Pause for this Ted Cruz Campaign Commercial

Can Glenn Beck prove media complicity in Obama's Libya cover up?!?

Last night, Newt claimed to have information that two media outlets are knowingly assisting the White House in the Bengazi cover up:

Today, Glenn Beck claims to have the goods, but that he'll give the media a couple days to come clean:

 As Matt Drudge would say: Developing....

Will Feminism Produce Economic and Social Collapse?!?

This woman takes 35 minutes to make a point via evolution and economic determinism that Genesis 2:24 makes in 21 words, but it's interesting nonetheless:

Highlights:

• Feminism will lead to Economic and Social Collapse.

• Feminism is a result, not a cause, of Economic Prosperity.

• Statistically speaking, a woman can't raise her children safely and effectively without a man.

• Men -- Surplus of Labor, Shortage of Reproductive Ability; Broads (yeah, I said it) -- The Opposite

• Traditionally, the woman's sexuality became property of the man and his labor became her property.

• Feminists are only capable of telling half-truths.

• Being a deadbeat dad is just as bad as being a slut.

• Marriage protects women from being abandoned after peak fertility.

• For society to function, you need strong backs (men) and the ability to replace strong backs (broads).

• Daddy State -- Men pay government, women get public benefits; much more expensive than Families.
• Eventually, men will stop paying into system
• Leads to Unproductive Sons and Dependent Daughters

• Divorce doesn't increase GDP, it's redistributes existing production; Bastiat's Broken Windows.

• 25% of men in the UK are unemployable.

• Men with children work 44 hours of paid employment per week; broads, if they choose to work, average 35.

Author's note: Yes, I use the phrase 'broads' multiple times in this piece; lighten up, it's a joke!

Pastor Jim Garlow: Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2011

I tried to find Pastor Garlow's sermon from this past Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find the sermon from this year.  Last year's sermon, however, is pretty fantastic.



Highlights:

• Censoring Churches via the IRS was an unintended consequence of legislation advanced by Lyndon Johnson in 1954.

• In 57 years, this law has never been tested in Court.

• The Church was tax-exempt before the IRS even existed.

• Acts 4:20 was the first time something like this happened; the Apostles refused to comply.

• When Ceaser starts demanding that which is God's, we do not have to comply.

• Abortion -- We start there because its a foundational issue
• If you don't have life, you don't have anything else.
• Human Rights begin at the moment of Conception.
• Tearing up babies in the womb is not a good thing.
• One fifth of all pregnancies in America end in abortion.

Eliminate Texas' Business Margin Tax

Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation endorsed eliminating Texas' Business Margins Tax.  Cahnman's Musings wholeheartedly concurs.  Unlike TPPF, however, I would prefer to dismantle the tax immediately.

Texas' Business Margins Tax is notoriously cockamamie.  It doesn't raise much revenue, and compliance is a pain in the backside.  It serves no useful purpose.

A rule of thumb for taxation is that, to the degree that taxation is necessary, compliance should be simple.  Texas' Business Margin Tax obviously fails that test.  In this regard, Texas' Business Margins Tax is similar to the Federal Alternative Minimum Tax.

The only difference I have with TPPF concerns timing.  TPPF wants to phase the tax out, I'd prefer to eliminate it immediately.  A phased withdrawal, however, is a compromise with which I can live.

The Texas Business Margins Tax: End it, don't mend it.

The Daily Texan's Prop. One Hatchet Job

"Congress shall make no law...abridging ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition Government for the redress of grievances."  United States Constitution, First Amendment.

On most issues, I wouldn't dignify the Daily Texan with a response.  Their coverage of national and state issues is liberal, predictable, and tiresome.  Today, however, they need to be held accountable for their corrupt hit piece in a low-turnout Travis County referendum.

Travis County Prop. 1 is a boondoggle that enriches the U.T. bureaucracy at the expense of middle class homeowners.  If passed, Prop. 1 would increase property taxes 63% to finance a medical school that the largest hospital in Travis County says we don't need.  I've already voted no.

Which brings us to the front page of Today's Daily Texan.  Under a (relatively) neutral headline "Prop. 1 fight rages on," the paper then alleges to objectively present the two sides' stories.  To say that there is an editorial thumb on the scale in favor of this 63% tax hike puts things quite mildly.

The first article, "No to tax increase, PAC says," details the 'no' position.  For some reason, the author mentions that the citizens opposing this 63% tax hike have formed a political action committee three times between the headline and first four paragraphs.  I guess there's something nefarious about concerned citizens exercising their first amendment rights.

By contrast, the pro tax-hike article "Powers: Prop. 1 necessary for UT" uncritically echoes a mass e-mail UT President Bill Powers sent to UT students, faculty, and staff.  The article is a glorified press release.  While the article amplifies a number of irrelevant or questionable claims by Powers, my personal favorite is that the article fails to fact check Powers' assertion that "UT is by no means rich."  Really?!?  An institution sitting on $1 billion in Gold and a $300 million television network is "by no means rich"?!?

