Archive | October, 2012

Rambling of the Day: The word on the street – integrity

24 Oct

It’s taken me a while to decide which aspect of the debate I wanted to ramble about, and I’ve decided I don’t want to really nitpick the debate. I want to look at one specific aspect of the campaign that I believe is the prime reason for this huge surge occurring in Romney’s favor right now. That element is integrity.

It’s a word that doesn’t come up much on the far left, because it isn’t a campaign strategy. It isn’t in the code of Chicago style politics. But it is something that the American people are waking up to. It is something many of us have cared about all along, and something that more and more people are realizing Obama lacks and Romney lives by.

Romney is not just a good politician. He’s not just a successful businessman. He is a good person. Nothing that the Obama smear campaign has come up with against him has carried any weight. The latest attack from Obama is that Romney hates Detroit. He wanted the car business to go bankrupt. Obama bases this idea on an article Romney wrote in 2008, which spells out the dangers of a total government takeover of GM. It does not say GM should die a horrible death. It explains the process of bankruptcy and how much better the auto industry will be if it goes through it.

“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.” (Mitt Romney, NY Times article. Read it all here:

In the last foreign policy debate, Romney showed the country that he is respectful, presidential, and honest. He showed that he could take the slanderous attacks from his opponent and not let the petty personal remarks get under his skin. Now, throughout the debate, I personally wanted to just scream in Obama’s face for all the lies, drastic extensions of the truth, and outright disrespectful condemnations he was spewing at his opponent.  But that’s why Romney is up there and I will never be. He showed over and over again that he could blow off the outrageous allegations from the president about his own ideas and come back strong, without calling the president a liar. The Obama campaign has no problem coining stupid terms like “Romnesia” to bad-talk the Republican candidate, but Romney’s refuses to be so petty. I laughed several times during this debate because Obama continuously ignored questions about his policies in order to point out why Romney was wrong on his stance on an issue. News flash, Mr. President: Mitt Romney is the challenger, not the incumbent. You should be more worried about defending your decisions than trash talking Romney’s opinions. I suppose your own record is something you have to avoid as a candidate, when that record is stained with incompetence and failure. As Romney stated so smartly in the debate, “Attacking me is not an agenda.”

Romney’s integrity has been seen throughout the campaign. When Harry Reid made the insane assertion that Romney was a tax cheat, what did he do in response? He released his tax records. And for those of us who understand the tax code, what he paid was perfectly legal. Oh, and by the way, besides not being a tax cheat, we also learned through these records how generous Romney is. Thirty percent of his income was given to charity. Romney has nothing to hide. If only we could say the same about Obama, who can’t even provide his college transcripts for the people who elected him. What’s there to hide?

But all of that just is not enough for some people. Many still want to claim Romney’s some kind of poor-person hating, warmongering, evil rich white man. Chris Matthews says he’s a racist. For these stupid claims, all you have to do is look at his record. Romney is squeaky clean. His bipartisan efforts – hugely successful – as governor prove that he’s able to work across the board. He’s not interested in blaming the opposing party for preventing government from doing its job. He has proven that he can cross those lines and work alongside liberals to get things accomplished. What a vastly different record from Obama’s – a record that shows a president unwilling to negotiate with the other party, instead shoving through his agenda through executive orders and manipulation.

Jane Edmonds, democrat member of Romney’s cabinet, proves Romney’s ability to work across the party lines:

And I’ll close with something many people probably don’t know about the Romney campaign. The campaign was offered information and testimony from a college friend of Obama that would prove Obama sold and used cocaine in college. The Romney team’s response?

“People who would have taken the information to the highest levels of Romney’s campaign just wouldn’t touch it.”

