Mitt Romney expresses America, the foreigner Barack Obama is incapable of understanding

Traditional American, the successful  Mitt Romney eloquently answers a question regarding Barack Obama’s conviction businesses are not the product of the imaginitive, risk taking individual but the result of the collective (ala  true Marxist indoctrination).

Please click below to view Mitt answer without teleprompter:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-context-is-worse-than-the-quote.php

Marxist Obama’s “UNDER ME” Syndrome

The arrogant, self flagellating and adoring “I” of college snoot, Barack Hussein Obama, has finally slipped into an “UNDER ME”…….in the most recent off tune warbling by unfortunate America’s  present  president.

The dishonesty, brazenness and ignorance  of Mr. Obama shines like a beacon when he rails without teleprompter.    He is at home with himself…..and let’s loose his Marxist underbelly.

Please click on below for BOs comments  regarding not the joys which occur “under him” as president, but the joys which will occur “under him” starting next January when he is re=elected.

Obama: Under Me “People Have A New Attitude Toward America” And “More Confidence”.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/obama_under_me_people_have_a_new_attitude_toward_america_and_more_confidence.html

Obama Campaign Team Plays Joe McCarthy against Mitt Romney

Is Obama the Joe McCarthy of the 21 Century?   It seems so!

Joe McCarthy and the Millard Tydings Case:

(Pictures can speak a thousand words.)

From the 1920s until 1951, Millard Tydings had a distinguished career as congressman from Maryland. A principled politician, he made a dangerous enemy in Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose early rumblings of Communist penetration into the federal government and military that Tydings had thankless responsibility to investigate.

His report was highly critical of McCarthy and when Tydings ran for re-election in 1950, McCarthy’s staff distributed a composite picture of Tydings with Earl Browder, the former leader of the American Communist Party. Although McCarthy himself remained deliberately removed from his dirty tricks brigade, his wife approved the publication of the photo in the tabloids.

Tydings had never met Browder before the latter testified before the senate committee in July 1950. The composite photo–reproduced half a million times–merged a 1938 photo of Tydings listening to the radio and a 1940 photo of Browder delivering a speech. (The caption did say, “this composite photo,” but the audience was unfamiliar with the word). The text underneath stated that when during Browder’s testimony committee, Tydings had said “Oh, Thank you, sir”. The quote was accurate, but taken out of context; in fact, furthest from the amity implied, Browder and Tydings clashed vehemently during the hearings.

Tydings was not re-elected.

Comment:   We are already aware of the lies and distortions about Mitt Romney’s very successful years at Bain Capital and the numbers of jobs saved in the reorgnizing of failing businesses.   Obama plays the Joe McCarthy very, very well on the campaign trail.

And then there is the following twisting of the picture of Mitt Romney by Obama’s political affiliate, NBC:

NBC Attempts To Make Romney Comment A “You Didn’t Build That” Moment

There is nearly nothing forthright and honest about Barack Hussein Obama.   Click below to review  Obama sleaze at work, and continue making your own endless lists of Obamasleaze:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/nbc_attempts_to_make_romney_comment_a_you_didnt_build_that_moment.html

Another Prager University Course: THE DECISION TO DROP THE ATOM BOMB ON JAPAN

Dear Friends:

 President Harry Truman ordered the atom bomb to be dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sixty-seven years ago. His decision is still controversial, and widely condemned by many.

 Should it be?

 Father Wilson Miscamble, professor of history at Notre Dame, provides the definitive answer.  If you have doubts about whether Truman made the right decision, you need to watch this course. It’s as power-packed, deeply persuasive a five minutes as you’ll ever see. Watch it here.

 

Stay connected with Prager U.

 We have a cool text messaging capability that will update you whenever we have a new course or important news. It’s  easy to sign up. Text this message “PragerU” (no quotes) to this short number 69302 and you’re there!

 New Faculty

 We’re adding new faculty to Prager University. In the next few weeks we will be filming comedian Adam Carolla. He has some very funny, incisive comments on what it means to be a man. We’ll also be filming Peter Kreeft, famed professor of philosophy at Boston College. He’s making the rational case for God’s existence. How’s that for diversity?

