Diego where volunteers have been replaced by donation-paid staff, soviet-style party rules and intimidation.  It is true in the state of California where the party is a complete failure. This is true at the national level, as is now evidenced by Tuesday's assault on Ron Paul supporters, tea party supporters and other grassroots groups with the introduction of rules 15, 16 and 12 during the convention.

Fellow SLOB, Republican Mother's article over at Left Coast Rebel, "Rules Change = Dictatorship"outlines the story of rules 15, 16 and 12.

...if Mitt gets his way with this new rule change, he'll be the one selecting all the RNC delegates in 2016, meaning that the grassroots will be mowed down permanently. This has not only (Ron) Paulers upset, but your run of the mill Tea Party types like Dick Armey, Michelle Malkin and even Mark Levin.

Additional Left Coast Rebel reporting continues:

Unfortunately,  just because I haven't tuned in doesn't mean I'm not privy to the GOP establishment's delegate/grassroots shafting that just took place...

In short, rule 15 was renumbered rule 16 after being watered down. Rule 15 would have allowed the national party to veto state-elected delegates. It was effectively an establishment purge of the grassroots.The grassroots would no longer be a factor in selecting candidates. It was compromised and rewritten as rule 16 due to backlash.

Rule 12 allows for rules to be written between conventions. This empowers a group of establishment elitists to mold the party without grassroots input. Further, it makes the compromise on rule 16 null and void because a new rule could be created between conventions with no knowledge or input from the state parties.

Speaker of the House John Boehner passed rule 12 "unanimously" over an equal number of "nays" as witnessed by the following report:

Watch until about 2:39:00 when Speaker of the House John Boehner takes the podium and asks for a voice vote on the rules. The “nays” from the floor were at least as loud as the “yeas,” but Boehner approved the rules “without objection.”
What a joke.
Meanwhile, a North Dakota delegate texted me from the floor of the convention saying that they were instructed to chant “USA” (you can hear it during the video) to drown out the dissenters.

The tea party is often attacked by the progressive left. We know that the press and people like Aaron Sorkin demonize us due to their ignorance. Higher ranking progressive fear us as the embodiment of America's individualist ideals. These blinded progressives are about to be confronted by the reality of the tea party.

Because tea party sentiment was conceived at the end of the Bush administration, a narrative of "racism" and anti-Obamaism was established by the statists. President Obama is worse than President Bush, but conservatives were horrified by the final months of the Bush administration. We had faith that a president who had brought 4%+ GDP growth for several years was knowledgeable enough to understand that bank bailouts and TARP was a bad idea. When that faith was betrayed, even by 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, new leaders emerged. Leaders like Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (R) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R) began to call for fiscal sanity.

President Obama took office and made matters worse. If he had listened to the voices of the tea party, he would have had a massively successful presidency.  The president is a basketball fan, as am I. To put the issue in that vernacular, he should have played the presidency "inside-out." Shore up your "inside game", in this case domestic policy and support from grassroots groups. "Get other players involved" by passing the ball to the tea party on issues where we are wide open to score. After the "inside" game is strong, start passing "outside" for game-changing foreign policy shots with misses rebounded by the strong "inside" game.

Instead he hogged the ball. President Obama never broke down the defense. He left financial conservatives in the wings to "get cold." Every shot he took since has been contested and his misses have led to easy points for his opponents.

This analogy breaks down because the President has missed almost all of his shots. His only "three pointer" is the Bin Laden raid. Even in this, he wants full credit instead of acknowledging the American military. He has been a bad player for America. If this were actually basketball, he would have hit a better percentage or the coach would have pulled him from the game.

Back to reality:

Like many establishment Republicans, President Obama did not understand the credibility and power of the tea party. Many on the left are about to understand, because the grassroots tea party is about to take on the GOP establishment. We shall be the force that holds them accountable.

So much for the calls of racism and anti-Obamaism. Indisputable evidence will gather that the tea party is not against anyone, we are for America. We are Republican and Democrat. We are socially conservative and liberal. We are America.

Gov. Mitt Romney is not a tea party candidate. Mitt has a business background and can throw rhetoric to the tea party. However, his actions and policies are too often top-down. RomneyCare is one example. His campaign's push for rules 12, 15 and 16 is a foreshadowing of trouble ahead.. This is their "pro-active" response to insulate President Romney from tea party backlash.

President Romney can side with us or against us. His decision will define his presidency. The question Mitt must answer is not whether we believe in him, but whether he believes in us.