“The source also added that when told about the cocaine using gossip, the Romney campaign made it clear they did not want the candidate associated with the drug dealing claims in any manner.” (Radar Online source,»+News)

Why? Obama’s campaign has no problem jumping on any possible allegations about Romney it can get its hands on. Harry Reid’s accusation about Romney’s tax returns had no basis in fact whatsoever, but they still used it as a campaign tool. Obama’s ads against Romney have blasted him with false accusations about his activities at Bain Capital, including an ad with a man claiming the death of his wife to cancer was Romney’s fault. So the Obama campaign is fine with indirectly calling Romney a tax cheat and a murderous businessman. Then why won’t the Romney campaign jump on this opportunity to paint Obama as a cocaine dealer?

Integrity. The same reason Romney will not insult the president, to his face or indirectly, in the demeaning and condescending way that Obama does to him. I have been to two Romney rallies, and never has Romney come up with a silly term like “Romnesia” to insult the president. He doesn’t waste his time bashing Obama. What does he do instead? He states with clarity and honesty the truth about the president’s record and agenda. The failures speak for themselves. They do not need to be exhausted with bullying and trash-talk. And then he explains his agenda, because he actually has a plan.

Integrity is the difference between these candidates. It is certainly not the only one, but it is the one that has stood out to me most strongly throughout the past few months. And, God willing, it is the one that will help turn this country around.

Rambling of the Day: The evolution of a lie

19 Oct

I’m sure in our new and evolving world, where people’s beliefs and ideas about their own principles somehow evolve over time, we have new and evolving definitions of what a lie is. But I’m going to go out on a limb and be my old-fashioned self and say Mr. Obama lied in the debate Tuesday night when he tried to claim that he said, the day after the Benghazi attack, that the attack was an act of terror. Now, I’m slightly disappointed that Mitt Romney didn’t hammer him with the word terrorism. Instead, he struggled to pin him down by saying he did not call the attack an act of terror. What he should have said is, You did not call the attack an act of terrorism.

Saying something is an “act of terror” is not entirely synonymous with saying it is a “terrorist attack or “act of terrorism.” An act of terror can be any heinous act, like the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado. Rape can be considered an act of terror. That does not mean that it is an act of terrorism.

In his speech in the rose garden the day after the attack (Sept. 12), Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also called the attack a “terrible act.” He did not admit that it was a premeditated act of terrorism, which has vastly different implications. Now to be fair, one can use the word terror when talking about terrorism. So I’ll step back for a moment and say that if the president indeed called this an “act of terror,” attributing it to terrorism, then I would cut him some slack. What he said in the rose garden was not an admission that the attack in Benghazi was caused by terrorists. It was a general statement saying the resolve of the United States would not be shaken by acts of terror.

But really, that was only one day after the attack. Maybe he just didn’t have enough information yet. Okay, sure. But if Obama and his staff didn’t have enough information to call it an act of terrorism, then how could they possibly have had enough information to go around for two weeks spreading the idea that the attack was a spontaneous attack caused by an anti-Muslim Youtube video? If it would have been a premature assumption to call it a terrorist attack, then it certainly would have been an assumption to call it a spontaneous attack caused by an American-made Youtube video. Yes, it certainly would have been an assumption, a giant leap of an assumption – one that will now come back to bite this administration for its incompetence.

So, Obama comes out Tuesday night saying he said from the beginning this was an act of terror. Right. What Obama is trying to do here by twisting his words and rewriting recent history for the American people, who are obviously too unintelligent to figure out what was said ourselves, is exactly like what Bill Clinton tried to do with the Lewinski scandal. Rewrite history. Change the facts, or change what the facts mean, at least. Manipulate them in a way that won’t change the words that were said but will magically change their meaning. And then he will sigh and say, “Duh. Of course this is what I meant when I said that. Come on, try to follow, guys.” And we’ll slap our foreheads and suddenly be enlightened to what the meaning of the word is is.

By the way:

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts. (AP)

The “fog of war.” The conflicting stories from the CIA. This Youtube video. Mitt Romney’s speech the next day that threw everyone off. The other uprisings occurring throughout the Middle East. The fact that the president had to hurry off to Las Vegas to get to campaigning the next day. I don’t know, probably George W. Bush, too.