Normally, I don't care what the Daily Texan says.  Travis county Prop. 1, however, isn't about the Daily Texan or the University of Texas.  This is about protecting middle class families from an arrogant and predatory U.T. bureaucracy.  Travis county Prop. 1 is a corrupt boondoggle.  Media outlets that uncritically amplify claims made by its proponents should be held accountable.

Contact the editor: firingline@dailytexanonline.com

Ancient Prophecy and Modern Israel

This video I found on YouTube is amazing:

Highlights:

• Genesis 17:7 -- The Jewish people are the only Ancient People still around!!!

• Deuteronomy 4:27 -- There are fewer that 12 million Jews worldwide.

• There will always be a pretext to hate the Jews.

• Countries that treat Jews better have better economic results.

• The land became a desert after the Jews were scattered then was revived when they returned; the only country in the world that had more trees at the end of the twentieth century than the beginning was Israel.

• The entire world has returned to Israel.

• The Hebrew language is the first Ancient language to ever be revived!!!

Libya vs. Hurricane Sandy; our Backwards Government

Today, Obama came off the campaign trail to mug for the cameras monitor the hurricane; I find the whole spectacle insulting.

Natural disasters aren't part of the President's Job Description, unlike being Commander-in-Chief.

This Benghazi story keeps getting worse, but Obama's monitoring the storm!!!

This contrast encapsulates a deeper truth about the Federal Government, best described by Governor Rick Perry in the book Fed Up:

because the Federal Government has inserted itself into so many domestic responsibilities entrusted by the Founders to the States, it can no longer focus on the very duties assigned to it under the Constitution. (115)

We still have a long road in front of us, but next Tuesday cannot come quickly enough.

Todd Akin can still Win

Mark Levin interviews the indefatigable Todd Akin:



Highlights:

•  One out of Six people in Missouri are in Poverty.

• McCaskill's Ethical Problems haven't gone away.

• The New York Times knew about McCaskill's ethical problems and covered them up.

• Akin voted no on No Child Left Behind and TARP

• Levin: "Anytime I hear the word stimulus, it makes me want to hand onto my Wallet."

Donate here.

Test of Fire: Election 2012

Catholics Called to Witness has released this awesome pre-election video:

Barack Obama's Heteronormative and Phallocentric attack ad

Heteronormative - The Cultural bias in favor of opposite-sex relationships of a sexual nature, and against same-sex relationships of a sexual nature.

Phallocentric - Centered on men or a male viewpoint, especially one held to entail the domination of women by men.

Yesterday, Barack Obama's campaign released the following ad:

Rush Limbaugh discussed this ad at length today.  I offer dittos to everything Rush said.  There is, however, one point Rush missed.

This misogynistic ad is heteronormative and phallocentric.

Why should this gal lose her 'v-card' to "a great guy;"  couldn't a woman "care whether or not you get health insurance and specifically whether you get birth control"?!?

(That's voting card, you pervert.)

This misogynistic ad propagates the power structure of LGBT subjugation!!!

Or maybe it's Friday afternoon and I just wanted to use the phrase heteronormative and phallocentric! :-)

Who is Ansar al Sharia?!?

 
Highlights:

• There are at least 5000 missing surface to air missiles in Libya today

•  If there were to be another 9/11 (the first one) style attack today, we wouldn't know who did it.

• Drone strikes are very possible in Libya

•  There's currently a power vacuum across North Africa.

• The number of groups we're facing has increased geometrically since 9/11 (the first one).

EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz (politely) PUNKS the Press

Ted Cruz did a meet and greet today in Austin; afterwards, he spoke to the press.  I missed the first two or so minutes of this interaction, but started recording when I realized the press was giving Ted the typical loaded questions the press always gives.  Enjoy:


If you've never met Ted or heard him speak before; he's always this good off the cuff.

(Author's Note: Here's my interview with Ted from last June.)

Trevor Louden: An Urgent (pre-election) Message for America

Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, sends this urgent message from New Zealand on geopolitical implications of the upcoming U.S. Election:



Highlights:

• There's a ChiCom backed Marxist Govt. in Fiji, 1500 miles away from New Zealand

• The bad guys around the world are getting bolder

• In 1984, New Zealand fell for a Commie influence operation planned in Moscow that drove a wedge between New Zealand and the West.

• The U.S. Military has always been the international Left's #1 target.

• Stalin wanted as many American Commies in Hawaii as possible because it was home to the U.S. Navy.

• Alice Palmer, an agent of Moscow, got Obama his first job in Politics.

• Leon Panetta is was a longstanding friend of a know associate of Frank Marshall Davis.

(h/t Right Reason)

Why did Candy Crowley have the transcript?!?

This is a great question:


(h/t Engage America)

Bow to Nobody

Wow:

Mitt's EPIC NYC Commedic Performance

Oh Mitt, I didn't know you had it in you:

(h/t Glenn Beck)

Republicans (surprisingly easy) path to 60 Senators

One of my pet peeves this election season is that people aren't being aggressive enough in U.S. Senate races.  Of the 33 seats up this cycle, two thirds are held by Democrats.  Of the seats held by Democrats, thirteen are in states that are neither in New England or on the West Coast.

