The Reagan in Romney

"We are never defeated unless we give up on God"

Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them"

"We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child"

"Without God, democracy cannot and will not long endure"

We need to look for  ...

"The Reagan in Romney"

While some of my conservative friends are criticizing the Romney campaign for one thing or another, I want to make a distinct point that is largely being overlooked: Mitt Romney is the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan.

Looking back through his speeches, interviews, and programmatic proposals, I see an emphasis on economic freedom, free enterprise, low tax rates, deep federal spending cuts, and free trade, and a free-market approach to tough social problems, such as health care, education, and poverty. Meaning no disrespect to George W. Bush, John McCain, Robert Dole, and George H. W. Bush, not one of these former Republican leaders was the consistent and comprehensive free-market advocate that Romney has been.

A few recent examples help illustrate my point.

Following his trip to Israel, Romney released an essay called “culture does matter,” which was printed on National Review Online. In it, he strongly defended his statement that culture plays a key role in creating prosperity.

Romney wrote that “one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.” 

He added that “economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty . . . the only principle that has ever created sustained prosperity.”

The last Republican leader to talk specifically in those terms? Ronald Reagan.

And when Romney walked into the NAACP lion’s den in July, he told the crowd: “Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class.” He was booed at the beginning of that speech when he opposed Obamacare. But he received a standing ovation at the end, once people heard his overall philosophy.

I recently asked the former governor about Obama’s now-infamous “you didn’t build that” statement. Romney blasted it by saying, “This is an ideology which says, ‘Hey, we’re all the same here, we oughta take from all and give to one another,’ and that achievement, individual initiative, risk-taking, and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past.” 

He called it an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. The language is clearly Reagan-like.

Programmatically, Columbia Business School dean and top Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard recently laid out the specific Romney economic plan. (Undoubtedly, the Romney campaign crossed every “t” and dotted every “i.”) The plan would lower the spending share of GDP to 20 percent from 24 percent by 2016, which is probably the largest proposed spending cut ever. 

The cumulative net savings of that cut could be a whopping $1.8 trillion ... 

which not only would finance huge deficit reduction, but also would help pay for Romney’s pro-growth tax reform: a supply-side, across-the-board 20 percent personal-tax-rate reduction, a limit or end to various tax deductions for upper-income payers, and a dramatically reduced corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent -- perhaps the most powerful growth stimulant of all. Rounding out the economic program is a regulatory rollback, entitlement, trade, education, and energy reform, and a sound monetary policy (replacing Ben Bernanke at the Fed).

The liberal Brookings Institute seized on the tax portion of this plan, arguing that revenue neutrality would force Romney to end deductions and raise taxes on the middle class. Nonsense. That analysis completely misses the massive spending-reduction in the overall package, along with growth incentives for everyone and base-broadeners only for the upper brackets.

And according to Hubbard, Team Romney believes this pro-growth economic plan would generate 4 percent annual growth and create 12 million new jobs in a first term.

So Romney has set specific policies and connected them to specific, positive economic results. He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth. And he backs this up with an unmistakable philosophy of economic freedom. It’s the backbone of his thinking, and it connects to policies that will restore American prosperity.

Now, I’m willing to concede that Romney’s message has not been refined enough for the public at large. In particular, I would prefer that he harp on the word “growth” far more than he does. And he will probably have to winnow his key points even more (though he has brought them down from 59 to five).

So there’s more work to do before the big convention speech. But to suggest that Mitt Romney is not an economic conservative makes no sense to me. Look at what he’s saying. And look at what he’s proposing. 

And then think of Reagan.  

Larry Kudlow Townhall.com 8/11/2012
********************************


And today Romney gives us Paul Ryan to prove my point.


"We are never defeated unless we give up on God"

Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them"

"We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child"

"Without God, democracy cannot and will not long endure"

Ronald Reagan

Liberals, Progressives and Socialists

The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn't happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas ... 

leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." 

Liberals, Progressives and Socialists

 By Dr. Walter E. Williams ... Aug 08, 2012

 In Europe, especially in Germany, hoisting a swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers, who were responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people.

Here's my question: Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught -- and possibly is covered up -- is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. 

You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers, such as the Wall Street occupiers supported by our president, care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

What's not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler's Nazis pale in comparison to the horrors committed by the communists in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China. Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website here, and in his book "Death by Government."

