Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Obama vs Romney: Pres Evades Record & Wants Gun Ban

One pundit said that President Obama was fired up and ready to defend his record.

The fella making the statement was only half right though. Obama was certainly fired up compared to the first debate, but the president had absolutely no intention of talking about or defending his record. 

The president's game plan was to attack his opponent, deny the facts, and of course mock and demean Mitt Romney's plans to help this nation. And yes, Obama seem to employ the words "not true" to rebut Romney claims during the debate at every turn.

It was real evident that he seemed to almost enjoy mocking Romney with sarcasm, short quips, and one liners.

The president did so at one point by mocking Romney’s five-point economic plan saying, “Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector. That’s been his philosophy as a governor. And that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”

Romney called Obama’s assessment “way off the mark,” but it didn't stop Obama from playing games with the facts. The president's spin seemed to start way before the end of the debate when his surrogates will spin the facts to make his record look better to the American people.

Was it testy at times? Sure it was, with both candidates frequently interrupted each other in what quickly turned out to be a feistier face-off than the first time they met.

The debate did revisit familiar territory as the candidates brought up taxes and the budget, though the exchange this time was a lot more heated.

Romney, as he has before, defended his economic plan saying he wants to lower tax rates across the board but make sure the top 5% don’t pay less than they’re paying now. And of course, as usual Obama attacked the plan. Nothing new there.

Obama, as he has before, claimed Romney is pushing a $5 trillion tax cut that either “blows up” the deficit or leads to a middle-class tax hike in order to work saying “We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that."

Romney countered that “of course” his own numbers add up and claimed Obama’s account is “completely foreign to what my real plan is.”

“When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 Trillion in deficits over the last four years - $5 Trillion,” Romney said, reminding the audience that the federal budget deficit in each of the last four years has exceeded $1 Trillion.

Off the subject of taxes and deficits, when asked how will candidates handle equal pay for women? Obama rose to proclaim himself the champion of women's causes.

Obama's defense of Planned Parenthood and how the federal government subsidizes women like Sandra Fluke (pronounced "Fluck" at Georgetown law) to buy their own condoms and such was his attempt to portray Romney as wanting to end abortion laws and return women to the days when they washed their clothes at the river. Yes, it is that absurd.

Of course Obama failed to mention just how wealthy Planned Parenthood really is. Fact is that even without them being federally subsidized, for a non-profit organization, they do really well. Killing babies is big business for them.

Somehow Obama failed to mention that in August of 2011, it was reported that Planned Parenthood provides over 330,000 abortions every year and brings in about One Billion Dollars annually.

He also failed to mention that even though they make that sort of money, they still fight to protect their federal government subsidies which amount to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to its clinics every year.

It's true that although it has nearly One Billion Dollars in net assets, Planned Parenthood protects its $363 Million Taxpayer dollars it gets in the form of grants.

You would think that their very healthy balance sheet would indicate that Planned Parenthood is fully capable of self-funding if it were to tap its own assets - and that's according to its own annual report.

Besides its own assets, Planned Parenthood's abortions are well funded by Hollywood liberals - so why do they want the millions of dollars that they get from taxpayers when they don't need it.

Could it be a simple case of greed? Probably so. But there is one more aspect of why they need all of the money they can get their greedy little hands on. They need it to buy Democrat politicians and pay their liberal lobbyist.

President Obama conveniently failed to mention how we are in such economic straits that we need to think about curtailing federal support of a private company like Planned Parenthood that has the means to take care of their company without taxpayer funds.

But really, he knows very well that they have the ability to pay their own way. It's all just a way for Obama to say he loves women.

It's sort of sick really. It's as if he's saying, "See, I love you so much that I'll make sure you can kill your baby - but only if you want to." And the sad part is that that's how he will win liberal women over to his side.

However he does it, Obama's reference to Planned Parenthood is one of many of his appeals to female voters over the course of the debate. And it’s no accident, he needs their vote.

It's also no accident that Obama completely failed to bring up another aspect of the question pertaining to equal pay for women.

You see, it was reported as recently as a few months ago that his own White House staff pays the male staffers more than they do women staffers who do the same job. Yes, it's true.

On April 11th, 2012, a report entitled Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts exposed the Obama White House of paying women staffers differently than the male staffers for doing the very same job. 

On April 12th, 2012, the National Review Online published an article entitled Stop Obama’s War on Women Staffers!

The article stated: "Speaking of a War on Women, look who pays his male employees 18 percent more than what he pays his female staffers: President Barack Obama!