It appears that the tea party will be President Romney's loyal opposition. There may be a short lull as many conservatives breath a sigh of relief to the end of an error. Personally, I had hoped that the lull would be several months but it appears we needed to be energized Tuesday as the convention rules were "Boehnered." The first shot has been fired upon us.

Was Paul Ryan duped?

The Paul Ryan pick for VP seems like an olive branch to the tea party. Rep. Ryan has been the leader of congressional calls for fiscal responsibility. After the events of the convention on Tuesday, it appears that Representative Ryan will be put on ice in the VP slot. Without Paul Ryan leading congress, the hard-won branch of government required to control spending is leaderless. A major force in credible leadership against massive spending has been removed from the equation.

Rep. Ryan will assist in winning the Oval Office. He adds gravitas in the policy discussion of the national budget.  Paul Ryan shores up tea party grassroots support.  Liberator Today comments upon the impressiveness of Paul Ryan's Wednesday Speech from a tea party perspective:

The best line in his speech was about the so called Affordable Care Act:

Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.

The way he emphasized the words free country got my attention. It is that freedom which is under assault, ...

If team Romney is looking ahead to see fight with the grassroots, the Paul Ryan pick is a triple-win for the GOP establishment. One of the fangs of tea party fiscal conservatism has been pulled.

It is time to ask for support from left-leaning Americans. Tea party supporters will prove to be motivated solely by the best intentions for America. In the coming months, the tea party has the opportunity to prove itself as the core of America. The core of an America which values both heart and mind and has traditionally found solution for liberals and conservatives.

It's the case that the tea party has better solutions for all Americans. Humanity is best when hearts and minds are focused upon the same task. Thus far, false accusations have kept many liberals hearts from our fold. It is time to appeal to the fiscally conservative and moderate liberals who love America as the land of opportunity. It is time to present solutions that will sooth fears about "the end of upward social mobility."  It is time for the media to clear it's vision, and present our solutions instead of their fears.

The people in the tea party have differing strengths. Some can explain the damage of illegal immigration, and others the folly of centralized planning. We only need a microphone or a camera. People will see that the tea party could easily be named the Party of Reagan or the Party of Americans. It is the future, if we keep working.

It is incumbent upon us to send a message to liberal Americans. "The tea party will be the ones holding the GOP's feet to the fire. The false narrative that the tea party is "racist" against President Obama is over. It is time to have a discussion about solutions. Working together we can create even better solutions. It is time for your support. Together we will take America back to prosperity."

Progressives: Paul Ryan is the Devil

Over at the the Huffington Post, George Lakoff's Romney, Ryan and The Devil's Budget has jumped the shark with a jet pack. Once again progressives sink to fear, misinformation and vilification. Here are a few excerpts: 

The government's job was to carry out that moral vision and to do so it created what we call The Public, the provision of basic protection and empowerment for all.

Where is that in the Constitution? Morality is the job of government.

The Government is not "The Public" the two entities are separate. We The People approved The Constitution and all laws must flow from that as it is the only law approved directly by the people in US history. It enumerates the powers of The Government and all other powers assumed by The Government are taken at the expense of the states and of the people (The New Deal, etc..). These added powers are not moral. These powers were given to the states and the people because central government is not capable of morality. It is not capable of fulfilling these duties.

Budgets are moral documents. National, state, and local budgets are commitments about where and how to carry out the work of America's soul, or to abandon it. A national budget that abandons the Public and the freedoms it gives us is selling America's very soul. Such a budget is the Devil's Budget. It uses numbers for an evil purpose: to rob us of our basic everyday freedom.

"Budgets are moral documents." So Democrats failure to pass a budget for several years indicates their lack of morals? Does that mean that Barack Obama's zero vote budgets indicate that his morals are completely out of step with the American people?

Second, who would propose a Devil's Budget? Paul Ryan. Who wants to put it in effect? Mitt Romney.

The Devil is seductive. He is handsome, strong, charming, sincere, engages you in gentlemanly and respectful debate. He says he is on your side, that you are in a crisis. He offers to solve your crisis and makes it sound good. 

Did George proof read this?

The money is there. America is richer than she has ever been.

Laughable.

Those who advocate for such a budget may not be individually evil. That is an independent issue. Demonizing others is its own kind of evil, and we do not apply the name to Romney, Ryan or others. Perhaps many who advocate a Devil's Budget know not what they do.

...

Let's take "a while" to be until 2050. Derek Thompson, in TheAtlantic.com on March 21, 2012, surveyed The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." 

