The Abbot and Costello “Who’s on First” Routine is a classic, clever, funny bit, and whoever thought to combine it with debate footage did a great job.
It’s a good laugh.
Romney and Gingrich Do Who’s on First :50 Video
In the 3:26 video below, Occupy protesters torch an American flag. Since September 17, 2011, Democrat Party stooges posing as journalists in the mainstream media have portrayed the Occupy movement as being representative of 99% of the American people. Obama and Democrat leaders have not shied away from making it known that they align themselves with the protesters.
“We are on their [Occupy protesters] side.”—Barack Obama
“God bless them [Occupy protesters] for their spontaneity … It’s [Occupy movement] young; it’s spontaneous, and it’s going to be effective.”— Nancy Pelosi, House Democrat Leader
“I cannot possibly see anything more American than this [Occupy movement].”—Charles Rangel, House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Democrat
“You’re [Occupy protesters] exercising the right every American holds most dear, the right of freedom of expression.”—Dennis Kucinich, Democrat Congressman
Some backers of the movement include: the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America, the International Socialist Organization, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party, the American Nazi Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Marxist Student Union.
The movement’s objective is to destroy the “oppressive” free market system and replace it with “a society of cooperation and community,” i.e., a socialist economy.
In last Thursday’s Republican debate, Rick Santorum explained why Romney would lose the election to Obama if Romney is the party nominee:
“Folks, we can’t give this [ObamaCare] issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.”
And Romney doesn’t think that people should be angry about ObamaCare. He’s either forgotten or doesn’t know why the Democrat incumbents took such a drubbing in the 2010 midterm elections. Earth to Mitt, Republicans and independents threw out the rascal Democrats because they passed ObamaCare.
ObamaCare is the proverbial millstone around Obama’s neck, which is why the issue can’t be given away. Romney’s contention that people shouldn’t be angry over the passage of ObamaCare not only gives Obama the high ground on health reform but also makes the issue moot.
As a politician, Romney lacks real convictions. His one-eighties on issues “have been so frequent and transparently self-serving that a moderately intelligent preschooler could see through them.”
Romney’s issue reversals will make it easy for Obama, Soros’ minions, and the Democrat Party press, aka the mainstream media, to characterize him as the stereotypical unprincipled politician willing to say anything to get elected.
And based on his affinity with Democrat positions, they’d be right.
“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.”—Winston Churchill
George Soros, one of the most politically powerful leftist radicals on earth, predicts that voters will not enthusiastically support former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney should he win the Republican nomination.
The multi-billionaire sugar daddy for the Democrat “Shadow Party” network, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org sees more similarities than differences between Obama and Romney:
“[E]ither you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in. If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”
However, Soros does see differences between Romney and Obama went it comes to taxation and who they’d nominate to the Supreme Court.
According to DiscoverTheNetworks.Org, Soros has helped reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world and is today affecting “American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person.”
“Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.”―Emperor Palpatine to Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
In the 1:30 video below, Mitt Romney is addressing the Des Moines Register editorial board. On December 9, 2011, he told Iowa’s major newspaper that he supports the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) repeal; he only opposed it during wartime. And now that the wars are “winding down,” he’s onboard with homosexuals serving openly in the military.
Des Moines Register: How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?
Romney: That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.
Des Moines Register: But you’re comfortable with it?
Romney: I was not comfortable with making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on. But those wars are winding down, and moving to that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.
Although during this current campaign and the one four years ago, Romney uses qualifiers to address whether or not homosexuals should serve openly in the military, he was up-front with his opinion in 1994 during his run for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy.
In a letter to a homosexual grassroots organization, Romney wrote that he shared the Log Cabin Republicans’ goal of homosexuals “being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”—Mitt Romney in a letter to Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual grassroots organization
The knock against Romney is that he has been on both sides of major social issues at one time or another; yet on the issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military, he’s been remarkably consistent since 1994.
Mitt Romney on DADT.mp4 1:30 Video
In the 5:22 video below, Mitt Romney outlines his abortion position when he was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Back then he said he supported a woman’s right to choose, today he says he doesn’t.
Does Romney have actual convictions when it comes to abortion, or does he say what people want to hear to get the job? If he’ll say anything to get elected, can anything be said for his integrity?
”Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”—Warren Buffett
“To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.”—Edward R. Murrow
Why not let sleeping dogs lie knowing that Americans only care about fiscal restraint, fixing the economy, and job growth?
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956
Romney on Abortion – 2002 5:22 Video
Drudge Not, Lest Ye Be Drudged
By Jerry A. Kane
Since the South Carolina primary, the Drudge Report has become a campaign surrogate for Mitt Romney, carpet bombing Newt Gingrich with negative banners, stories, and commentaries, while downplaying or omitting news and opinions that would put Romney in a bad light.
“Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is … mercenary-style political prostitution.”—Matt Barber, blogger
Barber further contends that the “respected, highly influential news source has cast aside all journalistic integrity to shill for the liberal, GOP establishment candidate in this presidential race.”
For days Drudge trumpeted Romney’s “Gingrich was anti-Reagan” narrative while ignoring accounts of those with different recollections:
Bently Elliott, Reagan Speechwriting Director,
Peter Ferrara, Reagan Policy Analyst
Art Laffer, Reagan Economist,
Jeffrey Lord, Reagan WH political director,
Bud McFarlane, Reagan National Security Advisor,
Richard Quinn, Reagan media consultant,
Michael Reagan, Reagan’s son, and
Nancy Reagan, Reagan’s wife.
