Thorner & Ingold: l What is the RNC Establishment Thinking?

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Thorner & Ingold: What is the RNC Establishment Thinking?

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

A phony and a fraud was visited upon the American people on Thursday, March 3rd, but it wasn’t only by Mitt Romney  — a two time failure at the presidential sweepstakes and the self-appointed guardian of the Republican establishment —  who excoriated Trump by expounding upon “profound consequences” should Trump be elected president 

Ironic is that Romney courted and touted Trump’s endorsement and support in 2012.  At the time Romney proudly stood next to Trump and accepted his endorsement, as did the establishment, for winning was most important to the Republican Party.   Four years later Trump has become a monster to the very enablers who creation the conditions for his rise in popularity.  Why?  Not being able to control Trump, he threatens the status quo of Republican establishment members, whose power is linked to keeping control of the Republican Party and remaining in office.

Voices raised against Romney’s Trump attack

Judi McLeon had this to say about Mitt Romney’s diatribe against Donald Trump in her March 3rd article published in the “Canadian Free Press” on Thursday, March 3rd, “We taw a puddy tat’ named Mitt Romney”:

Up to now, other than watching his son Josh Romney try to force a primary challenger on Utah Senator Mike Lee, it has been a case of  cat’s got your tongue’ for Romney on the 2016 presidency.  But now that it looks like business mogul Donald Trump has a real shot at the presidency from millions of 8-year-long disenfranchised Americans, Romney comes crawling out of his gilded ‘puddy tat’ cage. Shouldn’t folks remind him, ‘The election is over, MItt, and you so roundly lost.’  The catnip sent his way by the apoplectic GOP establishment, the same one who sent him out unprepared on the campaign trail before, was the lure that brought him out again today.

Rev. Franklin Graham said, “The Republican presidential campaing has not only sunk to new lows, but the Republican establishment seems to be desperate to pick their own candidate. . . ”  statements regarding Romney’s presentation.

“Playing ball” essential to winning acceptance

Rather than endorse one of the candidates, Romney could have endorsed one of the remaining candidates, but instead he did what even the Democrats dare not do – launched a personal attack on The Donald. The ostensible reason is that the Establishment doesn’t think Trump can defeat Hillary Clinton, but it goes deeper than that.

The Republicans want a candidate who will “play ball,” In other words, one they can control, as stated before, or their gravy train and power will end.  Trump is definitely not that guy. They would rather lose the election than admit defeat from one of their own. The thought of voting for Donald Trump for president is so unbearable to “Weekly Standard” editor Bill Kristol that the infamous neocon has promised to leave the Republican Party in support of a third party bid if Trump becomes the Republican presidential nominee. 

As far as who might be a better spokesman for the Republican establishment than loser Mitt Romney, it’s certainly not John McCain given his failed presidential run of 2008.  As soon as Romney finished his address denouncing Trump,  Senator John McCain, the party’s standard-bearer in 2008, endorsed Mr. Romney’s harsh Trump rhetoric, citing Trump’s ignorance on foreign policy, based on McCain’s perceived “dangerous” pronouncements made by Trump on national security.

What does “playing ball” mean to the Republicans? Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not speak with one voice (from the same scripted message). In the absence of unity, the Republican leadership attempts to speak for us, with or without the support of the membership.

The Immigration Issue

The big issue is immigration. The Democrats want open borders in order to gather votes. Republicans want open borders for cheap labor. Hence, nothing gets done – no fences, no enforcement, no staunching the influx. Recently reported was that Abbott Labs gave layoff notices to 180 IT workers. Who spoke out against Abbott for replacing 180 workers with Indian immigrants, here on H-1B visas?   Richard Durbin?  In an outrageous turn, Abbott will require the workers to train their replacements.

Trumps softened stance on visas at Thursday night’s (3/3/2016) Republican presidential debate when Ms. Kelly pressed him on whether he was abandoning his tough criticism of the visas, known as H-1B, did shock some of his supporter who had seen Trump as being against an influx of foreigners taking American jobs. In an immigration blueprint released in August of 2015, Mr. Trump said the visas for highly skilled workers were part of what he called “disastrous” immigration policies that had “destroyed our middle class.” He gave detailed proposals on fixing the visa program to protect Americans. 

A clarifying statement was issued hours after the debate:  “I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse” and pledged to “end forever the use of H-1B as a cheap labor program.” This stance is in keeping with Trump’s endorsement by Leo Perrero and Dena Moore, two former technology employees of the Walt Disney Company in Orlando, Fla., at a Trump Alabama rally.  In testimony in front of the Senate, Mr. Perrero had broken down when he described the humiliation of losing his job and having to train a less-skilled H-1B worker to take over his work.  It was Senator Jeff Sessions who helped Donald Trump craft his immigration polices:  “It’s exactly the plan America needs.”  Senator Jeff Sessions has now endorsed Trump. 

So who are our friends in Washington? The Democrats want immigrants in this country to vote for them. The Republicans want them to serve as a cheap source of labor.

The H-1B visa program was intended to let highly qualified foreigners to work in this country when there aren’t enough American citizens to fill the jobs, mainly in the technical industries. There’s something to this. About 15,000 engineers graduate each year in the U.S., compared to 30,000 lawyers. In Japan there are 60,000 new engineers each year and 1500 lawyers.  We would suggest exporting lawyers to Japan (and India), but they’re doing a good enough job wrecking their economies without our help.