The Republican 'thumpin' of 2006 was six years ago; all those seats are up.

(Author's note: Obviously, this analysis is based on the Republicans holding the seats they currently possess; with the possible exception of the open seat in Maine, they should do that without breaking a sweat.)

Consider the following races:

• Nebraska (open) -- Bob Kerrey vs. Deb Fischer -- Retiring Democrat Ben Nelson was the man behind the infamous Cornhusker Kickback, which gave us Obamacare.  Mitt and Fisher are up 10 in the most recent poll I could find.  Case closed.

• Montana -- Sen. Jon Tester vs. Denny Rehberg -- From the stimulus, to Obamacare, to Dodd-Frank, Jon Tester has voted for every horrific piece of legislation that Obama has signed.  Mitt's up 9 in the most recent poll I could find.  Case closed.

• North Dakota (open) -- Heidi Heitkamp vs. Rick Berg -- This race is similar to the Nebraska race listed above.  Barack Obama is so hated in this state that incumbent Democrat Kent Conrad chose to retire.  This is also a state with a massive oil boom.  Barack Obama, obviously, hates oil.  Mitt's coattails alone should get Berg across the finish line.

• Virginia (open) -- (Former Gov.) Tim Kaine vs. (Former Gov and Sen) George Allen -- In 2006, retiring Sen. Jim Webb barely squeaked by following a manufactured media hit job against (then incumbent Sen.) George Allen.  Furthermore, two years as Barack Obama's DNC chair publicly exposed former Gov. Tim Kaine as a blithering idiot.  In a state where Republicans have been ascendant since Obama took office, and where Mitt is surging, Allen will win.

Keep in mind, with these four easy races, Republicans already have the majority.

• Missouri -- Sen. Claire McCaskill vs. Todd Akin -- Todd Akin can still pull this off; donate here.

This will get Republicans to the majority even if they lose Maine.

•  Wisconsin (open) -- Tammy Baldwin vs. (former Gov. and Bush HHS. Sec'y) Tommy Thompson -- Two words: Scott Walker.  Two more words: Paul Ryan.  Mitt's also surging.

• Ohio -- Sen. Sherrod Brown vs. Josh Mandel -- Sherrod Brown is the most liberal Senator in America (just like Obama).  Josh Mandel is an Iraq vet and a bit of a Wunderkind.  Considering how closely tied Sherrod Brown and Obama are, there will be very few ticket splitters.  Ohio is outperforming the nation economically, and the entire election could come down to whether Ohio voters give Obama or Gov. John Kasich credit.  Republicans seem to be winning that argument.

• Florida -- Sen. Bill Nelson vs. Connie Mack -- Obamacare remains despised in Florida, and Bill Nelson voted for it.  Much like reports of Mark Twain's death, Florida's status as a swing state is greatly exaggerated.  Republicans currently hold every statewide office (except Nelson's) and a massive super-majority in the state legislature.  Connie Mack has a past, but so what?!?  Mitt's gonna win Florida and he'll have coattails.

• Pennsylvania -- Sen. Bob Casey Jr. vs. Tom Smith -- Obama's war on energy development has devastated Pennsylvania.  The Western part of the state, home to the famous 'bitter-clingers,' could swing 80-20 against Obama. Republicans kicked ass in Pennsylvania in 2010 and Tom Smith has been endorsed by DeMint.  Bob Casey is obviously scared.

• West Virginia -- Sen. Joe Manchin vs. John Raese -- Joe Manchin used to be a popular governor.  Then he went to Washington and became a cheap apologist for Obama.  As you read this, Manchin is refusing to cut off foreign aid to Egypt and Libya.  In the Democrat primary, 40% of West Virginia Democrats voted for a convicted felon over Barack Obama.  This is war on coal country.

The Final three seats are longer shots, but they're very winnable.

• Michigan -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow vs. Pete Hoekstra -- Republicans picked up the Governor's seat and a couple U.S. House seats in 2010.  Mitt's within striking distance in the state.  13% undecided.

• Minnesota -- Sen Amy Kloubouchar vs. Kurt Bills -- Minnesota has voted Democrat in every Presidential election since 1976.  That being said, in 2002 Minnesota elected Tim Pawlenty Governor and Norm Coleman to the U.S. Senate.  2012 is going to be a much bigger Republican year than 2002.

• New Mexico (open) -- Martin Heinrich vs. Heather Wilson -- This race is why I really hate Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson would have been the perfect candidate for this race, but instead he's gone off on his idiotic Presidential campaign.  Instead, we're stuck with uber-RINO Heather Wilson.  Too bad.  New Mexico elected Susana Martinez in 2010.

 Think big people.

An Open Letter to 2008 Obama Voters

Hi,

You don't know me.  I live in Texas.  In 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin.

 I don't know why you voted for Obama in 2008 and, honestly, I don't care.  What I do know is that a good number of you have soured on the man.  You might not be sold on Mitt, but I want to make sure you understand your options.

It's ok to stay home.