Everyone and everything is to blame for this misunderstanding. Everyone, that is, except the president, the commander-in-chief, who claimed in his rose garden speech, “I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world,” yet takes no responsibility for the lack of security there in the first place. Perhaps he’s started attending his intelligence briefings and has decided to, you know, do his job. Perhaps this is just more rhetoric to try to calm down all of us who are overly excited and overly suspicious about this. But for those of us who are old fashioned, his administration has lied about this attack, and it will not be long before the cover-up – the cover-up that is always worse than the implications for telling the truth would have been – is brought to light.

Rambling of the Day: Women’s rights = planned parenthood subsidies?

16 Oct

“Mitt Romney is for ending funding to Planned Parenthood,” says Eva Longoria in an ad entitled “Vote,” from Wow, now that is something to talk about! If Romney is elected president, he will totally cut off funding to a private sector entity. If he becomes president, he will somehow gain control of the funding of private companies and have the ability to decide if they will continue to exist.

Longoria and her fellow Hollywood babes are obviously going for the uninformed, dumb female vote with this ad, if they expect viewers to believe that Romney will somehow have the far-reaching ability to control the funding of Planned Parenthood. What Romney has said is that he will end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Taxpayer dollars will cease to fund the abortions of unborn babies through this organization. That is starkly different from simply ending funding to the company. And here’s another perspective. Romney donated 29% of his income to charity in 2011. If liberals who support Planned Parenthood could be generous with their own incomes to help the clinic, instead of passing responsibility for this funding on to taxpayers – many of whom do not support the procedures Planned Parenthood provides – then they would not have anything to whine about. Planned Parenthood, like any other company, should be able to support itself without government subsidies. Otherwise, like any other business that cannot get the funding it needs to survive, it should be allowed to go out of business.

“We have Republicans trying to redefine rape,” is Scarlett Johansson’s clever line in the ad. Yeah, who are those Republicans again? Oh, yeah, Todd Akin and – oh, that’s right, Todd Akin. There is one Republican, a candidate for senate, who has made a comment about legitimate rape – a candidate who everyone in the Republican establishment, from Sean Hannity to Romney himself, has asked to leave the race. I’ll put it this way – just because Bill Maher thinks it’s okay to use disgusting language to talk about women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman does not mean that I’m going to go around saying all liberals are disrespectful to women. But sure, it’s okay to generalize Republicans and say they are trying to redefine rape… because of a comment made by one Republican.

You want to talk about women’s rights? Hop across a continent or two and take a look at what’s happening to women. Look at 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan, who was shot by the Taliban for speaking up for education rights. Look at the gross mistreatment of women in these parts of the world, whose total lack of any kind of human rights would make you sick to your stomach to realize. If Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington really care about women’s rights, maybe they should focus their attention on actual problems, not the make-believe ones they are so adamantly against in this ad.

Oh, but Chelsea, that’s on the other side of the world. Those women are speaking up for women here in America. You can’t beat them up for that! Okay, my bad, maybe I’m getting too far out there by worrying about those other women. Let’s get back to America.

You know what women in America should be worried about? Barack Obama’s extreme, immoral stance on abortion. They should be worried that their president refused to sign a bill that would protect babies who survived labor-induced abortions the right to live.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” (

Our president thinks that if an abortion taking place in the ninth month – a time that far surpasses even the latest argued age of viability (24-27 weeks) – goes wrong, and a baby survives it is born alive, that baby, or “nine-month old fetus,” as he calls it, has no right to life. That “fetus” should still be aborted. In normal people terms, that baby, born alive, can still be killed.

But sure, let’s make the issue about Romney and his “extreme” agenda of cutting federal funding to poor Planned Parenthood, whose 40+ years of subsidies – handouts of your taxpayer dollars – are not enough to fund the country’s leading abortion provider. Let’s try to scare women into thinking their rights are what is at stake, instead of Planned Parenthood’s subsidies.