How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle. Mao Zedong has long been admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Barack Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.

 Whether it's the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism -- a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.

The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn't happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." 

It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans -- who would have cringed at the thought of genocide -- who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.

If you don't believe it, just ask yourself: Which way are we headed tiny steps at a time -- toward greater liberty or toward more government control over our lives?

Perhaps we think that we are better human beings than the German people who created the conditions that brought Hitler to power. I say, don't count on it.

What Are The Secrets

President Obama's former classmate has interesting advice for Mitt Romney. 

Turn the tables on Obama.  

Focus on one of the key areas where Obama has clearly done the very thing he accuses Romney of doing ... 

refusing to release the facts regarding his past to the American people.  

"The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia"  Wayne Allyn Root - August 6, 2012

 I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

 By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

 D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?  If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.

It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Change the Subject

Should Romney release his tax returns and allow Obama to divert the focus of the election onto trivial issues rather than Jobs, the economy, and Obama's failed policies?


Obama's campaign has used this tactic time and again in the past elections to create rabbit trails that lead the electorate away from the key issues that the people want and need to hear debated ... 

How is America going to work it's way out of this monumental mess that the president, in his delusional state, continually refers to as a recovery? 

If this sounds strange, consider the facts. While Obama has worked on his agenda: forcing healthcare reform, forcing socialist ideas, and forcing a radical environmentalist green jobs agenda. Can anyone name anything he has effectively done to turn around the real estate industry  or the construction industries from their total collapse? Is there anything that he has done to effectively promote the growth of small businesses in the past four years?

We can all give a list of moves that have been anti-job growth in the traditional energy industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. and it is clear that if re-elected his plans will in Obama's own words "see energy costs necessarily skyrocket." 

Have you even considered the true impact of this green jobs agenda that the Democrats are pushing? Think about it. Part of the plan is higher energy costs so that all of the garbage product they peddling will somehow become valuable. 

How does this play out? 54 MPG click here Real easy ... raise fuel efficiency standards to 54 MPG and see what that does to the value of the Chevy Volt that nobody likes, or wants to buy or drive. That might be a boom for GM and somehow make that union bailout look good, but at a cost to who? All consumers not willing or able to drive a very costly Chevy Volt.

The environmental movement needs for gas prices to be higher ... not lower. Obama said it; "with my plans energy costs will necessarily skyrocket" 

Okay look at what has already happened during his three years in office. click here: Gasoline prices have risen by 103% during the Obama presidency. 

What does this really mean beyond doubling the cost of filling your gas tank? 

For me, this past week, it became clear when a round trip economy ticket from LAX to OKC has doubled to around $500 when the new baggage charges are added on. 

But the truth is that the cost of everything has gone up dramatically ... 

EVERYTHING that needs to be transported by air, truck, or rail and that is basically everything ... the costs have been adjusted dramatically upward accordingly. 

This is the hidden tax of these green energy plans they have forced on all of us. From light bulbs, to electricity, to gasoline, and virtually everything else. 

And Obama's energy secretary Steven Chu said; click here:  Somehow, we need to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe How can we ever get out of this mess with fools in charge working against us who are determined to ONCE AGAIN double the cost of gasoline to $8.00 a gallon?

The president knows that a majority of the people know that not closing the border, printing phony money, continuing without a budget, forcing thousands of new EPA regulations down our throats, and forcing a  plan that doubles the cost of healthcare ... are not solutions that bring about private sector job growth, new taxpayers, and the reduction of the unemployed Americans. 

Intelligent debate on these real solutions will result in Obama's defeat.

So what is Obama's plan? 

Change the subject. 

Let's talk about ... my NCAA playoff picks. 

Let's spend this campaign talking about taxing the rich, or gay marriage, or Romney's tax returns, or Romney's dog or Romney's gaff (you did hear about the gafff, right?)  ... talk about anything ... please anything except creating jobs or any of the president's many other failures during the past four years.

Obama wants to show us all how great he is at playing Chicago politics so that he can continually change the subject, and get on with four more years of destroying America with his Marxist socialist plans for all of us.

Romney needs to change the subject back to his plans for success for America ... and also pointing out Obama's plans for more of the same failures, and the division that Obama and his plans have brought upon America. 

And of course, let's not forget the mainstream media who are unofficially running the president's re-election campaign and the foolishness and failure they have collectively brought upon America.