Let's face facts: it hasn't worked.  Our national debt is bigger than our GDP.  Unemployment is persistently high, even though the Obama administration is cooking the books.  Obama forced through a corrupt Health Care law against the will of the American People.  Our border is on fire.  Our embassies are being attacked overseas and Obama continues to lie about it.  But maybe you're not (yet) comfortable with Mitt.

That's fine; it's ok to stay home.

Personally, I think Mitt is different from George W. Bush.  I think Mitt will listen to the American people in a way George W. Bush never did.  You might not.

That's fine; it's ok to stay home.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to earn your vote.  I'd prefer to earn your vote.  In order to make the changes America needs, Mitt needs to win as big of a landslide as possible.  But I'm also realistic enough to understand that you might not be convinced in the next 19 days.  In that contingency, I want you to understand your options.

It's ok to stay home.

My only request is that you pay attention after Mitt takes office.  After Mitt takes office, you will see meaningful tax simplification, meaningful spending cuts, and meaningful changes abroad.  While I'd love you to vote for Mitt, I know it might be impossible to convince you in the final 19 days.

It's ok to stay home.

Sincerely,
Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
October 18, 2012

Keeping Texas Competitive 2013

Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released their Keeping Texas Competitive 2013 agenda for the 83rd Texas Legislature.  I couldn't make it to the press conference, but I like the proposals and would anticipate supporting most (if not all) of them during session next year.  Before getting into specifics of policy, however, I want to touch on an aspect of Texas' intra-state economic position that hasn't gotten a lot of press.

In 2010, voters in other states elected a slew of conservative Governors.  From John Kasich in Ohio, to Rick Scott in Florida, to Susana Martinez in New Mexico, to (my hero) Scott Walker in Wisconsin, to several others, Republican governors around America are deliberately copying Texas.  While that's flattering, it also means that Texas cannot rest on its laurels if Texas wants to take care of itself.

As the TPPF executive director Arlene Wohlgemuth said in their press release:

Texas' economy has dominated the last decade because of wise decisions by our state's policymakers, but other states are starting to catch up by following our example.

Texas' competitive position among the 50 states, while still pretty good, isn't quite what it was a few years ago.  For example, Texas now ranks ninth nationally in tax competitiveness.  That's barely in the top twenty percent!!!

Heading into the 83rd Legislature, Texas must face sobering realities.  Other states are copying us.  As a result, Texas competitive position isn't what it was even two or three years ago.  Texas cannot get complacent lingering on past glories.  To maintain Texas' economic position, our legislature must continue to do what got us here in the first place.

President Mitt: The Long Haul

I want to touch on an aspect of Mitt that many have missed: over time, I think President's Mitt's administration will be more open to conservative influence than any administration in recent memory.

As I said when I endorsed him, I only have two expectations for President Mitt: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him and be a better Commander-in-Chief.  Any other domestic policy leadership Mitt shows is a bonus.  I also think that, given his business background, Mitt might produce many Tea Party friendly outcomes for different reasons than tea partiers might name.

That's fine.

Big picture items will dominate President Mitt's first year: Economic Recovery, Entitlements, Cleaning up the mess abroad, Vladimir Putin, and Repealing Obamacare.  I'm not sure anything Congress and President Mitt produce that first year will set hearts afire, but it'll be good enough.  The 60 to 70 percent of what we want that we'll get under President Mitt is a lot better than the zero percent we'll get in an Obama second term.

Once we get into year two and three of President Mitt's administration, however, I think we could see policy take a major Tea Party shift.  The silver lining of the late Bush/Obama spending spree is that it woke up the conservative grassroots.  The conservative grassroots is more engaged than we've been in a long time.  We've learned that it's not enough to elect our candidates, we have to influence the policy-making process as well.  We're not going anywhere.

The tea party is going to grow more mature and sophisticated over the next five years.  As Sen. Mike Lee pointed out at FreePAC Dallas, it took 14 years to get from the Boston Tea Party to the Constitution.  Tea Partiers understand this is a long term fight, and we're in it to stay.

President Mitt's first year will be (a lot) better than the alternative.  It might not be great, but it'll be good enough.  From year two onward, however, a maturing Tea Party could exert tremendous influence over his administration.

Concerned Women for America: Let's Talk about Women

About that so-called War on Women:

Ouch.

Will Obama Close GITMO after the Election?!?

This video segment from Glenn Beck yesterday is terrifying; the U.S. Senate intel committee has a report due on November 15th examining the feasibility of doing so:

A Rosetta Stone for the Youth Vote?!?

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and defined.  Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite....The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

- Publius, Federalist 45

Saturday, I went to an event sponsored by Rock the Vote.  It was fascinating.  I might have discovered the Rosetta Stone for cracking the youth vote.

Federalism and local control; in other words, the Tenth Amendment.

I didn't spend much time discussing candidates and parties (except to promote Ted Cruz).  I focused instead on principles and policies.  Federalism and local control struck a chord with these kids.