Government is a godless god and the worship of it leads to misery. The proof is in the deficits. No matter how you slice it, entitlement deficits create a situation where only interest on the debt can be paid and all other government services are eventually cut off.  Government growth leads to the destruction of the nation. It "collapses the system," as progressives know all to well.

This article points out that the Ryan budget saves the military, as it is one of the few constitutional duties of the federal government. It is a step in the right direction. However, the article fails to identify why this is the situation we face. 

Thank goodness grown-ups will be in charge again after November.  

But wait, it gets better... Lakoff then demonizes the majority of Americans and of course Paul Ryan is the Devil.

The biggest lie is that there is, or should be, no Public. The biggest lie is that Democracy is about personal freedom alone, about the "liberty" to seek your own interests with no responsibility for the interests or well-being of your fellow citizens. The biggest lie is a moral lie.

The idea of American Individualism is a moral lie. There can be no Individualism without The Public. Individualism can only begin where The Public leaves off. Individualism begins after the roads are built, after individualists have had an education, after medical research has cured their diseases, after the individualists have received from The Public land grants, grazing, water, and mineral leases, oil and agriculture subsidies, after they have received crucial patents.

Are individualists willful liars? We doubt it. To lie, you have to know that you are lying and intending to deceive. ... And there is a reason for this blindness that follows from the way brains work.

You think with your brain; all thoughts are physical, a matter of the activation of brain circuits called "frames." Everything you understand uses frame-circuits that structure how you think. Without the right frame-circuits, there are facts you just will not be able to make sense of. The frames come in hierarchies, with moral frames at the top. With an extreme conservative morality, you will have an Individualism frame governing your political and economic frames. The fact that real individual achievements depend on what The Public provides to give them their start and help them along will not be comprehensible to extreme conservatives. Why? Because they do not have the American moral frame that requires both personal and social responsibility; the conservative moral frame has only personal responsibility, and the closest thing to social responsibility is imposing personal responsibility alone maximally in every area of life.

More "You didn't build that" and if you think you did, you must be an idiot or liar. "The idea of American Individualism is a moral lie. There can be no Individualism without The Public." This is laughable, academic nonsense from the perspective of reliance upon others to assign grades, merit and accolades. My rights as an individual do not depend upon government and they were not granted by government. At best, government is established to secure my individualism.

Paul Ryan is a personable individualist and extreme conservative. And he is smart -- seen as an intellectual by his conservative colleagues because has mastered budget policy enough to construct a Devil's Budget with all the right numbers. Not the right numbers to eliminate the deficit, as Paul Krugman has observed. But the right numbers to eliminate The Public, which is the real conservative goal.

Continue to make the case that progressives want to be "good" masters, but masters.  This is the wrong country for that nonsense. Continue to vilify honest, educated, moral people. Continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is unenlightened, idiotic, uneducated or "Evil." Individualist Americans understand the consequences of these words when put into policy. George Lakoff continues to make the case that progressives should never again be in charge of a nation of men. 

This progressive article must have been written for the unthinking zombie horde.

Hat tip: Karin Summerford

Obama Lies About $4 Trillion Budget Savings

President Obama lies again. This time he says that his fourth budget has $4+ trillion dollars in spending cuts over 10 years. His own numbers show otherwise. Net spending increases by $1.5 trillion with $1.9 trillion in net tax increases. So over 10 years, the Obama budget would only decrease baseline deficit spending by $400 billion or $40 billion per year on average. This is out of a $3.8+ trillion government budget.

To put this into personal perspective, the government is taking $22,000/year tax free and spending about $38,000/year. Obama proposes to reduce the deficit by $400/year. The proposed reduction comes from robbing the tax payers through additional harmful taxation while increasing spending.

The Obama budget adds $11.2 trillion to the national debt in 10 years. Meanwhile, Obama wants credit for Republican budget cuts from 2011 which he opposed. The President's budget counts war spending as "baseline" spending at current levels for 10 years. War spending is passed as supplemental spending by the congress. The executive branch has little power over such allocations unless it is Obama's intention to engage in new wars for the next 10 years.