Yes, the Great Equalizer of Women and Men, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of Feminism, turns out to compensate men at the White House almost one-fifth more money than women who work at the Executive Mansion, according to a report by Andrew Stiles in the Washington Free Beacon. Stiles’s article on Wednesday, in turn, was based on an analysis of the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff.” This document provides the names, titles, and salaries of 454 of Obama’s workers. While women at the Obama White House earned median annual salaries of $60,000 last year, the equivalent remuneration for their male colleagues was some $71,000 — roughly 18 percent higher.

This gender inequality is slightly worse than the sex-based income gap at Obama’s former Senate outposts on Capitol Hill and in Illinois. Disclosure filings show that men who worked for Obama’s legislative offices earned 17 percent more than women on his staff. If anything, the pay disparity between men and women on Team Obama has widened marginally as his power has grown, along with his pay."

Just this last June, it was reported that Democrat diva Nancy Pelosi’s female staffers are paid less than her male staffers.

But hey, it must have conveniently slipped his mind. Sure it did!

Evading His Record

When asked about what he accomplished while in office, his answer had everything to do with what he "wanted to do" and very little honesty about what really happened.

At one point President Obama said,  "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well."

The problem is that the facts don't agree with what he says.

What Obama fails to mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. 

In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit even more.

And as for his accomplishments, one voter asked, "Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive."

That was when Obama went through his make-believe record saying, "I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle class families. And I did. I told you I'd cut taxes for small businesses, and I have. I said that I'd end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we'd refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaeda's leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead. I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can't jerk you around and if you don't have health insurance, that you'd have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have. I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We've created five million jobs, and gone from 800 jobs a month being lost, and we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse."

Whew! That was great. Too bad it's no accurate!

It was George W. Bush's troop surge in Iraq - the same one that Obama fought against - that brought an end to that war. It has been the infrastructure that George W. Bush put into place that has made it easier to go after Al Qaeda and protect the nation. And yes, it was George W. Bush who put into action the capabilities to find bin Laden.

As for the Obama myth: "Over the last 30 months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created."

Well, the facts say different.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that a lot of jobs have been created under Obama's leadership - 4.4 million by the bureau's latest count. 

What Obama does not say, however, was that the nation has lost 4.3 million jobs during his term, and that the net gain since he took the oath of office in January 2009 is just 125,000 jobs.

And guess what, GM did have to restructure. It just used federal funds through a bailout instead of private investment funds as Mitt Romney believed that could have taken place.

What Obama failed to tell the voter was his real record:
  • 23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed
  • 47 Million on Food Stamps
  • 5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure
  • $4500 Drop in Household Income
  • $5.5 Trillion of New Debt
  • $716 Billion in Medicare Cuts
  • $2.6 Trillion for ObamaCare
  • $1.9 Trillion in New Taxes in Obama’s Budget
  • 120% Increase in Gas Prices
And as for his screw up in Libya?

When asked why enhanced security at the consulate in Libya was denied? Obama never did answer the question. He only side-stepped the question. In fact, he side-stepped it so well, it was with an ease that immediately qualified him for Dancing With The Stars.

When Romney pressed the matter, he used an old familiar defense saying that he found that idea of any of his team doing something for political reasons as being "offensive." Imagine that!

When Romney asked why he took so long to say that the terrorist attack was indeed a terrorist attack instead of blaming it on some goofy YouTube video, moderator Candy Crowley came to his rescue.

In one of the most talked about moments in tonight’s debate was when Candy Crowley did an on the air "fact check" of Mitt Romney on Libya.

And let's not fool ourselves here, let's not make a mistake here, this was her attempt to cover for President Obama. She lied to help Obama, and it worked.

It was only after the debate that Crowley started to backtrack and say that Mitt Romney was right about Libya. But by then the cameras are off, and she helped who she wanted to when he needed it - didn't she!

In a statement given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama emphasized an anti-Islam video, before saying that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.”

The administration’s narrative on the attack over the next two weeks was confusing at best.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice attributed the attack on the U.S. Consulate to violent protests stemming from a “heinous and offensive” anti-Islam YouTube video.

On Sept. 25, the president himself declined to call the attack an act of terrorism during an interview with “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing.

Obama even mentioned the anti-Islam YouTube video six different times during his speech at the United Nations. And let's not forget, the FBI arrested the guy who made the video.

After the debate, "Romney was actually right on Libya" trended on Twitter.

So what did we learn?

Well, both men showed up to get their points out there.

Mitt Romney made his case, it was just that simple. Through the constant attacks and accusations of lying, he kept his cool for the most part and made his case as to why we should fire Barack Obama.

He laid down a laundry list of things Obama promised and failed to do. In many ways doing the night, Romney laid down another list of things that Obama has tried to do to do - but thankfully hasn't accomplished.