I've written about this issue before, but the pitch is simple.  Unlike in Washington D.C., a group of ten to fifteen engaged citizens can change policy in your local city council or school board.  Any time you face a seemingly insurmountable problem, Step 1 is always to break it into smaller, more manageable, parts.  Federalism and local control, by definition, do that.

Living in Texas, we hear more about the Tenth Amendment than folks in other states since our Governor, quite literally, wrote the book on this topic.  He also proposed doing something about it during his Presidential campaign. To quote Governor Perry:

Empowering states [and local city councils and school boards] prevents the accumulation of power in one central government and limits the extent to which the people must be governed by faraway representatives, bureaucrats, and judges who do not share their beliefs....The centralization of power in a country as large as the United States necessarily means that the people are largely unable to participate in many of the decisions that are going to affect them....Finally, states encourage civic virtue by enabling the people to participate more actively in public affairs, resulting in greater independence and self-reliance. ( Fed Up 28-31)

Unfortunately, far too many D.C. establishment Republican insider types hate federalism and local control.  D.C. Republicans, much like the Democrats, want a large central government so they can be in charge of the money.  Obviously, we've already thrown a bunch of these D.C. insider types out of office in primaries.  We must, however, be persistent.  The results seem to strike a chord with Jon Stewart's audience.

The idea of federalism and local control, as expressed in the Tenth Amendment, is common sense.  I've always liked this idea, because it holds government accountable.  Based on my experience Saturday, however, I think promoting federal and local control could also yield massive dividends with Americans under 40.

Highlighting Female Entreprenneurship

This video, from a group of conservative Women in NYC, illustrates the impact Mitt's economic policies will have on female entrepreneurship:


Well said.

Rumors of War

"Therefore suddenly shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.  These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue...." Proverbs 6:15-17

"As the welfare state collapses, we see the emergence of brute conflict between those who desire order and those who don't." The Invisible Committee, the Coming Insurrection, p. 6

Today, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize.  This is bad.  This is an arrogant, prideful move that future historians will mock.

It's not a secret that Europe has been on fire for two years.  Greece is a mess.  Spain is almost as bad.  France is teetering.  Great Britain is crippled by political correctness.  The only thing (barely) holding the situation together is the grace of German taxpayers.  That won't last forever.

Against this backdrop, the European elite chose to hold a self-congratulatory circle jerk award itself the Nobel Peace Prize.

You can't make that up.

This is the type of arrogance you see before major wars.  Suicides are skyrocketing, people are eating trash, yet the leaders are throwing themselves a big party.  Comparisons to Emperor Nero are apt.

The situation in the Middle East gets attention, but Europe is almost as bad.  Nazis are rising in Greece.  The President of France is a Marxist.  When the European house of cards finally collapses, the situation will be dire.  Pray for leadership with discernment.

War is coming; whether we like it or not.

Freedom To Succeed

This ad, from Thomas Peterffy, tells his story of growing up in Communist Hungary and the threats he see's to America's future coming from within:


(h/t Ted Cruz's facebook)

The most Powerful Pro-Life ad you'll Ever See

Ouch:
 

(h/t American Spectator)

My old colleague David Freddoso has more information about Barack Obama and the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" here
.

Big Bird's message to Obama

This is amazing:

Art Laffer debunks Obama's attack on Mitt's Tax Plan

Yet Another Obama lie demolished:


(h/t Engage America)

Highlights:

• Mitt wants to broaden the base and lower rates.
• Taxes make an activity (ie. work) less attractive
• For more information on how base-broadening, rate-lowering, tax reform will make our society more prosperous, click here.

Conservative Case for Pot Legalization

This BlazeTV segment from late last month hits the nail on the head: 

Highlights:

• The controlled Substances Act rests on the foundation of Wickard v. Filbrun.
• Tancredo nails the Nanny State Aspect; marijuana prohibition is based on the same logic as Michael Bloomberg's soda ban.
• Amy Holmes is right about Medical; Medical Marijuana is a corrupt scam.
• Just because you remove prohibition at the federal level does not mean states couldn't continue to prohibit it at the state level.
• My 2 cents: Marijuana prohibition was enacted in 1937, under Franklin Roosevelt; that should tell Conservatives everything you need to know about this type of Nanny Statism.
• Another 2 cents: Unlike drunkenness, which the Bible condemns over and over and over again, the Bible is silent on the topic of marijuana.
• From a Christian perspective, Pat Robertson nails it....

Subscribe to theBlazeTV here.

Election 2012: A Tale of Two Ads

I saw two ads today that perfectly encapsulate the state of the Presidential race.

First up is this ad from American Crossroads, a pro-Mitt SuperPAC:


Compare that to this (parody?!?) ad from Barack Obama's campaign:


That should tell you everything you need to know.

Mitt's good, but not great, National Security speech

Mitt spoke about National Security today in Virginia:

Highlights:

• The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.
• A larger struggle is playing out across the Middle East.
• The 9/11/12 attacks were committed by folks aligned with the folks who pulled off 9/11/01.
• Iran has never been closer to nukes, more emboldened, or less deterred than it is now.
• Hits Obama had for squandering our victory in Iraq.
• Mitt thinks Turkey is an American ally; it's not.
• FREE TRADE IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF OUR STRATEGY.
• The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
• No flexibility for Vladimir Putin.
• Endorses Palestinian State (barf!)