Republicans would rather play nice than fight with either Democrats or Hillary

Another issue is the budget. Democrats want unrestrained spending and taxation. Republicans don’t want a fight in which they will be blamed for a shutdown, even if it is the Democrats who erect the barricades. The key word is “fight.” Trump is a fighter. He’s the guy in a bar who will take a punch, put his head down and beat the c*** out of you. In the last Presidential debate in 2012, Romney took it on the chin when Obama lied about Benghazi. Some fighter, some spokesman. Paul Ryan fared no better against veteran stumper, Joe Biden, who glibly makes up facts to support his arguments, and mugs the camera while his opponent has the floor. (Biden is the ultimate photo-bomber.)

The Republicans are pulling their punches against Hillary.  Why?  Because the Democrats preemptively blamed the “Email Scandal” on a Republican conspiracy, the Washington Post, New York Times, FBI and DOJ notwithstanding.

Prison Reform

When Bill Clinton was president, violent crime fueled by drugs reached a peak.  Clinton’s response backed up by Hillary, was to set tough sentencing standards to lock up these criminals.  Now Hillary is decrying the “injustice” in our prison system, and the Republicans remain silent.              

A death knell for Republican Party if will of people is subverted

By violating their part of the agreement, the Republican establishment runs the risk that Trump will run as an independent. Why? Maybe to blame Trump for losing the election, to maintain the status quo?  For without power and the control that comes with power, the establishment will lose its lucrative gravy train.

A brokered convention is under consideration by some as the only way to prevent Trump from being the Republican nominee for president.  Their plan to achieve this may be to keep at least two candidates in the race in addition to Trump, so that no candidate will have the simple majority needed to secure the nomination. A brokered convention itself will not necessarily be fatal to the GOP’s chances in the fall – indeed some might argue a brokered convention could improve those chances.  But the nomination process must seem fair and evenhanded. For Republicans in 2016, how they choose their nominee may be more important than the actual nominee.

Ted Cruz, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday, March 4, poured cold water on the calls to stop GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump during a brokered convention, warning that there could be hell to pay with the grass roots if they believe their will is being disregarded.  In Cruz’s mind, there’s one way to beat Donald Trump: “with the voters.”

Any attempts at the convention to freeze out the unconventional candidates will carry enormous cost for Republicans, including a badly divided party or possibly the entry of a third-party candidate, which will carry with it huge loses for Republicans as they seek to win the White House and maintain their majority status in the Senate.

Wednesday, March 09, 2016 at 08:51 AM | Permalink

Constitutional Abuse Defines This Election

Throughout this nation, Illinois not excluded, concerned Americans who believe this nation is on a fast track to Socialism and with it a Godless society — notably among those who embrace the Christian faith — must do more than pray. It’s not enough to pray and then leave the rest to God to handle (to get things done) without doing our part.

Although prayer cannot be dismissed, it is important to realize how today’s concerns have resulted from the abuse of our Constitution over many years. Too many Americans have little or no understanding of this nation’s Constitution and what the amazing document stands for: It encompasses the building blocks which should serve as the foundation of our nation today, even as it did when ratified for a new and fledgling nation on September 17,1787.

Therefore, the dominant issue for consideration as voters go to the polls on November 7th must be, “Do you realize the dangerous consequences of unchecked power getting out of control?”, and not moral issues, as such, or party affiliation.

Our Constitution, as conceived by our Founding Fathers, was meant to 1) protect this nation and its people from our elected leaders and 2) limit the scope of government by defining what it can do.

This nation’s 2nd president, John Adams, understood the consequences of power unchecked when he is wrote:

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”

Adams’ prophetic warning to a young nation strikes a chord today as Americans go to the polls on November 6th:

“. . . A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

The fear of what might happen down the road by the signers of the Constitution has come to fruition, despite all their concerns and fierce debates which preceded its ratification.

An inherent part of human nature is for man to devise back door ways to avoid dealing with issues, as was done over the years to circumvent our Constitution. The results have ushered in the creation of bigger and bigger government by both Democrats and Republicans, which has now culminated with a present Chief Executive who regularly usurps the Constitution and the rule of law through an expanded scope of executive authority beyond measurable means.

Our Constitution has been abused more in the last four years than at any other time in this nation’s history.

Highlights from the following article point to how President Obama views the Constitution. With his views come insight:

1. In Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, then State Senator Obama asserted “the Constitution was not a static document, but rather a living one, that must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

2. Obama went on to say that “democracy was a conversation to be had and that the genius of the Constitution was not that it provided a blueprint for action, but rather that it forced us into a conversation.”

3. Obama called the Constitution an “imperfect document” during a radio interview in 2001 because it omitted a reference to salves being given equal rights, further claiming that this “blind spot” exists today in our culture.

4. In another 2001 radio interview State Senator Obama asserted “that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties in that it states what the State and Federal government could not do to you.” The flaw existed because the Constitution “does not state what the State and Federal governments should be obligated to do on our behalf.”

5. In discussing the Warren Court, Obama did not think it truly radical “in that it did not break free from the constraints placed upon it by the founders.” Further noted was that the court “never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in our society.”