Man, you’re really hammering the abortion issue. There are other details to women’s rights than just that.

Yes, there are, and let’s take a lesson from the president. Today, the president allowed Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, to take the fall for the Benghazi incident. Obama was followed by reporters today and was perfectly able to let them know that he felt “fabulous” about the debate tonight. He was, however, silent seconds later when asked if Hillary was to blame for the attack in Benghazi. Our president would rather throw his secretary of state under the bus for this incident than to accept responsibility as commander-in-chief, for the lack of security on the anniversary of 9/11.

I’m not just singling this issue out because Hillary Clinton is a woman. It would be just as horrible if the president had done this to a male secretary of state. But for a president who acts like he is so concerned about the women of this country and their rights, how can he do this, knowing it will most likely hurt Hillary’s chances for election in 2016? How can a president who is so worried about women be so willing to throw his secretary, who could have a real chance of being the first female president in 2016, under the political bus?

The answer is simple. Obama cares about one thing right now, and that is reelection. He can let Hillary take the hit and have these celebrities spout lies to the women of this country because one thing matters, and that is spending the next four years in the White House.

Rambling of the Day: Where is the outrage?

12 Oct

I am not going to go into length over last night’s Vice Presidential debate. I will say that I thought Biden did better than expected, although he could not hold back from his Chicago style tactics of bullying, slandering, and laughing condescendingly at his opponent. Ryan held his own and said the important things that needed to be said, and he didn’t get worn down by the seasoned political bully.

I want to focus on one specific detail about the debate that may have been overlooked, which occurred in the first few minutes, when the attack in Benghazi was brought up. A lot of things Biden did angered me, but nothing boiled my blood more than to hear the vice president adamantly deny, once again, the Obama administrator’s responsibility in what happened. Last night he told the American people: “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

This is an outright lie – one that insults the intelligence of the American people and disrespects those who died in Benghazi last month, including our ambassador to Libya. It has been confirmed that Chris Stevens and others at this embassy had asked for and been denied additional security in Libya.

“One cable, written by then Amb. Gene Cretz, noted that three Mobile Security Detachments [MSD], consisting of 18 personnel, and the Site Security Team [SST], consisting of 16 personnel, were about to leave their temporary assignments. He said that the Libya mission needed both an extension of those forces and an increase in the number of permanent security officials in Libya.” – Foreign Policy Magazine

And why were these requests denied?

“Lamb defended her decision not to extend the missions of the MSD and SST teams, arguing that the mission of those teams had changed and that in any case they were replaced by local Libyan security personnel. The post had agreed that having only three diplomatic security agents in Benghazi was sufficient, she claimed.”

Obviously the denied requests for increased security were foolish decisions. But instead of recognizing this and apologizing, the administration sends Joe Biden out in front of the American people to obstinately deny that it even happened. After locking Biden up for six days and stuffing him full of debate prep, no one thought it would be a good idea for him to tell the truth about this? This is a scandal of historic proportions – made worse by the fact that the media is refusing to call the administration out on it.

I’m just baffled as to why we are hearing no outrage over this. It is not simply that requests for security were denied the good members of our embassy. It is also the fact that the administration, for a good two weeks after the attack, continued to lie to the American people and call the attack a “spontaneous” one, spurred by anger over an anti-Muslim video made by an American. We now know that one day after the attack, intelligence showed that this was a premeditated act of terror. So, why, for two weeks, did the president and his surrogates continue to perpetuate the false narrative that some stupid video was to blame? A video that the attackers in Benghazi likely did not even see? Why did he stand in front of the United Nations, two whole weeks after the attack, and continue to expand upon a narrative that had already been proven false?