TownHall.com has an excellent write up by Guy Benson if you want to pursue more information. They point out the excellent job Paul Ryan is doing fighting the Obama budget lies:

Three clips, each one as delicious as the next.  First, watch House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan systematically destroy the Obama budget "savings" farce, a process made even more enjoyable by acting White House Budget Director Jeffrey Zients' feeble attempts to push back:

Click to Enlarge

Bernanke Warns House Budget Committee about U.S. Debt

Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke's testified to Paul Ryan's House Budget Committee this morning. The overall message of the testimony was that the sluggish economy is very vulnerable and massive government debt is leading to serious consequences for the future of our country. We note that Barack Obama will have increased the national debt by more than $6 trillion, greater than $20,000 per American, by the end of his 4 year term.

Some highlights:

• "higher interest rates, bigger deficits, bigger debt" 
• "Slow growth in some European countries"
• "massive fiscal contraction in 2013 will disrupt the economy"
• Cut spending
• Cut the deficit
• 2017 until "normalized" economy with 5% to 6% unemployment
• "Inflation goal is 2%"
• 2011 1.7% GDP growth, the Fed had estimated 3.4 to 3.9% GDP growth
• 2012 GDP growth Fed estimate was 3.5% to 4.4% has been revised down to 2% GDP growth
• Bernanke is "not concerned" about inflation because the fed can "simply sell assets" or "raise interest rates" 
• "the question is whether we tighten (interest rates) too early or too late"
• "small businesses cannot access bank credit."
• We need sound energy policy:  "companies want clarity about what energy sources are going to be used. The main issues there are environmental."
• Households face significant headwinds in the economy
• America currently has "under utilization of capital and labor"
• We need to fix the housing market
• We "gotta have a creditable plan in place...into the next decade"
• Revenue increases and government discretionary spending restraint are not enough to deal with long term structural deficit.
• "You could cut discretionary spending to zero and not solve the problem in the long term."
• "changing the taxes on higher income individuals, but that by itself is not going to close the budget deficit either."
• "I don't know of another comprehensive plan (other than the Ryan plan)."
• "The elephant in the room is health care costs. We are heading toward 9 or 10% of GDP just from federal spending on health care and another 8 or 9% in private health care spending."
• "...the things we are spending on, are they going to help our economy? ...Will they help our economy grow in the long run?... on the tax side, are we moving towards a more efficient more effective tax code? Simpler, fairer and light... the way the money is spent, they way the money is collected makes a difference in terms of jobs and growth."
• Capital Gains: "Tax consumption rather than saving or investment. That is the rational for lower rates on capital gains and capital income. There is some effect on the rate of after tax rate of return on investment decisions but there is disagreement about how strong it is."
• "for innovative industries, I think we generally agree that the private sector is better. China is an example (of a communist state)...they allow the private sector a large roll in the development of new industries."
• "The private sector, because of the profit motive and so on, is often better at innovating (than government.)...government investments in the space program and the internet have paid off."
• Taxes reductions would have created a better economic outcome than stimulus: "the private sector, clearly, is where the decisions about what industries and products should take place."
• European Central Banking (ECB) system is under capitalized.
• ECB money swap agreements: "3 or 4% increase in the high powered money supply."
• "the question is not that if tax cuts fully pay for themselves." Bernanke assumes they do not immediately pay for themselves, but "The question is whether they increase efficiency and growth but not whether they fully pay for themselves."
• Why Canada's economy is better off: because "banks did not get involved in sub prime mortgages."
• Rep. Diane Black, Republican from Tennessee, summarizes Ben Bernanke's testimony on the national debt as "debt crowds out private capital, reduces productivity growth which results in more borrowing and increases our future income devoted to interest payments which increases the amount of debt. (National debt) impairs the ability of policymakers to respond effectively to future shocks or adverse events. Unsustainable deficits increase the possibility of sudden fiscal crisis."

While the Fed chairman testified the stock market was slightly up as oil prices were down slightly. The interesting aspect of the market during the testimony was in gold and silver prices. The long term threats of inflation and interest rates due to the massive national deficit are pushing up gold and silver. Gold has been up as much as 14 points this morning at $1763.50/ounce and silver was up as much as .50 cents at $34.51. 

"Bull" markets in gold and silver commodities traditionally coincide with a "bear" stock market. The fact that these commodity prices are up and the stock market is not in free fall is significant. It could point to a devaluation of the dollar in real terms which would inflate prices of all assets including stocks.

Several Democrats cites Obama's lie about creating 3 million jobs which we outlined on January 24th. The CBO recently estimated that the stimulus only reduced unemployment by 1.8% at its peak. The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its revised unemployment numbers, Current Population Survey (CPS), on February 3, 2012. Changes to data collected on unemployment duration in BLS statistics will be included in this new release.