Obama did attempt to blunt what was to become his mode of operation during his first presidential term when responding on December of 2008 to a Boston Globe questionnaire. Asked about the use of signing statement during the 2008 election, due to President Bush’s use of them, Obama stated:

“While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.” Obama further stated that as President he would not use signing statements “to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law or to alter law.”

Not unlike President Obama’s other failed promises, from 2009 to the end of 2011 President Obama wrote 19 signing statements. Some notable ones include:

1. In 2010 the Obama administration announced that it would not be defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This represented an expansion of power in the assertion that the executive branch can now decide what laws are and are not constitutional.

2. In 2012 the Obama administration decided that certain illegal aliens would not be deported if going to college or serving in the military.

3. In the President’s incursion into Libya, although limited under the war powers act to no more than a 90-day commitment of forces and only in response to a threat to US forces or interests, Obama asserted that the Security Council resolution represented the authority he needed to go to war and that allowing drones and intelligence officials to remain in Libya did not meet the war powers limitations as US troops themselves were not in danger.

Michael Barone noted these additional examples of abuse when the President grossly overstepped his Constitutional authority in this article published on October 11, 2012, A Lawyer by Training, Obama Ignores Rules of Laws:

4. Regarding the WARN Act which requires employers to give a 60-day notice of layoffs, including defense contractors, the administration has asked companies not to send out the notices and has even promised to pay companies’ WARN Act fines.

5. Regarding welfare waivers given by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to states that want to relax work requirements, if not declared illegal, the result would be the rewriting of one of the most successful reforms of the last two decades, the Welfare Reform Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Article II of the Constitution sets out the duties and powers of the president. Section 3 states that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

On November 6th the American people will decide whether the most powerful president ever will be allowed to become even more powerful, or whether they want a president who will respect the rule of law and view the Constitution as the framework of our government.

The consequences will indeed be grave if the American people choose to live under the oppressive thumb of government, rather than in a God-centered, rule-of-law nation that will have a chance to thrive far into the future under a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

We are given one vote. We must use it wisely as we educate others to choose the right path, understanding that history teaches that power attracts evil like flies and likewise creates evil out of otherwise good people. The American people would do well to remember Hitler and his rise to power in Germany.

Published at Illinois Review on Tuesday, October 30, 2012.

A Momentous Choice Looms on November 6th

Now that the three presidential debates and the vice-president match-up are history, the end game is upon us. President Obama is asking for our vote to elect him to another four years in office, but has Obama’s record during his first term given most Americans the reassurance that another four years wouldn’t trigger a status quo performance on steroids?

Romney’s debate performances erased the Obama campaign’s effort (down the drain went countless of millions of dollars) to portray Mitt Romney as a rich fool who cares nothing about the middle class. Instead, Romney came across as one who looked presidential, had command of the facts, and whose economic background would bode will for this nation. With little time left before November 6th, Obama is rushing to define himself.

How might this be possible upon consideration of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012? Here’s the upshot: 1) Under Obama. for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent $10.95. That’s like a family who makes $70,000 a year — and already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year. 2) In fiscal year 2012 ending on September 30, the government took in $2,449 trillion but spent $3,538 trillion, 44 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1,089 trillion. 3) During Obama’s first term the national debt ballooned to over $16 trillion, more than $6 trillion higher than during 2008 when Obama bemoaned what he called the “orgy of spending and enormous deficits” under Bush. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/7-eleven-presidency_654846.html

And what did Obama recently say about the debt?: “We don’t have to worry about it in the short-term.” In other words, if you have $7, spend $11 instead, and let future generations of Americans worry about it.

Consider also before voting:

1. Gas prices have doubled since the Obama administration took over,.

2. College Graduates are living at home because they can’t find work.

3. Most peoples’ net worth has gone down considerably in the last 4 years.

4. Class welfare and racism have been pushed further to split this country.

5. More people are on food stamps than ever before.

6. President missed more half of his 1/2-hour Foreign Relations briefing in the White House.

7. GM still owes tax payers billions. Chevy Volt is a disaster,

8. President’s budget was turned down by 100 percent of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

9. President’s comment — “You didn’t build that” — was an affront to entrepreneurs and small business people. Clearly Obama doesn’t understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

10. Green energy companies like Solyndra — 36 so far — having received federal support from taxpayers, have either gone bankrupt or have laid off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

11. European-Style government doesn’t work and has never worked in the world’s history. Observe Greece, Spain and other European countries who are suffering right now. It is the ability for people to work hard and be successful in their own right, not Government handouts.

12. Emails released on October 23 show that the White House knew the Benghazi attack of the US.consulate on 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a spontaneous attack over a video. Unfolding is a series of emails alerts on 9/11 by the State Department Operations Center — as Obama administration officials were monitoring the attack in real time — sent through distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation room and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. http://news.yahoo.com/email-alerts-describe-9-11-benghazi-consulate-assault-015521878–abc-news-politics.html

13. For Christians, America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President with Acts of hostility toward people of ‘Biblical faith and Acts of hostility toward Biblical values. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBprinterfriendly.asp?id=106938

Reason number twelve should be deeply troubling to the American people, for if our President is capable of such deception where four Americans were murdered, including Ambassador Stevens, what else is he capable of? Honesty and integrity is demanded of our president. President Obama must be held accountable by the American people who elected him, having believed in him back in 2008.