The answer is clear. The administration has been desperately trying to cover up the fact that terrorism has not been eliminated by the death of Osama bin Laden. They refused to admit, weeks after intelligence proved it was a premeditated attack, that it was an act of terror. Because admitting that terrorism took the lives of our ambassador and three others at our embassy is admitting that the administration’s weak foreign policy is failing. It is admitting that their own foolish denial for increased security to our public servants abroad is to blame for the death of these four Americans. It is admitting failure – something these politicians refuse to do under any circumstance, no matter how obvious failure is.

It is time for a change. Americans deserve to be told the truth. We are no longer interested in being fed the lies of this administration, especially in a way that disrespects our citizens whose lives were taken due to these failed policies. It is time to hold these people accountable for the weakened state of our national security, and the miserable “diplomacy” policies of constantly apologizing for America, instead of stepping up to our position of global leadership.

Rambling of the Day: Our naked emperor

5 Oct

Blame it on Obama not watching enough MSNBC to know what the talking points are for slandering Romney.
Or blame it on Romney being too aggressive and not bowing down to the president.
Or take it from Al Gore and blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-altitude.

The left will look anywhere but in the mirror for the answer to why the leader of the free world bumbled and fumbled around the debate stage Wednesday night. But no matter how fiercely they try to create excuses for this latest debacle, a huge chunk of the blame for this tragedy of a performance rests on the shoulders of the lazy, sloppy, irresponsible mainstream media – a media that has allowed the president to go five years without be challenged or forced to stand up to opposition.

They have sugar-coated his interviews, covered only the stories that have fit into their specific agenda, and have allowed him to go five years without being vetted or challenged in any way. And if anyone tries to do their job for them, what happens? Where’s your birth certificate? Paranoid racists! College transcripts? Conspiracy theory racists! Your affiliation with Reverend Wright? Redneck extremist racists!

Well, it serves you right, folks. You have bred yourself a naked emperor, and now you are surprised that he has no clue how to react when someone points at him and asks where his clothes are.

And the other reason Obama failed in epic proportions Wednesday? Well, for those of us that know the real Obama, we are not surprised. The only thing that surprises us is that he did not make more of an attempt to mask who he is with the excuses we have been so accustomed to hearing from his administration. Left to his own devices, Obama is clueless as to how to defend his extreme socialist agenda in a way that sounds like it embraces capitalism. The few times he did try to make a clear point, he couldn’t help but insert his favorite phrases like “fair share” and “ladders of opportunity.” Obama truly would have been more successful in the debate if he would have come out and told Romney, “Fine, you got me. I’m a socialist!” – because at least then he would have spoken with some conviction.

Obama could not defend his position and show his love for the American way because these things are not in his heart. Romney clearly showed us his heart for America, through his strong desire to put Americans back to work and to defend the entrepreneurs and hard workers of this country. He sounded sincere because he is sincere. Obama stuttered and looked down and smirked childishly because he is not sincere about these issues. His heart was not in this debate because he does not believe in the American way the way Romney views it. He doesn’t like capitalism, he doesn’t understand the significance of small business, and he despises the success that comes from the traditional methods of hard work.

Without the assistance of the teleprompter, or the crew of MSNBC dictating the direction of his responses, Obama has no idea how to defend his radical agenda. Without a crowd to stir, faced only with the task of speaking honestly about what he stands for, he has no edge. He can come out the following day, away from the heat of his opponent’s gaze, and call him a liar to a crowd of adoring fans. And he can get away with it there, where no one is pressuring him to be honest or drilling him with the tough questions. He’s a community organizer – that’s what he understands and that’s where he can function comfortably.

In a few weeks, we will see what the American people will allow to prevail. We will see where the heart of the American people lies, and whether they will continue to allow Obama to go on being emperor, regardless of how embarrassed they are of his nakedness.

Rambling of the Day: Promises, promises

4 Oct

What tumultuous times we live in. What serious choices we have set before us. Where will we go, and what will we choose to believe, to uphold, to fight for?

