Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney makes Obama look foolish in this debate clip. It only takes 45 seconds…

31 Oct

romney obama

http://conservativetribune.com/romney-makes-obama-foolish/

This Romney – Obama debate moment now haunting the president! 45 seconds

23 Jul

http://conservativetribune.com/romney-makes-obama-foolish/romney obama

Mitt Romney saw this coming a long time ago, according to a video posted on IJ Review. “Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again,” he said to Obama during the third presidential debate in 2012. “I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin. I’m certainly not going to say to him, ‘I’ll give you more flexibility after the election.’ ”

Romney predicted exactly how Putin would respond to such attempts at appeasement: “After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, of course. There are many pundits who claim now to have seen all along what would happen in U.S. – Russia relations under a continued Obama presidency, just as there are many who predicted then that only Obama could keep the peace between the two countries.

Obama’s response, that Romney wanted to return the U.S. to the Cold War is equally telling. The Cold War had been “over for 20 years,” as Obama said. The president seems to forget, however, that it was Ronald Reagan’s policy of dealing with the Soviet Union from a position of strength that ended the Cold War.

Just as Obama’s appeasement seems poised to start it up all over again.

Words of Wisdom: Doug Smith

19 Mar

To my blog family: This is a must read in response to a question about the day in which we live from a wise compadre, Doug Smith Reagan
——————————————————————————————

I don’t concern myself with eschatology so much anymore. although I used to. The end? Well, it will come when it comes, and neither me, nor anyone else will know in advance. So live life as if today were your last day. Someday you ll be correct, and you will waste less of the time you have.
Now, that being said, I do think we are in a dangerous world. If you were looking at an Olde World map, there would be many places marked ” Heere there be Dragons. ” There are, as there have been always, wolves, bandits, men who believe that they can and should take what others have if they have the strength to do so. It is a lazy and evil attitude. It says I will not work hard to have what you have, I will not emulate your hard work and gain the same rewards you gained, I will wait for your work to be done and hit you and take it.

It began with Cain. It has never stopped. Unfortunately, there are also, and have always been, naïve , childlike men who believe in the world as they think it ought to be, and refuse to see the world as it is. And when these naïfs manage to get in control with high sounding but empty words, the results are based in the reality of what an adult would expect.

You don’t let your 4 year old drive your car, because you know what to expect. You don’t let a dangerous animal near your family, because you know it may attack. You build fences to keep out the bear. If it comes to close, you shoot at it. You let it know that you are as dangerous as it is. Otherwise it will come into your camp and eat your food, and perhaps, you.

I first noticed these things when Jimmy Carter was President. But in looking back across my lifetime, I have now noted a pattern. JFK met with Khrushchev, and that hungry old bear left with the impression the man was weak and feckless. A spoiled rich boy, not able to do anything without his daddy s money; Nikita saw no challenge in the man. His bumbling betrayal of the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs reinforced the impression that there was no substance to the man. And so we got the Cuban Missile Crisis. And I, along with millions of other children, were taught to cower under a desk to protect me from a thermonuclear blast hitting the Nickel Plant. Although the popular myth of the time was ” the Bear blinked, “, we now know that in fact, Kennedy quietly agreed to what he wanted all along. A few months after the Crisis passed, we removed our missiles from Turkey. A weak President, a challenge by a bandit, and a loss to America.

Jimmy Carter s weakness and incredibly naïve reading of world politics gave us the Mullahs in Iran, the hostage crisis, and gave rise the the modern Islamic terrorist threat we see around today. It makes a fine statement on those naïve supporters that a weak man who facilitated more violence and armed conflict than perhaps any other 20th century President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. On the other hand, they also awarded it to Woodrow Wilson, who was re elected based on staying out of WW1, and launched us into it a month later.

Ford was tested by the Vietnamese and responded strongly. And we had a period of relative peace. Reagan and Kaddafi reached an understanding. Khadafy would shut up and not support terrorists against US interests, and Reagan would not bomb his tent anymore. He was winding up again during the Clinton years, and had an active WMD program. But strangely, in the month that the Iraq war started, he contacted the Brits and began to negotiate shutting it down. 9 months later, the US airlifted 25 metric tons of material and equipment for producing nuclear weapons out of Libya.

So now? We have weak, inexperienced, feckless, naïve leaders at the helm of the strongest nation in history. Common sense, and the evidence of my eyes, tells me that bandits and bullies will press their advantage. What will happen exactly? I don’t know. It will not be in our interests. Make no mistake, the bandits and bullies of the world pay attention to US politics. They do what they can, through propaganda or money, to put the sort of leaders in place that are beneficial to them.