You must decide, but will some of you allow yourself to be fooled once again by a smooth talker who continues to make promises, even though first term promises were abject failures, and in light of how Obama refuses to admit blame or to accept responsibility for his misguided and disastrous actions, not wanting to destroy his own self image, thereby putting himself and his own welfare above that of the American people?

Random Observations from the 2nd Presidential Debate

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

As expected, the President stuck to his talking points in Tuesday night’s second presidential debate without anything to back them up. But how could his approach have been any different? Obama’s failed record speaks for itself. But to Obama, if distortions of his dismal four-year record are repeated often enough, without deviating from the script, they will resonate with voters and stick in their minds come election time. But will this approach work? The second presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 seems to have engendered a different result.

In a championship fight, the challenger can’t win on points. He needs a knockout! In a split decision, the champion prevails. In the first debate, Governor Romney was the clear champion, in what the boxing world would call a TKO – Technical Knockout. When the contender can’t count to ten on his own, the referee counts for him. In the second debate, Romney stayed on his feet, punched and counterpunched. Obama tried to regain the belt, but failed to knock Romney to the mat. He didn’t even win on points, unless “Talking” points count.

When people act like victims, they often become victims. That’s how it works in the schoolyard or on the job. When our ambassador to Libya was killed, and the consulate burned and looted, the President and his representatives apologized for the act of a phony movie producer, and failed to defend the basic international law, not to mention our founding principles. Our embassies are legally on United States soil. We have a right to defend them from within, with force if necessary, and the host nation has an obligation to defend them from without.

He failed to denounce terrorism, as though that word freezes his tongue to the roof of his mouth. On or off the record, he has never denounced sectarian violence, as though that would offend the sectarians. Those apologies, which continued well after the facts were known, say that we were the victim in Libya, and invite further attacks. How do you “offend” someone who wants to kill you? Why would you care?

The victim mentality went a step further when a question about Libya was asked during the 2nd presidential debate. CNN debate moderator, Candy Crowley, quickly stepped forward and out of her official moderator role to defend Obama, from what she perceived as a Romney attempt to victimize Obama, when Romney suggested the President had failed to call the Benghazi attack a” terror” attack in the Rose Garden on the day after 9/11, or for many days thereafter. The next day Obama was no longer a victim when Crowley had to walk back her untimely and uncalled statement and admit that Romney had been correct in his debate analysis.

According to an article by Dave Boyer published in the Washington Times on Thursday, October 18, Obama has yet to confirm the “terrorist” act in Libya, as he attempts to avoid the stench and the fall out from the 9/11 consulate attack.

If you believe the Obama campaign in its ongoing effort to win over women voters, Governor Romney doesn’t care about women or their votes. Translated, this means Romney is against abortions, or at least averse to paying for them with borrowed money. Ask yourself, “How many women do I know who have had an abortion?” Then ask, “How many women do I know who are looking for work or whose husbands or children are looking for work?” Instead, women are concerned with the economy and the welfare of themselves and their families, such as the increase of food prices at the grocery store, how much it costs to fill up their vehicles, and the inability of recent college graduates to find jobs. That’s why 51% of women got in step with Romney after the first debate.

How ironic that the Obama campaign should accuse Romney of a so-called war on women. A former aide to the Obama administration once called the White House “hostile” to female employees. Anita Dunn, who recently served as Obama’s moderator during debate prep, was also the former White House communications director. Dunn was quoted in Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men as saying, “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace … because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Consider the question asked about tax policy. Once again President Obama repeated his claim that Governor Romney and the Republicans refuse to make the rich “pay a dime” to offset the deficit. Obviously, that’s not what either the Republicans nor Governor Romney said, before, during or after the debate. In fact, the “rich” pay the vast bulk of the income tax collected. The top 1% of earners pay 40%, and the top 10% pay over 80%.

The President wants to take more from the big pieces of the pie and distribute them to those with smaller pieces. But it’s always “THE pie,” as if it is the same pie yesterday, today and forever! Governor Romney’s plan would keep the same distribution of taxes at the present level, but structure it so that the makers and shakers of the economy have an incentive to make the “pie” bigger, and keep more of the “pie” they make grow. Everybody, including the government, would get bigger pieces. We need this incentive to move forward, unlike the paltry, one-time tax breaks the President would grant for hiring veterans, windmills on the rooftops, or whatever.

On energy Policy, the President countered Governor Romney by stating that oil and gas production is at an all-time high. Romney accurately responded that the growth is from drilling on private land, and that leases for government land have declined 40% under the current administration, and no new permits have been issued in the Gulf (all permits approved by this administration were initiated under President Bush.) When challenged over the drop in permits, the President dodged by repeating his claim that oil production is up, this time louder, and in Romney’s face.

Unfortunately neither candidate brought up the fact the the EPA is actively trying to shut down “fracking” operations and coal mining. Over 20% of our electric generation capacity is threatened with shutdown because they are older facilities which use coal. The pipeline from Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas was blocked by the President, and replaced with a segment (along with 19 other pipelines) from Kansas southward. Nobody said it, but this is “The Pipeline From Nowhere.”