So many issues loom before us. Tonight we will hear the two candidates for president address one of these issues: the economy. And what an issue it is. But it is certainly not the only one we face.

I have been reminded of late that, even though the many problems before us seem so significant, and the country is so obviously divided between which path to take in attempt to solve them, that our devotion to a candidate is not the one and only answer. These men are simply that – men. Hear me out; I’m not going to crack a sexist joke.

The candidates we support, no matter how strongly we support them, are still just men. They cannot defy the bounds of logic, of mathematics, of their own human capabilities, and solve every single one of our problems for us. I have heard proponents of both sides of the argument who are so convinced that their candidate is the absolute, unmistakable answer to the problems of our nation that they are unrealistic with their expectations.

I think we have certainly learned from the election four years ago how unrealistic it is to place unwarranted amounts of faith in the capabilities of one man to lead our country. The truth is, the people who were ecstatic about Obama because they believed they would no longer have to pay their mortgages or worry about putting gas in their car – well, I’m sorry, but those people are foolish. They don’t live in reality. And, if they are followers of God, they are really bordering on idolatry by placing that amount of faith in a person, when that kind of blind and unwavering faith belongs only to their God.

That’s really what I’m getting at today. Men can be good and men can be bad, and our views about which one they are can oftentimes be subjective. But at the end of the day, they are just men. They cannot stop the oceans from rising and they cannot change the past. The only hope these men have rests in their humility and willingness to seek help from God and from the wise council He provides.

Promises from these mortal men will be broken. We all know that the promises of politicians are more like statements of what they hope they will be able to achieve. That’s if they’re good guys. For some, promises are simply catch phrases they spew to get elected. The promises that we, as the people putting them in power, must hold onto are not the ones we hear from these men.

The promises we must remember during these trying times are the promises of God. His promises are the ones that will always be fulfilled and will never be broken. And He is the one we should be crying out to in our time of need, in this time when our country so desperately needs to return to its Creator and seek His wisdom in our affairs.

I love the story of Benjamin Franklin addressing the Constitutional Convention during its heavy debate over state representation. The gravity of this debate was so large that it had the potential to divide the new nation. Benjamin Franklin, at the time 81 years old, stood up and gave the convention a powerful reminder of their need to consult God in their affairs.


“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fail to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.

And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

How right he was then. This is what we are missing today. In our attempts to appease the extremists of certain religions, to be fair to the small percentage of declared atheists, and to remain politically correct to the point of ridiculousness, we are losing our foundation in faith. It is undeniable that the people who first settled this country did so to escape persecution of many kinds in England, and one of the most significant was their freedom to worship God the way they believed was right. And it is undeniable that the founding fathers of the nation sought the help of their Creator in settling their disputes and coming up with the framework for this incredibly successful nation.

We have become a nation that no longer calls out to God. Like Franklin said of his fellow founders, “Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” Such arrogance! This nation needs to get on its knees and humble itself before God, before things get so far out of our control that we destroy ourselves. We must remember the promises of the One who has proven Himself faithful to keep them.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

The Ugly Volvo

Attempts at Adulthood

Nathan Hancock

Probably not a waste of your time.

The Matt Walsh Blog

Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)

All We Are

Updates and a look behind the scenes of the non-profit organization


Creative Director

Lean Fit and Healthy Forever

One Guys Journey to Fitness


Home of Glitter and Leg Warmers

Who Said What

Elisabeth Akinwale

Athletics, Motherhood and Other SuperFantastic Subjects

Dyslexia Parents Guide

A parents journey into dyslexia

Honest Food with Amy

Changing my lifestyle, one recipe at a time!

Egg Whites Only Please

With Cheese. And Bacon. On a Bagel. Oh gosh, I love bagels (as long as they're Gluten Free).

Parenting And Stuff

Not a "how to be a great parent" blog


Good eats along I-64 in Virginia and a few beyond!

365 Days of Bacon

Every day. Bacon-fied.