 

Prager University Fund Raiser Event in California:

 We’re holding our first official fund raiser on Thursday, August 9, 2012 in Brentwood, CA.  Fox News analyst, Frank Luntz, and famed actor, Jon Voight. are co-hosting. Dennis Prager is the featured speaker. If you would like an invitation, email us at Info@PragerUniversity.com.

It’s going to be a great evening. 

 

Sincerely,

 Allen Estrin

Chancellor, Prager University

chancellor@prageruniversity.com 

   

 

Marxist Obama becoming even More Marxist pandering for votes

Pandering to His Base

Obama goes left, left, and left again.

by Fred Barnes   at Weekly Standard:

 The usual strategy for presidential candidates is to appeal to the political center in hopes of broadening their support. President Obama isn’t doing that. He is tilting sharply to the left on issue after issue: immigration, religious liberty, welfare, gay marriage, the environment, race, the role of government. Why?

The simplest answer is that his bid for reelection is in trouble, and he’s going where he has the best chance of finding friendly faces. In fundraising, you rely on folks who’ve donated before. Obama is going after voters who’ve voted for him before.

But why focus his campaign on them? Didn’t Obama long ago lock up the various liberal elements and interest groups who make up the Democratic party’s base? Yes, but their mere support is not enough. He needs them to swarm to the polls and vote in the same massive numbers they did in 2008. At the moment, that seems unlikely.

A poll in mid-July by Resurgent Republic found that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting in the presidential election than either Democrats or independents. Sixty-two percent said they’re “extremely enthusiastic,” compared with 49 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents.

In truth, Obama has few alternatives to trying to jack up the Election Day turnout of his base. Pollster Whit Ayres of Resurgent Republic believes Obama has given up on going after white working-class voters. His share of their vote has dipped below 30 percent in polls. And while he won independents handily in 2008, recent surveys show that crucial bloc favors Romney.

Obama’s emphasis on liberal issues won’t appease independents—and may alienate many of them. He has a separate plan for overcoming their disaffection: trashing Romney. His personal attacks and campaign ads characterize Romney as a capitalist buccaneer unfit to be president. If those work, independents—a few million, anyway—may reluctantly settle for Obama as the lesser evil.

But arousing the base is still key. “He has gone to the left on everything as aggressively as he can,” says Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who ran Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996. And on practically every issue he can.

The Obama administration’s imposition of a rule requiring health insurance policies to provide free birth control pills and free sterilization thrilled liberals, especially feminists. His blocking of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas made the environmental lobby happy.

By an executive order of dubious constitutionality, Obama changed immigration law to allow roughly one million illegal immigrants to remain in the country free from arrest and deportation—an unabashed effort to increase the Hispanic vote. His attorney general, Eric Holder, has noisily criticized voter ID laws as thinly veiled attempts to prevent African Americans from voting.

Two weeks ago, the administration announced another policy shift to please liberals. By bureaucratic directive, it decreed states could abandon the requirement that welfare recipients seek work. Intentionally or not, this gutted the welfare reform law of 1996, the most significant achievement of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Besides Hispanics and African Americans, Obama has wooed gays by announcing his support for same-sex marriage. This also had the intent of unleashing a flood of campaign contributions from wealthy gays, just as the Keystone decision was expected to spark donations from environmentalists.

In pulling off these unsubtle moves, Obama has had an ally. Republicans and conservatives complained about all of them, the Catholic bishops are furious over the unprecedented requirement that Catholic employers provide health insurance that violates their church’s teaching, and the about-face on enforcing immigration law drew strong attacks. But the mainstream media were sympathetic to the president’s actions, either downplaying them or openly siding with Obama, and the protests died down. The notion that Obama was purposely veering away from the center was rarely noted.

But the impact of Obama’s latest pitch to the left, delivered on July 13 at a firehouse in Roanoke, Virginia, is likely to linger. Except for the conservative press, the media largely ignored his speech. Yet it was memorable for his denigration of success in business and glorification of government.