It is amazing that Obama’s approval ratings remain so high among the American people. One thing the two presidential debates have so far indicated is that the millions of dollars Obama spent on ads, prior to the two debate to define Romney as an unacceptable presidential candidates, seems to have represented Democratic campaign money thrown down the drain. Through his two debate appearances, Romney was elevated to an equal footing with Obama by the American people. Many asked themselves, “Where is this mean, uncaring rich person that we saw portrayed on our TV’s day-after-day?”

Romney spoke and was heard. Hopefully enough of the American people will have heard and will decide that four more years of Obama would give this nation and its people more misery with further deterioration of jobs and economic wealth, especially among the middle class. If Obama should win another four-year term, this nation might never be able to recover from the consequences of continuing Obama’s already failed policies, let alone all the executive orders and mandates he would issue as a run-around Congress to put in place the “share the wealth” philosophy that he so fervently embraces.

Obama likes to say “Everybody should have a fair shot.” What, exactly, is a “fair shot.” The only solution he offers is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Cut up the big pieces of pie and stick them to the smaller pieces. This is a destructive solution. It’s like the “bounty system” recently scandalizing the NFL, where the strategy was to injure the good players so that the weaker players would have a “fair shot” at the championship. That worked well, didn’t it.

Posted initially at Illinois Review on Monday, October 22.

It’s the Electoral Vote, Stupid!

By Nancy Thorner and Jane Keill –

It’s most interesting, and sometimes great fun, to argue endlessly about what happened in the one and only Vice Presidential candidate debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden on Thursday, October 11. In our opinion, which surely is not unlike those of many others, Joe Biden’s behavior displayed the abject fool that he is. Unfortunately, Joe Biden is the

Vice-President of the United States! At the time it was a blood-pressure-raising event and the latest polls showed Romney ahead by 1% – then Obama was ahead in Ohio, but not Florida. And, on and on and on.

Thank goodness the results in the aftermath of the 2nd Presidential debate between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have erased, at least for the time being, our blood-pressure-related stress! The latest Gallup poll, as of Oct. 19, found that Mitt Romney has a seven-point lead over President Barack Obama.

Maybe you’re more interested in Dancing With the Stars or American Idol, and you just won’t care until election day when you finally have to make up your mind. But, turn your mind back to the 2008 election with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. At the time most of us did the same thing as we are now. We obsessed about the latest media-provoked circus, which was in keeping with the media’s objective. In the meantime, Barack Obama and his team marched steadily down the road to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, the number it takes to win a presidential election. President Obama’s doing the same thing now, abetted by the mainstream media.

As you may remember in 2000, it is not who wins the popular vote who becomes President. It is the person with the most electoral votes. This was brought home by the Bush v Gore and the Supreme Court decision. Florida was the big state of hope in that year.

Those of us in all-Democrat-all-the-time states — Illinois (20), California (55), New York (29) — understand fully why we rarely see the candidates or their ads. We have been written off, or maybe we should say, automatically put in Obama’s electoral vote count column. We don’t really get a say in our state elections, but this does not in any way mean that we shouldn’t vote! It only means that these states, and their respective electoral college votes, are already in the bag for the Democrats. When adding three more states to the mix which usually go to the Democrats — (Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14) — Obama has an electoral count vote total of 139 before the election is even held.

From there on it’s all up for grabs, which is why everyone is watching the ‘swing’ states of Ohio (18), Virginia (13), No. Carolina (15), Florida (29). These states have the next level of electoral votes that can lead to a win. Texas, with its 38 votes, has been purposely left out here because the state usually goes Republican.

It is not our intent to predict which candidate will win which swing state. The Daily Swing State Tracking poll for the Rasmussen Reader on Friday, October 19, shows however, an interesting comparison. Of eleven key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012, Romney has 49% of the vote to President Obama’s 47%. Romney leads by three in Virginia. He’s ahead by four in Florida and six in North Carolina.

An October 19th Gallup Poll release of likely voters in which all were asked who they would vote for if the presidential election were held today, the response was 45% for Obama and 51% for Romney. The margin of error is given as +2 percentage points.

Despite the current poll tabulations which currently favor Mitt Romney, it is impossible to predict for certainty what the results of the November 6th end game will bring. At this cross road before Election Day, it is wise to pay less attention to the flak that serves as distraction, but instead keep your eye on the prize:

The White House
The House of Representatives
The Senate

Do not obsess about the polls. Do not become discouraged. Do not think your vote doesn’t count. Do keep your eye on the prize! And, keep your eye on the electoral count!

Initially published at Illinois Review on Saturday, October 20,
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 08:08 AM | Permalink

Are We Saving Too Much for Our Own Good?

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold

When we mentioned assets as equity or debt in a previous post, we neglected to mention that assets can also take the form of cash, rather than investments or growth. In a strange twist of logic, saving money may be harmful to the economy, because savings don’t yield much in terms of earnings, and further don’t translate into goods, services and jobs.

Companies and individuals are retaining cash as a hedge against an uncertain future, as cash on hand allows companies to react quickly to changes in the economic environment. Unfortunately, this practice is especially reviled by Keynesian economists, and frequently cited by Democrats as proof that corporations and wealthy individuals are holding back the recovery. The implied threat to seize this cash in some way becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The greater the threat, the more retrenchment against that threat.