Bottom Line: On the biggest issues of Peace through Strength, Trade, Iran, Russia, and standing up for our friends, Mitt did a really good job.  Unfortunately, the strong parts of the speech were mixed in with too much George W. Bush style "freedom agenda" talk.  That being said, the strong parts of the speech are solid, and I think, over time, conservatives can disabuse Mitt of the notion that greater 'democracy' (ie. Sharia) in the Middle East is an American interest.

On the Bible and Just Economic Policy

"Or unto governments, as unto them are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." 1 Peter 2:14

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all mean are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happieness.  -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." United States' Declaration of Independence

"It is perfectly kosher to ask God for money.  If you are comfortable with prayer, go ahead and include a request for prosperity in your prayers.  What you are really asking for is for is the opportunity to serve your fellow human beings....  You can't earn an honest living without pleasing others." Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Thou Shall Prosper, p. 28/33

Yesterday, our pastor gave a sermon that touched on the Biblical precepts for a just civil government.  It included the passage from 1 Peter quoted above.  That got me thinking about bailouts, regulatory policy, and taxation.

According to 1 Peter, the purpose of civil government is to punish evildoers and praise those that do well.  Over the past five (or 100) years, our government has done the opposite.  Since 2007 (or 1913), our government has bailed out the evil and punished the good.

Small and medium scale entrepreneurs are both the lifeblood of our economy and the glue that holds our society together.  Unfortunately, these are the people who the late Bush/Obama administrations have hurt most.  Meanwhile, those firms large enough to afford a large presence in Washington have profited handsomely.

Consider the following examples:

• Bailouts -- I don't want to dwell on this topic, because it's infuriating.  Suffice to say that the one thing that automotive unions, green-energy boondoggles, health insurance companies, public sector unions, and Wall St. banks have in common is a large presence in Washington.  Meanwhile, small businesses are shutting down in near record numbers.

• Regulatory Policy -- There are plenty of examples of capricious regulation enriching the already powerful while impoverishing the entrepreneurial; EPA abuse and Obamacare get the most press.  I, however, want to focus on the 2010 financial reform act, commonly known as Dodd-Frank.  The Dodd-Frank law made too big to fail banks bigger than ever, with more risk than ever, and an implicit bailout guarantee.  That same law, meanwhile, will drive smaller banks banks out of business.  In other words, our government has rewarded the banks that did the most evil with a de facto cartel.

• Taxation -- Much like the bailouts and regulatory abuses discussed above, our tax code punishes righteous entrepreneurs while rewarding those who can afford a Washington presence.

This is not a complete list; I could write a book on this topic, but Sen. Rand Paul already did so.

(Sidenote: A very similar phenomenon exists in the realm of National Security.)

As 1 Peter makes clear, the purpose of government is to praise the righteous and punish evildoers.  As a practical matter, that means protecting our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then getting the heck out of the way.  Unfortunately, our current government does the opposite.  That's why we need to dramatically reduce the size, power, and spending of the Federal government, which will free entrepreneurs while making the big boy's Washington connections less valuable.  In addition to being common sense, these policies are grounded in solid Biblical truth.

A 'Global Test' for Obama's Corrupt Media

The past few days, one of the excuses Obama's corrupt media has offered to explain Obama's debate backside-kicking is that John Kerry won the first debate in 2004.

There's just one problem with that narrative: it's not true.

The first debate in 2004 was the one where John Kerry uttered his infamous 'Global Test' comment; in response to a question about approving pre-emptive military action, John Kerry said he would do so only if said action:

passes the global test where...you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Translated into English from bullcrap, that means giving France and the UN Security Council a veto over U.S. Military action.

(Sidenote: That's exactly what Obama did in Libya)

Global test was the biggest takeaway from that debate, and the Bush campaign ripped Kerry on it for the next month.

With all due respect to Obama's corrupt media, Big Bird is no global test; try again.

#WAR

"The Dinner Table" -- AFP's DEVASTATING New Ad

This new ad from Americans for Prosperity rivals Reagan's "Bear in the Woods" and George W. Bush's "Wolves" ad among the most devastating of all time:

Ouch.

MSNBC's hilarious Joe Biden spin

This clip from MSNBC must be seen to be believed:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Official Endorsement: Mitt Romney for President

I haven't kept secret my intention to vote for Mitt Romney; I'm officially endorsing him because there are several issues on which Mitt Romney is better than recent Republicans.

First things first, it's important to understand that Mitt will only have two responsibilities as President: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and be a better Commander-in-Chief; any other leadership President Mitt shows will be pure bonus.

I've discussed National Security, and the continuous orgy of treason that is Barack Obama's administration, at length recently.  I don't want to re-hash ground I've previously covered.  Suffice to say, I like what I've heard from Mitt so far on this topic.  While I'm not (yet) sure that Mitt understands the threat from Islamic Cultural Subversion, I trust Mitt's instincts and ability to learn over time.  Trust me, I'll be watching.