Peter Robinson, Reagan speechwriter,
When Gingrich rose from the ashes in December, it was the National Review that quelled the pain for establishment Republicans. And with his rebirth in South Carolina, the Republican establishment summoned the Drudge Report to prove its bona fides as a reliable party organ.
It’s hard to say how many venerable personalities and news sources will be forced to drop their conservative masks before the primary process ends, and Romney is declared the party nominee. But what can be said is that magnitude of the crisis will continue to increase for establishment Republicans as long as Gingrich remains a viable threat to the Romney candidacy.
Whatever you gonna do
Please do it fast
I’m still tryin’ to get used to
Ohh yes I am
From Mark America
I’d like you to take a look at DrudgeReport. There is an all-out war on Newt Gingrich, not merely by the left-wing media, but particularly on the right side of the political divide. Drudge has run as many as nine negative articles about Gingrich simultaneously, but he is running few negative articles about Romney, and those he does run are only half-negative, so it’s becoming clear that Drudge is trying to manipulate the outcome in the direction of a result he prefers. I surely hope conservatives realize that nobody in media is pure, because everybody has biases. In the case of Drudge, his “developing” take-down story in the middle of last week over the ABC News Marianne Gingrich interview story was his first attempt to ruin Gingrich’s momentum. When within hours, that attempt failed, making it clear nobody would buy the “big smear” story. Instead, Drudge backed off and began his “death by one-thousand cuts” strategy, and this is what you are now witnessing.
Drudge has learned the lesson well over his years as the prime link aggregation site on the Internet, and indeed, it could be said the term was invented to describe his page. The problem with Drudge, and it has always been his problem, is that he editorializes in the way he places links to stories in order to manipulate his audience. His all-out war on Gingrich is a perfect example. He doesn’t need to write one negative word himself. He merely decides which stories, where they are placed, and how long they will endure in that position on his page. A week ago, on Thursday morning, you should have noticed if you visited his site that he was still pushing the Marianne Gingrich story despite the fact that it had already been debunked, and that story persisted as the lead on his page until Thursday night’s debate. Ordinarily, top stories are not that long-lived on Drudge, but in the case of Gingrich, they go on and on and on.
It’s also the urgency he conveys to his audience. As I pointed out during last week’s disgraceful episode, when the Gingrich daughters responded to the trash flooding the Drudge site in red letters accompanied by his flashing light symbol, I asked whether he would now treat the antithesis involving the Newt daughters with similar urgency. Predictably, as was my point, he did not. This unwillingness to give equal coverage of the debunking of a story indicates a bias, and while I’m accustomed to that coming from most media sources, to see it so openly on Drudge is a bit of a gut-punch.
It’s clear that this is a strategy to take down Newt, and whether he’s coordinating with others, or simply acting out his own political preferences is impossible to determine. Thursday morning, he continues to run a story by Elliot Abrams from back in the 1980s when Newt was critical of Reagan’s State Department, primarily, but what Drudge fails to mention is that Abrams was the assistant Secretary of State who was under criticism by Gingrich at the time. On the article itself, you need to flip to page two to learn this by reading the biographical note about Abrams if you didn’t already know it. Most people don’t, and most people don’t make it to page two. Abrams is also a Council on Foreign Relations player, in case you didn’t know.
What all of this makes clear to me is what I’ve long suspected: Drudge is part of the GOP’s establishment now. I’ve had questions about some of the stories he’s placed on his site for years, but he’s the eight-hundred pound Internet gorilla, and there’s little a small voice can say about it. Some of you will rightly note that he couldn’t run stories that don’t exist, but I will respond that he already has. That was the meaning of the entire sad episode of last week with the ABC NEws/Marianne Gingrich story: There was no news there, but his placement and pushing of the theme made it a story. Whether you prefer Gingrich, or any of the others, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Drudge is definitely displaying his bias, whatever the motive. This is why I have a fundamental distrust of big media, left or right, and it’s also why you shouldn’t be a headlines surfer. Headlines are frequently misleading, and until you know the guts of a story, it’s best not to form conclusions, because it is too easy to be misled. We’re all news consumers, but as with any other outlet, be it the “mainstream media” or Drudge, or even this site, you are best always to bear in mind that well-worn but too frequently unobserved phrase: Caveat emptor.
Obama: “Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule. Asking a billionare to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes, most Americans would call that common sense.”
Fact: Buffett’s secretary doesn’t pay $7 million, which is what Buffett paid in 2010. Also, Obama doesn’t mention that Buffett’s income had already been taxed at the corporate level. When his capital gains and corporate taxes are combined, the real effective tax rate is closer to 45%, which is much higher than his secretary’s 35.8% rate.
The nation’s top 1% of earners earns 16% of all income, but they pay 37% of all federal income taxes.
BTW: According to Forbes, Warren Buffett’s Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year. Nice work if you can get it.
Obama’s MIS-State-MENTS of the Union 2:11 Video
“Let’s assume for a second Brook that you’re a United States Senator. If I come into your office and I give you a shoe box with $10,000 of cold hard cash in it, and I hand it to you, that’s bribery. If we get caught, both of us are going to jail.
But if I come in to your office and instead say, “Look, I’m going to give you access to preferred IPO shares (Initial Public Offering shares) of stock, and if you buy these it’s going to net you $100,000 in a single day, that’s completely legal, and it goes on quite regularly.”—Peter Schweizer