The times are perilous. Our leaders are ineffective. Elections have consequences. Real, life and death consequences. The numbers tell us that Obama got fewer votes in 12 than in 08. 4 million Republican voters sat out the election, because Romney was an admittedly imperfect candidate. Yet if those 4 million had done what I did, ie held their noses and voted, Romney would be President. Elections have consequences.

If you are a Republican who sat at home in 2012 because you wanted Gingrich, or Herman Cain, or some other candidate, then YOU are as responsible for this second 4 years of trouble under Obama as the ” give me ” crowd who voted for him as Santa Claus. Don’t whine about how bad it is, and whine OH what can we do anyway, if you didn’t bother to cast your vote. You like what you have now? No? Then don’t sit home this fall. Don’t sit home in 2016. Don’t ever sit home again if you have breath in you.

William F Buckley said ” Support the most right leaning viable candidate. ” Wise words. A very conservative candidate with no hope of winning is a waste of time. A failure to vote for a candidate who is not all you want, but is closer than the opposition is politically no different than voting for the most radical leftist out there. And thus we suffer with Barack Obama. I hope this dangerous world scares every conservative, every Christian, to the point that they will never again fail to vote, and get their friends out to vote. THAT is the thing we can do. There may be more, but when we fail to do even that, then shame.

” All that is required for evil to win, is for good men to do nothing.” That applies to Barack Obama s dealings with Putin and Iran and North Korea and China. But it applies equally to the electorate and Barack Obama. Find the good as you see it, and support it all you can. Failing to do this means that evil will gain. Whether Obama is evil or naïve and misguided, I cannot say. I don’t see inside him. But his actions are such that they permit evil to gain ground. So when we permit him to win, we do the same thing.

Now, the WV 3rd race between Rahall and Jenkins is getting national attention, because for the first time there is a real chance that a Dem will lose the district. Pulling power from the Dems in Congress lowers Obama s ability to do the misguided things he does. Capito has a real chance to capture the Senate seat of Rockafeller. WV could be one of the states that wrests control of the Senate from Harry Ried and finally puts the brakes on the Obama agenda. So there is something you can do, if we are still around in November.

Christians are wont to say, I will do such and such if the Lord tarries. Don’t worry about that. Do the right thing today. If the Lord comes, you ll hear about it, trust me. Meantime, do the right thing today.

Ok, that’s my take on it.

9 hours ago · Like · 1

Obamacare projected to cut employment

13 Feb

obamacare 3 years laterFeb. 13, 2014 @ 07:11 AM

MARK CASERTA

Can it get any worse for Barack Obama and his signa­ture healthcare law? Until now, the Obama administra­tion has only had to worry about stories of canceled health plans, low enrollment and a botched website rollout. But now they’ll have to figure a way to counter last week’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures regarding Obamacare’s projected impact on jobs and the economy.

Last week CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf delivered testimony on Capitol Hill that the Affordable Care Act will create a “disincentive for people to work,” adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.

The non-partisan CBO report found that more people would opt to keep their income low to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Med­icaid. The workforce changes would mean nationwide losses equal to 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021, the report said.

House Speaker John Boehner believes the report validates the GOP’s longstanding concerns.

“For years, Republicans have said that the president’s health care law creates uncertainty for small businesses, hurts take-home pay, and makes it harder to invest in new work­ers,” Boehner said in a state­ment. “The middle class is get­ting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse .” Interestingly, the mounting evidence against the presi­dent’s healthcare law has even liberals admitting the bill may be flawed. Yet many still sug­gest it will provide affordable healthcare for everyone.

Time truly dissipates the facts, so allow me to refresh the memories of forgetful liberals.

Pre-Obamacare, based on a 2011 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, there were approximately 25 million people in our nation uninsured. But according to the CBO, once the bill is fully implemented, the end result will be approximately 30 mil­lion people still left uninsured! Sure, there will be new people getting health care coverage. But liberals ignore the mil­lions who have already lost their coverage and the millions more projected to lose their coverage when the employer mandate takes effect in 2015 for larger businesses.

Liberals also ignore the fact that Barack Hussein Obama knowingly misled Americans into thinking they could keep their healthcare coverage if they liked it.

“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise,” Obama told a Town hall in Wisconsin. “If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.” This grandiose misrepresen­tation won Obama the Politi­fact “Lie of the Year” award. Attempting to rewrite history by claiming what he “actually” said was Americans could keep their plan “if it hasn’t changed since the law passed” was deemed a “pants on fire” lie by Politifact.

Sadly, this legislation was deceitfully sold to Americans and is being blindly supported by liberal minions who believe this president can do no wrong.

But when the smoke clears, Obamacare will have had a devastating impact on jobs and our economy.