On several other issues, however, Mitt has taken positions that are substantially better than anything proposed by recent Republican candidates or Presidents.  Consider the following:

• Energy -- This was one of Mitt's strongest areas last night.  In addition to supporting the Keystone Pipeline and expanded development in Alaska, Mitt wants to return permitting authority to the States. This is a huge shift from Dubya who, at best, reigned in a modest amount of Federal red tape.  In addition, despite the public perception of Dubya as an Oilman, he was actually a big green energy proponent.  Mitt, by contrast, has indicated a willingness to reign in these corrupt boondoggles.

• Entitlements -- Mitt put Paul Ryan on the ticket; need I say more?!?  Paul Ryan's proposal doesn't go far enough, but it's a huge shift in the right direction.  Paul Ryan's proposal will prevent a sovereign debt crisis; for now, that's good enough.

• Sound Money -- Mitt's view's on the Federal Reserve were the hidden bombshell of that (otherwise boring) 47% video.  Given those remarks, his support for auditing the Fed, and his pledge to not re-appoint Ben Bernanke, Mitt clearly intends to reign in the worst abuses.  I suspect, however, that Mitt is open to deeper structural reforms.  Paul Ryan has also been very critical of Bernanke.

• Spending -- Mitt Romney has released the most detailed plan to cut Federal Spending since Ronald Reagan, if not Calvin Coolidge.  Much like his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget before putting him on the ticket, Mitt's proposal shows his understanding that spending reduction is a key component of economic revival.  Again, Mitt's proposal might not go far enough, but it's a major step in the right direction.

• Tenth Amendment -- Last night, Mitt discussed the role of states as 'laboratories of democracy."  Mitt has endorsed block granting Medicaid to the states.  Romneycare, for all its flaws, is a policy Mitt defends on Tenth Amendment grounds.  As discussed above, Mitt's energy policy is based on empowering states.  Who knows, maybe Mitt will even champion Uproot and Overhaul.

I harbor no illusions about Mitt Romney.  I don't think his election will be some magic elixir.  I think the real action is, and will remain, in Congress.  I do, however, think Mitt will sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and I think he will be a much better Commander-in-Chief.  In addition, several of Mitt's policy proposals are dramatically superior to anything we've seen in at least 30 (if not 90) years.  For those reasons, Cahnman's Musings unapologetically and unconditionally endorses Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Obama Administration Continues to Leak Sensitive Information to the New York Times

Today, I was on the bus home from work when I saw a paper copy of today's New York Times; the following headline was blared across the front page:

U.S IS TRACKING KILLERS IN ATTACK ON LIBYA MISSION...PREPARING RETALIATION...Secret Teams Focusing on Militant Group, Officials Say

The article, which details the planned retaliation against Libyan targets, reveals a stunning amount of detailed information to the enemy about U.S. sources and methods.

First Paragraph:

The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

 Second Paragraph:

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, officials said....[T]he command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama...

 Third Paragraph:

Potential military options could include drone strikes, Special Operations raids like the one that killed Osama [sic] bin Laden, and joint missions with Libyan authorities.

 Eleventh Paragraph:

Both American counterterrorism officials and Benghazi residents are increasingly  focused on the local militant group Ansar al Shariah [sic] as the main force behind the attack.

Twelfth Paragraph:

In the hours after the Benghazi attack, the American official said, spy agencies intercepted electronic communications from Ansar al Shariah fighters....Another intercept captured cellphone conversations by militants on the grounds of the smoldering American Mission in Benghazi...

Twenty-First Paragraph:

Moving ahead with a roster of potential targets, the military planners in Washington started by culling pre-existing lists of suspects that are continuously updated by the Joint Special Operations Command and the C.I.A.

 Twenty-Second Paragraph:

American officials say that since the Benghazi attack, Special Operations planners have sharply increased their efforts to track the location and gather information on several members of Ansar al Shariah as well as other militants with ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Twenty-Third Paragraph:

But military and counterterrorism officials said that Libyan authorities has helped by at least identifying suspected assailants based on witness accounts, video and other paragraphs from the scene.

Twenty-Fourth Paragraph:

"They are putting together information on where these individuals live, who their family members and their associates are, and their entire pattern of life," said one American official briefed on the planning.

 Twenty-Fifth Paragraph:

And to help prioritize which militants to watch, the Pentagon has stepped up its use of surveillance drones flying over eastern Libya, collecting electronic intercepts, imagery and other information that could help planners compile their target lists.

This is outrageous.  The Obama national security team  continues to leak detailed information about sources and methods that any terrorist with a 56k modem can read.  Bob Gates said it best.

Debate Review: Ted Cruz vs Some Democrat Buffoon

Tonight, Ted Cruz debated his Democrat opponent Paul Sadler in the Texas U.S. Senate debate.  It wasn't close.  Paul Sadler is a buffoon and Ted wiped the floor with him.