Obama’s hostility to business, the profit motive, and wealth in general is no secret. During the 2008 campaign, he talked up income redistribution, telling Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Why is Taxpayer Money to PBS Mouthing the Obama Campaign?

 

Krauthammer Calls PBS’s “Inside Washington” An “Arm Of The DNC”

GORDON PETERSON: Well, is Romney right? Is the President out of touch with the country? But what’s going on here? Why doesn’t Romney just get rid of the headache, just release the tax returns? Charles?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Gordo, you’re killing me. This is a week when Obama makes the gaffe of the year, and you’re leading with the taxes? Look, I’ll be a good soldier. I’ll play along. This is an arm of the DNC, I know, but I’ll play along.

PETERSON: The question was about Mitt Romney, I just thought I’d remind you.

KRAUTHAMMER: Romney and taxes. Yes, of course. Well, here’s the answer. He’s releasing two years. John McCain released two years. And John Kerry, John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz, who as Willie Sutton would say, is where the real money is, never released any. Two years is enough.

Click below for video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/21/krauthammer_calls_pbss_inside_washington_an_arm_of_the_dnc.html

The Soviet Evil of Obama and Friends

 

The enemies list, now and then

by Scott Johnson

One of the charges in the standard liberal narrative of the Nixon years

— see, e.g., Stanley Kutler’s The Wars of Watergate —

is Nixon’s misuse of the IRS to torment his

political enemies.

I don’t know whether Nixon’s enemies list(s) was actually put to this use. Kutler reports in the text that Washington Post lawyer Edward Bennett Williams was audited three years running and adds in a footnote that the practice goes back to FDR. The IRS-related charge in any event made it into Count II of the articles of impeachment voted against Nixon. It was, not to belabor the point, a serious matter, but that was then.

 

In April this year Kimberly Strassel cited Nixon in her column “The president has a list.” In this case the list consisted of donors to the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. Strassel reported an alarming development brought to us by the Obama campaign, one occurring in broad daylight:

This past week, one of [Obama’s] campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

 

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

Strassel noted that the Obama campaign’s conduct was unprecedented and raised a red flag:

His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Strassel was apparently on to something. This week Strassel returned to the case of Frank VanderSloot in “Obama’s enemies list — part II.” Mr. VanderSloot is getting the treatment that Richard Nixon could only dream of dishing out to his enemies:

Mr. VanderSloot has since been learning what it means to be on a presidential enemies list. Just 12 days after the [Obama campaign] attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.

 

Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been “selected for examination” by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot’s wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).

 

Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.

 

Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.

Strassel aptly closes her column: “If this isn’t a chilling glimpse of a society Americans reject, it is hard to know what is. It’s why presidents are held to different rules, and should not keep lists. And it’s why Mr. Obama has some explaining to do.” Her email to the White House requesting comment has gone unanswered.

 

When Obama joked about siccing the IRS on his enemies back in 2009, Glenn Reynolds took to the pages of the Journal to make the elementary point that politically inspired tax audits are no laughing matter:

Paul Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati who writes the TaxProf blog, noted in response to Mr. Obama’s remarks that the law calls for the termination of IRS employees who make audit threats for illegitimate reasons. He suggested that Mr. Obama’s “joke” might be grounds for firing if he were an IRS employee.

 

He’s not, of course, but as the president his words carry much more weight and he should be much more careful.

Now what? For those of use who lived through Watergate, it must be at least slightly surprising how little attention Strassel’s columns have drawn. Our friends at Hot Air have taken note, as have our friends at Right Coast, and Glenn Reynolds has followed the store via TaxProf Blog. In his RC post, Tom Smith reasonably proposes:

A Congressional committee should get an IRS official on the hot seat about this ASAP. The White House using the IRS to intimidate political opponents is a serious, serious abuse of power. It might be a coincidence. Or it might be a quiet word from the WH to a political friend in the IRS. And the labor department as well. Idaho’s congressional delegation needs to get on this right now.

The mainstream media are of course missing in action. An election is looming and if it weren’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.

 

The above article sent by Lisa Rich.