For multi-national corporations, the easiest way to keep their cash out of reach of Washington is to keep revenues generated overseas in those countries, under governments more friendly to business. This practice is, in fact, encouraged by Washington, to the extent that repatriated cash from foreign operations is subject to double taxation – in the country of origin and the United States. Many countries are more generous in allowing credit for taxes paid to other countries, notably throughout the European Union.

Individuals receive much less protection, except that foreign corporations benefit from favorable tax treatment in those nations, resulting in higher profits and dividends, hence higher returns for investors. Distributions to U. S. citizens are taxed as income, regardless of the country of origin, but the investments which generate this income benefit other countries even more. A company in the Cayman Islands has a 20% tax advantage over companies based in the United States. People invest there, Including Harry Reid (Senate majority leader) and Sally Wasserman Schultz (DNC Chairman), not for tax evasion, but because they can make more money even after taxes. As a result, our tax policy creates jobs in other countries, rather than in the United States. You can’t say jobs are being shipped overseas when they were never in the US, but the effect is the same.

Regarding those in the so-called middle class, they have less to spend and even less inclination to do so. If they buy cars and houses, it is because they have no alternative. If they move to find work or keep their job, or need a reliable way to get to work, they must dig into their savings, or do whatever else is called for, like skimping on necessities or borrowing if possible. The recent bump in car sales and real estate is probably temporary, because cars wear out (the average age is now over 9 years), and you need a place to live relatively close to work. Perhaps you know a “two coast” family, split apart by their jobs. Maybe it’s good for the economy, on paper anyway, to pay both mortgage AND rent, when the family can’t sell their house and move together.

Quite surprising was President Obama’s closing statement in the 2nd presidential debate on Tuesday, Oct. 16. Obama, with a straight face, told the American people that he believes in the free enterprise system. This came from one who has single-handedly destroyed jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors with his tax philosophy based on redistribution of wealth (a trickle-up economy) realized by soaking the rich as a way to spread the wealth around. Mr. President, when has a poor person ever created a job? Unfortunately, this is not the only example where the President says one thing and does another.

Placing the burden of taxation on the wealthy has another effect which is often ignored. The vicissitudes of the economy affects investment income even more than wages. When you depend on taxing the wealthy, this volatility affects the ability of governments to plan for the future; and an extended dip in the economy causes a disproportionate drop in tax revenue. This affects states as well as the nation. California is a notable example where even now, tax increases are directed to the most successful companies and individuals. The effect is compounded when these individuals move from the state, or remove their assets, sometimes out of the country. While it is politically safe to tax a tiny minority to the benefit of the majority, it divides the country between those who produce and those who consume, and places few boundaries on what the majority are willing to spend.

Bad government in California translates to a booming economy in Texas. The West coast, otherwise known as the “Left” coast, is being left behind. The East coast, notably New York, has the same problems, which generates the same responses. Assets are streaming to the south and midwest. The Northeast should, perhaps, be relabeled the “Wrong” coast. “Right” just doesn’t seem to work in this context.

Romney has the right idea.

Published initially at Illinois Review on Thursday, October 18.

Who’s Making Political Hay over Libya?

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

The Obama campaign accuses Governor Romney of politicizing the deaths of four Americans in the Libyan consulate. It would be more accurate to say that Romney is informing the public about the inept way in which Obama and the State Department handled the aftermath of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, which seems fully justified given the gravity of the situation with tones of a coverup.

In the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, October 11, Joe Biden said the Administration didn’t blame terrorists for the attack, because they didn’t know until later about the nature of the attack. Yet from a Reuters report the day after the Benghazi assault on September 12, officials related how some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda’s north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaueda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved. According to one U.S. official, “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack and appeared to be preplanned.”

It is curious that the Administration didn’t report what later proved to be true, but responded immediately, and continued to report for nine days, that the attack was instigated by a 14 minute video, which proved to be false. Apparently it’s OK to make up a story that fits your “Al Qaeda is Dead but General Motors is Alive” narrative whether or not you have facts to back it up.

Biden also said “We didn’t know…” that the embassy had requested additional security, based on a series of attacks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11.

It’s quite possible that the White House didn’t know the details, since that would be handled at a lower level in the State Department. However, the reason this request was denied was consistent with White House policy to maintain a low profile in Libya and elsewhere in the middle east.

History repeats itself if we ignore its lessons. Maintenance of a low profile is also the reason Delta Force in Somalia, 1993, was denied tanks and armored vehicles, and air support from C-130 gunships. As a result, we lost two Blackhawk helicopters, 19 dead and 100 wounded soldiers in that incident, as described in the book and movie “Blackhawk Down!” (Casualties would have been far greater if the Pakistanis in Somalia left their tanks and APC’s at home, or refused to come to America’s aid.) It is probably the reason 256 American soldiers were lost in the attack in Lebanon under Ronald Reagen, where the Marine barracks were left essentially unguarded. It is likely the reason we continue to take casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan – keep a low profile so we can pull out quietly — along with the infamous “rules of engagement,” which also come from the top down.