The debate opened with Sadler attacking Ted for not agreeing to debate him six times over the month of October.  Sadler could have scored a cheap point on Ted and moved on, but instead chose to harangue Ted for the first five minutes of the debate over some alleged refusal to debate Sadler.  Ted finally shut Sadler down, telling him: "We are sitting here right now; you can launch every attack you want at me, right here on television."

It got worse from there.

After refusing to tell the audience how much money he had raised, Sadler moved on to asking Ted whether or not Ted considers Barack Obama to be a Christian.  Ted handled himself with class, where I would have been tempted to tell Sadler that I believe Obama worships himself, not God.

The debate discussed the economy, national security, Obamacare, and immigration.  If you followed Ted's primary, you know where he stands on these issues.  Ted explained his positions with the same clarity and common sense that got him elected in the first place.  Sadler, in addition to being incredibly left-wing, was shockingly ill-informed.  For example, in a discussion of Rand Paul's effort to halt foreign aid to Egypt and Libya, Sadler said: "if we don't stay involved in those governments, then Russia, China, those other countries will."  Sadler apparently was unaware that this is already happening; countries that hate America's guts will work together to undermine the United States no matter what we do.  That's no reason for American taxpayers to subsidize their activity.

On a personal note, I'm 99% sure I met Paul Sadler in a bar last year.  While I cannot be certain, the guy I was talking had similar body language and speech patterns to Sadler.  That guy also tried to pin me down on the "do you think Obama's a Christian" question. Again, I cannot be certain I was talking with Paul Sadler, but I strongly suspect so.  Either way, the guy I was talking to had some Occupy Wall St-esque things to say about how Jews control the banking system that I wouldn't put past the guy I saw on stage tonight.

 Ted Cruz was already going to win this race by twenty points; after tonight, he may win by fifty.

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Memo Reveals post-debate WH messaging.

I have the greatest sources....:)

From: Axelrod, D.

To: ABC News, Associated Press, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Washington Post.

CC: Burton, B; Carney, J; Center for American Progress. 

 Re: Post Debate Messaging

Guys,

Here's the template for tomorrow night's debate; obviously, we'll start with Politico and CAP, then the rest of you will pick it up from there. 

D

P.S. Debbie will, as always, be so over the top that you can maintain professional credibility.

---

Romney's Debate Disappointment

[insert byline here]

Desperate to reverse his campaign's falling poll numbers, Mitt Romney launched racially-tinged and Islamophobic attacks at President Obama during tonight's Presidential debate in Denver.

 Romney, who refuses to release his tax returns, revived Newt Gingrich's discredited Primary attack against President Obama as the 'food-stamp President,' seeking to tie the first African-American president to longstanding racial stereotypes about 'welfare queens.'

 [INSERT ROMNEY QUOTE HERE]

 Romney's appeals to nativist sentiment continued in the discussion of foreign policy; Romney referred to last month's protests in Egypt and Libya against an offensive YouTube video as a 'terrorist attack,' an Islamophobic term that blames Muslims for acts of violent extremism, including bombings of abortion clinics in the United States.

 [SECOND ROMNEY QUOTE]

 "Mitt Romney knows he can't defend the failed George Bush policies of tax cuts for billionaires and shoot-first foreign policy or his own record of outsourcing and denial of contraception" said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. "Instead, Mitt Romney chose to launch baseless and bigoted attacks."

Experts warn not to underestimate the appeal of racially-coded language during times of economic uncertainty.

 "From Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy to Ronald Reagan's dog-whistle appeals to 'states rights,' subtle appeals to racial sentiment have a long history in Republican campaigns," said Thomas B. Edsall, a journalism professor at Columbia University.

Glenn Beck on Death Panels in Obamacare

Glenn Beck had a segment today on Obamacare that's a must see; Part 1:


Part 2

Corrupt Polling -- An Unintended Consequence?!?

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20

The past few weeks, as public polling has become increasingly comical, a consensus has emerged that the media is deliberately skewing their polls to demoralize Mitt voters.

I agree with that consensus; I am starting to wonder, however, if the result of this corrupt polling will be different from the consensus expectation.

What if corrupt polling makes Obamaites complacent?!?

Think about it: how many Mitt supporters do you know who are anything other than chomping at the bit to vote?!?  Not bloody many.  After everything the corrupt media has done to sabotage Republican candidates this cycle, how many people on our side are going to fall for this obvious psy-ops operation?!?  Not bloody many.  Even if Obama wins (which ain't gonna happen), people on our side are going to want to register their dissent, so they'll definitely vote.

Obama's voters are a different story.  A substantial chunk of Barack Obama's 2008 voters are permanently lost.  Moreover, it's not exactly secret that Obama's voters aren't enthusiastic.  Their side feels no sense of urgency.  Is it hard to believe, having been fed a steady diet of 'our guy is winning,' that a meaningful percentage could forget to vote?!?

On the one hand, you have a group of already-motivated voters whose efforts are denigrated by a media they despise; on the other hand, you have a group of unmotivated folks being fed a steady diet of 'we are winning.'

If, on November 7th, we learn that a meaningful chunk of Obama's voters didn't show up due to complacency, I would not be surprised.