It is a fact that the pressure was on President Obama to look better than he did during their first meeting in Denver.

And in many ways, the president didn't disappoint the liberal talking heads out there. He came out of his corner seemingly angry. Feisty maybe, but more arrogant to be sure.

He walked a line at times of being obnoxious. He tended to do what he does best, attacks without listening or discussion. It was all attack. And what's worse, it seemed rehearsed.

Obama's strategy appeared to be simple really, just put his talking points out there and attack anything that Romney came up with. And yes, help from the moderator was his ace in the hole as she cut off Romney and allotted more time to Obama.

The president does not usually talk about his plans for his next term should he win re-election. He avoids talking about any specifics at all pertaining to what he going to do if re-elected.

Maybe that's why it seem more like a slip than anything else tonight when he let a bomb fall during the debate.

The one unexpected bomb tonight, something that I really don't think he wanted to put out there before the election, is really a very big deal.

Gun Control!

There is nothing that rallies Conservatives to the polls faster than the real threat of Gun Control. And last night, President Obama said that he would try to revive the ban on assault weapons.

Friends, that's big!

In the second debate, Obama faced challenges on key issues. He was forced to come up with many plausible reasons why he's done some of the things he's done, and why he really hasn't been able to get our country back on track economically.

Then someone asked about AK-47 assault rifles and the issue of gun control.

Obama immediately attacked Romney over his past support of a gun ban in Massachusetts while he was governor. Romney replied saying he's not in favor of new gun legislation.

Then President Barack Obama opened the door to pushing for a ban on assault weapons saying that if he wins a second term he will seek a new gun ban.

Wow! I couldn't believe he said it. I had to ask my wife if she could rewind the DVR so that I could check if I heard it right, and I did.

Obama did say that he wanted an assault-weapons ban like the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1994 - if he's elected to a second term.

Though the first gun ban expired in 2004 without being renewed by Congress, for good reason Obama has done little to push such a proposal forward during his time in the White House.

In fact when Attorney General Eric Holder mentioned the possibility of reviving the ban in early 2009, the White House immediately played it down and backed away from it.

Many people,including me, really believes that it was Bill Clinton's gun ban that lost the Democrats Congress back in 1994. It was politically stupid.

Last night, President Obama endorsed a push for a gun ban if he is elected to a second term saying, "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

Reuters reported this morning that Dan Gross, president of the anti-Gun Group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was encouraged to hear Obama mention the ban.

I bet he was!

So why is this a big deal? Well, in short, it's because since Obama has been in office there has been a great deal of speculation by conservatives throughout the country who believe that Obama would try to install some sort of gun control measure while in office.

We know that the Obama administration backed the United Nations recent attempt to regulate our right to firearms through a Small Arms Treaty. Thankfully that failed.

Now we see Barack Obama for who he really is. For the person, who many have said would indeed try to do just what he said tonight.

He was once an ardent proponent of the assault-weapons ban, and he still is. Because of Barack Obama, gun sales in the United States has never been better.

The huge volume of gun sales is directly connected to the belief that Obama has wanted to ban guns. He is the reason that gun sales around the country have exploded.

And last night, he proved everyone concerned with this issue - absolutely correct.

Story by Tom Correa

1 comment:

  1. I hate it when somebody comes along and says that there should be a ban on guns not knowing that it won't solve anything. Yes, I DO believe that most people don't deserve guns but what I DON'T believe is that we should blame the gun for all the gun violence that goes on. Rather we should blame the suspect for having had the audacity to go out and buy the gun in the first place. If there's one thing I learned from tragedies such as Sandy Hook, The Pulse, and the Nashville school shooting it's that banning guns is NOT the answer. Yes, gun restrictions are acceptable. But some gun bans are not. For example, you can't legally ban a police officer from carrying a Glock if that's what he wants to carry. And you can't ban a homeowner from protecting themselves with a Beretta. But you also cannot allow felons or the mentally ill to purchase a firearm in order to cause bodily harm or even death. If you allow this to happen, the blood will be on YOUR hands. (no pun intended). And before you get all triggered, (once again, no pun intended), hear me out. I don't WANT another tragedy to happen. I only want gun owners to keep their guns. And I also want legislation to keep them out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. I don't even trust myself with a gun. But if we ARE gonna rightfully own our guns, we must know what to do with them and why. We can't just go around shooting people whenever we're pissed off or depressed. And we can't automatically assume that going to school with a loaded firearm in order to stop bullying will solve anything because it won't. And it doesn't. But what we can hope for is that we will finally have the right to bear arms in this country. And there's only one way you'll take away MY gun. And that's from my cold dead hands. Love to all.


Thank you for your comment.