Governor Romney’s speech, 16 hours after the incident, was to decry the Administration’s apology over an obscure video, and to point out that America’s interests were at stake – sovereignty of embassy property and personnel, and the rights and principles which Americans hold dear. You don’t need the details when you know the United States has been attacked, and the Administration failed to acknowledge these basic facts!

The next day, more than 24 hours after the event, President Obama denounced Governor Romney for speaking, not the Libyan murderers, and then only after a campaign speech in Las Vegas and an appearance on “The View.” Obama’s most significant statement of the day was to the ladies of “The View,” that he was there only as “eye candy.” Indeed! Now, four weeks later, we find that Romney was right, but Obama’s, the State Department and Susan Rice were wrong all along.

Now fast forward to Monday, October 15 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, more that a month after Benghazi, Libya assault on 9/11, and while away from American soil and on a South American junket in Peru, South America, told CNN that she is responsible for the breach of security that led too the terrorist attack and death of the U.S. Ambassador and three others Americans on September 11. It seems like Obama put a peg on Truman’s motto where he can hang a name tag for the appropriate sacrificial goat. Hillary fell on her sword for Obama. Having purchased her soul (and silence) in the Chicago tradition (keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer). Obama stepped in to collect in an effort to exonerate himself. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html

In the meantime, the individual who made the disputed film, which was a non-issue until Obama held it up for the world to see, sits in jail, not for the movie, but for an unrelated parole violation which would otherwise merit an admonition and possibly a fine. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/anti-islam-filmmaker-nakoula-basseley-nakoula-jail-not-innocence-muslims

The lesson is clear: Don’t buy a bridge from the White House or from HIllary Clinton!

First published at Illinois Review on Wednesday, October 17.

Four tax burdens with an Obama victory in November

 

First published at Illinois Review on September 4, 2012

If Obama is re-elected on November 6, it won’t matter if the Republicans keep the House and/or take the Senate or vice versa, because Obama has proven to us time and again that he will simply do as he pleases. If Congress won’t pass what he wants, President Obama will issue an Executive Order – whether it’s Constitutional or legal or not – and force the action on us anyway. No one has stopped him so far. No one will stop him in the future.

With certainty, whoever wins in November will have the leverage to dictate the terms of the Bush Tax rates which are scheduled to expire on January 1, 2013.

There is good reason to believe that the Bush Tax rates would be extended under a Romney presidency, but should Obama be re-elected, he and the Democrats will allow the Bush Tax rates to lapse.  Your tax bill will go only in one direction, UP!  Also, if you die after January 1, 2013, your estate over $3,000,000 will be taxed at 55%, instead of 0% currently in place.

The election of President Obama would also definitely grant the taxes that are coming with  the Obamacare health plana continued lease on life. Within the this plan are about 20 new taxes that will be added to your already high tax load.  Many of these taxes are already in place and others are ready to roll on January 1, 2014, the date engineered by Democrats to prevent back lash from voters before the upcoming November election.

The Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT), which has never been indexed to inflation, will no longer hit the ‘rich’, as was its original intent. It will now hit approximately 28,000,000 tax-paying, average American citizens.And, rolling down the tracks to join the above taxes are two other taxes should Obama be re-elected to a second term: The VAT (tax) and the Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA).

How else can Obama deal with the staggering debt of $16 trillion plus, of which he has created over $6 trillion in his first term, unless new taxes are imposed upon the American people? After all, taxes are the meat and potatoes of the Democratic Party. Enough is never enough to keep constituencies happy and to retain power.

From Wikipedia comes this explanation of the VAT (Value Added Tax):

“A value added tax (VAT) is a form of consumption tax. From the perspective of the buyer, it is a tax on the purchase price. From that of the seller, it is a tax only on the value added to a product, material, or service, from an accounting point of view, by this stage of its manufacture or distribution. The manufacturer remits to the government the difference between these two amounts, and retains the rest for themselves to offset the taxes they had previously paid on the inputs.

The value added to a product by a business is the sale price charged to its customer, minus the cost of materials and other taxable inputs. A VAT is like a sales tax in that ultimately only the end consumer is taxed. It differs from the sales tax in that, with the latter, the tax is collected and remitted to the government only once, at the point of purchase by the end consumer. With the VAT, collections, remittances to the government, and credits for taxes already paid occur each time a business in the supply chain purchases products.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

In 2010 the idea of a VAT (tax) was up for consideration by Congress.  Paul Volcker, who was at the time, President Obama’s debt and deficit commissioner, and other big-government advocates, said a VAT should be considered to fund major spending obligations.

According to an article written by John Northdurft and published on July 15, 2010, a Chamber of Commerce study indicates that Government spending grew 45 percent faster in VAT nations than in those without one. Northdurft was questioned as to whether imposing new taxes to pay down the deficit and fund unsustainable entitlement programs is irresponsible.  He responded, “Without real, extensive entitlement and spending reforms, the United States will not be competitive in the global economy and our national debt will continue to balloon.” http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-vat-will-increase-both-debt-and-taxes

A VAT usually begins at a fairly low level and then soars once it has been put in place to feed a government’s insatiable craving for money.  A recent article in the Chicago Tribune (9/15/12) tells of a large increase in Iceland’s current VAT:

“Iceland:  The government is considering an astronomical tax hike on services used mostly by tourists, including hotel accommodations, restaurant meals and attractions.  If approved, the increase in VAT (value-added tax) to 25.5 percent from 7 percent would take effect May 1.  An outcry is expected from the tourism industry, especially tour operators who have booked trips for next year and cannot absorb the additional cost.” www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-trav-0916-world-watch

Many European countries have a VAT (tax). It often runs between 15% and 20%. The VAT is often the main tax of a country; they usually do not also have an additional income tax or property tax. Once a VAT is in place, it’s almost never removed.

Should Obama be re-elected, past behavior predicts that he will apologize to the American people, telling them there is no other way to tackle the massive debt (still blaming Bush!) other than to adopt the VAT (tax). Obama will further implore the American people to trust him because it must be done, after which the American people will be obliged to pay another tax in addition to the ones they already pay.

As with the VAT (tax), the Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA) issue is still lurking in the background waiting to be put into effect. This tax idea recently was raised in 2008 as one way to stem losses by workers and retirees who were losing money from their 401Ks and IRA accounts due to unemployment and the bad economy.

The program involves mandatory participation in a government-run savings plan to which each citizen would contribute five percent of his salary. The plan would be administered by the Social Security Administration, but would be separate and in addition to the citizens’ current social security accounts. In turn, a refundable tax credit of $600 would go to each participant, regardless of his contributions. The account would have a guaranteed interest rate equal to the government’s official inflation rate plus three percent.

Further suggested at the time to/by Congress were that tax breaks for 401Ks and IRAs and pensions be eliminated and these funds be put under the GRA to be run by Social Security. The result: By giving up your earned pensions and savings and investments to the Federal Government, in return it would guarantee – oh, absolutely promise! – you would be paid a specific amount when you retired – for the rest of your life.  Just like Social Security!

Given a national debt of $16 trillion staring legislators in the face, with no serious effort to stop or reduce it on either side of the aisle, there is little doubt that Democrats in a second Obama term would look at what Europe is doing,

With GRA, the government would take away your last vestige of personal control. It doesn’t matter that government did nothing to earn it or grow it. They want it. They need it. They’ll throw it away and give it away. They’ve put this country into trillions of dollars of debt and they are desperate to find money anywhere, not only to pay the bills, but to continue spending.

How could legislators be expected to resist the lure of trillions of dollars of private savings just sitting out there being used by private citizens? They’ll want to ‘redistribute’ those funds to all those who ‘need’ it and never worked for it – because it’s fair, don’t you see?

And, don’t think the Republicans won’t fall prey to the same lure. We’re out of money. Somebody has to find it somewhere, and these savings would be easy pickings. Just nationalize everyone’s accounts and give them a receipt with a promise to pay it back – with interest.

Why not beat your Senators, your Congressmen and the White House to the punch. Call them and warn them you are aware of this movement and don’t want it happening.

If you fail to let your elected federal legislators and the White House know you are watching them, they will quietly go about their business and will keep you in the dark until it’s too late. Always keep in mind what will happen if Obama is re-elected and has four more years of uncontrolled power with no accountability to any one.

In November you have one chance to vote Obama and others who think like him out of office. Don’t blow it!

Apologies of remorse reap undesirable consequences

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

The administration, supported by the liberal media, denies that anyone apologized to the Islamic world for offending them. They take the narrow view that an apology expresses remorse for some offense the speaker has committed.  In the rhetorical sense, however, an apology occurs when the speaker attempts to justify the wrongs anyone has committed, including someone else. Marc Antony’s speech to the Romans was phrased as an apology for Caesar’s faults, with surprising consequences.

That’s precisely the substance of apologies uttered by the State Department, which justified attacks on the interests of the United States by Islamic militants by blaming them on an obscure video clip that hardly anyone had seen up to that point.  It was compounded by apologies spoken by Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama, on television in Pakistan, paid for by the US Government.

Like Antony’s speech, this too had surprising consequences.  Much like the firemen in Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”, who poured kerosene on burning books, this Administration continues to inflame the radicals and spread the violence.

We can’t expect much support from the United Nations, which not too long ago appointed Muamar Gaddafi the head of the UN Council on Human Rights.

We probably can’t expect more than sympathy from most of Europe, where it is a crime to say many things, even to defame a public official.

We certainly can’t expect much of anything from nations where religion is the government, and free speech is considered blasphemy. However, if we fail to defend our nation’s interests, and hold our concept of human rights up as an example to the rest of the world, we makes ourselves look weak to our friends and enemies alike, and invite further attacks.

What we need is an apology worthy of a Roman warrior, which places shame on the assassins, rather than our country and its principles, and inflames the quest for justice.

This nation, and especially Israel, cannot depend on President Obama to be that Roman warrior.  It would upset Obama’s carefully crafted, false image of himself, reinforced by the mainstream media, as one who is tough on terrorism.

Remaining in power with unlimited and unchecked power is all that matters to President Obama.  He will say and do anything to retain his control, knowing that the mainstream media will function as his protective gear.

May that fearless Roman warrior soon show itself before it is too late and remorseful appeasement apologies lead to catastrophic consequences for Israel and this nation. Hopefully Mitt Romney is up to it!