And Barack Obama will have forged a legacy of failure at America’s expense.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dis­patch editorial page

We Need Mitt 2016

11 Feb

https://www.facebook.com/MittRomney2016?notif_t=page_invite_accepted

Mark Caserta: Americans can’t compromise privacy for security

30 Jan

NSA
Jan. 30, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

Do Americans have a fundamental right to privacy from government intrusion into their lives?

The right to privacy, in many ways, has been taken for granted to some degree by the American people. Each of us has grown accustomed to having the liberty to establish varying boundaries in our lives that we simply expect others to respect.

But the right to keep those boundaries might be in peril.

While the Constitution contains no “express” right to privacy, courts have ruled the Bill of Rights creates “zones of privacy” which protect us from government intrusion in many areas of our lives. Our Founding Fathers believed that smaller, less intrusive government was necessary in enabling Americans to be free.

I’ve been tentative about weighing in on National Security Agency (NSA) systems analyst Edward Snowden and his “whistle blowing” of our government’s security techniques to the world. But it’s time Americans begin processing how this information may impact our future personal freedoms.

Snowden revealed a top-secret program code-named “PRISM” operating under the provisions of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the government uses to collect personal data from American citizens indiscriminately and regardless of suspicion of wrongdoing.

Investigations have confirmed that data such as video chats, photographs and emails are collected from the servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.

My position has been this is an infringement upon the privacy rights of Americans. While Snowden “appeared” courageous in his whistle blowing, he should have presented his case through the proper venues — an error which will likely keep him from ever returning home.

But then last week, two leading members of the House Intelligence Committee revealed a classified Pentagon report that found Edward Snowden’s leaks have compromised U.S. military tactics and put troops in danger.

Republican committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers and ranking Democrat Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger said that Snowden stole approximately 1.7 million intelligence files that “concern vital operations of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.” Since this information has already aided the enemy, Snowden is now pegged a traitor.

“The vast majority of the material was related to the Defense Department, and our military services,” Rogers said in an Associated Press interview last week. “Clearly, given the scope and the types of information, I have concerns about operations that would be ongoing in Afghanistan.”

It’s important for Americans to maintain perspective here and not be swayed by political affiliation.

Our government has been exposed (albeit by a traitor) “experimenting” with the boundaries of privacy afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

In 2013, President Barack Obama, himself a constitutional lawyer, told Americans they were “going to have to make some choices” balancing privacy and security and defended the NSA surveillance program vigorously.

Consider this: If our privacy isn’t protected by the Constitution, what then, defines the government’s limitations?

Americans should never be asked to give up fundamental rights to gain the government’s protection.

That’s a dangerous step backward.

SENATE GOES NUCLEAR

28 Nov

declaration signingMark Caserta: Nuclear option provides Dems fundamental change

Nov. 28, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

Democrat leadership won’t allow anything to impede President Obama’s progressive agenda.

Last week, Senate Democrats “progressively” altered our representative form of government by invoking the so-called “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

The act’s conviction was appropriately characterized by Vice President Joe Biden while speaking last week to a group of immigration activists.

“As my father would say, come hell or high water, we’re going to win this.”

Folks, this administration is painstakingly committed to fundamentally changing America.

In a partisan 52-to-49 vote, Democrats used a rare parliamentary procedure to change the rules and making it possible for Congress to confirm most judicial and executive nominees with just 51 votes as opposed to the supermajority of 60 votes previously required.

Following the split decision, senate leadership retreated to their respective corners.

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters following the vote, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

But Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev., thumbed his nose at the Republican outcry, declaring it was time for the Senate to “evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks.

“The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

After the vote, President Obama told reporters at the White House that Republicans had turned nomination fights into a “reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt and noted while “neither party has been blameless … today’s pattern of obstruction … just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, but our representative form of government known as a “Republic” is “exactly” what the founders intended! And what you refer to as “obstruction,” Republicans call protecting Americans from your socialist agenda.

Additionally, Mr. President, do you recall in 2005, as an Illinois State senator, how you lamented over Republicans considering the nuclear option for President Bush’s nominees?

“I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness … I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

If not, perhaps you recall what your Senate majority leader said during the same controversy.

“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government.”

Why the double standard, Mr. President?

It’s clear the current system of checks and balances prevent Barack Obama from achieving his “fundamental change” for America “legislatively.”

His only hope for pursuing his socialist agenda is to nominate and have confirmed more liberal judges in our nation’s judicial system. And the Senate rules just didn’t provide enough votes to confirm activist nominees.

But Americans aren’t fools, Mr. President. They’ve become quite astute to the progressive mindset and very weary of this liberal adventure.

And the 2014 mid-term elections aren’t that far away.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: