Got A Question for Ya…

Hear No Evil

As the Republican candidates for president continue to supply liberal media outlets with fodder and the obama reelection machine with talking points and sound bytes, the world outside is growing increasingly dangerous. No doubt, obama and his minions are thanking their lucky stars for the windfall that is the Republican race for the nomination.

The good news for obama's team is that with all of the shenanigans of the right, coupled with the help of the softball the MSM plays with the obama admin, the US is again about to go to war in the middle east, and you'd never know it. In fact, there a lot you'd never know by watching the mainstream media (MSM)…

Speak No Evil

As CBS and ABC completely ignore a significant gaffe by b. hussein obama, referring to an unemployed, high-tech engineer's dilemma as "interesting," a new assault on Mitt Romney is unleashed. In a post-Florida primary speech, Romney stated, "I'm not worried about the very poor." Without proper context, a very damning statement. Of course, little context is offered in reports from the MSM.

What is offered is an extended dialog about Romney's wealth and his inability to relate to the common man, or in the case of Newt Gingrich, Romney's desire to separate America into distinct classes. Newt, of course wanting to be president to "all Americans." …especially, Donal Trump, who NBC mistakenly reported would endorse Newt later today in Sin City, Las Vegas, NV. Oops. Any apologies for that minor error? Don't hold your breath.

While liberals chomp at the bit to see what new item can be spun and conservatives reel over yet one more thing to protract the nominating contest yet again, the folks in Israel and those with a vested interest there are not as amused. As war with Iran draws closer by the day, little is heard from Washington on the matter. The obama machine is happy for the smoke screen that is the political circus, courtesy of the Republican foot-in-mouth fest. 

See No Evil

Though now backpedaling, this morning's news headlines touted the drawdown of US Armed Forces in Afghanistan a full year ahead of schedule, even as a lack of US presence in Iraq has lead to a surge in violence there. Despite warnings from the leaders on the ground and open speculation that an early exit would embolden our enemies in the region, the exodus is on. One can almost hear Ross Perot saying "a huge sucking sound" as the troops are ushered home prematurely.

We, as a nation, had an opportunity to have a large, mechanized, well equipped fighting force flanking Iran on its eastern and western borders, essentially having them surrounded before a single shot (in a hot war) could have been fired. Instead, the obama admin is recklessly drawing down our forces as the intensity and volatility of the rhetoric between the US and Iran builds. It's only a matter of time before military intervention occurs. We all know it's coming. The question is when and how?

Odds are, after seeing how the b. hussein obama administration handles crises, the US will take no direct action, leaving Israel to strike, preemptively, on her own. The question then will be, "Will obama stand with our only middle eastern ally?" The likely answer…."Why would he start now?" 

Sense No Evil

With the exception of Ron Paul's isolationist strategy for our foreign policy, all of the Republican field have vowed to stand with Israel and defend her right to exist. As Iran continues to threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz, boasts of their improving missile launch capabilities, even touting the development of a missile that could reach the US, and overtly suggest strikes will occur within the US, our fighting forces are leaving the middle east theater to come home only to swell the already bloated unemployment roster. Where is the common sense?

Once Israel does strike, we can only assume that unless there is a blatant, undeniable attack on the US, or her interests, obama will likely sit on his hands, as the troops file home. In the event Iran does directly attack the US, we'll again be moving our troops back at greater cost and greater risk, for as Iraq has proven, once we leave, violence increases.

Lovin' the Spin You're In

It is increasingly difficult to determine whether the hurried troop drawdown is an effort to win bragging rights on having kept a 2008 campaign pledge, a narcissistic lack of reality run amok, or a genuine desire to hurt this nation, but no matter the ill-gotten reason, the only real question is this…

Do we want war with Iran before or after they have nuclear capabilities?

State of the Union

State of Chaos

Last night, in his State of the Union speech, obama spewed forth the sort of rhetoric we can anticipate hearing throughout the campaign. His disingenuous drive-by assault on personal wealth was merely just sleaze compared to his thinly veiled attempt at riding the coattails of the United States military's recent triumphs.

One can only hope that Warren Buffet's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, was only slightly mortified when obama willfully and wrongfully stated that she pays more in taxes than her boss. To be clear, when an investor lives off of Capital Gains, they pay around 15%, as has been popularized in recent days regarding the release of Mitt Romney's taxes for 2010 and 2011.  While Buffet paid an investor's slice of around 15%, Debbie Bosanek most likely payed an income tax rate around 30%, not on any investment, but on the paycheck she earns week-to-week.

Since obama has no accomplishments to tout at 75% of the way through his term, he can hang his hat on only a few things that most Americans feel are, indeed, good. Taking out Osama bin Laden was a high point, ten years in the making. May 1, 2011 was a great day for our nation. For obama, it was watching soldiers on TV. Granted, he gave the command that authorized the operation, but aside from Phil Donahue, who wouldn't? There was nothing brave or remarkable about what obama did, but we will all be forever indebted to those brave soldiers who actually did the work.

State of Denial

Ask any third grader if they could buy 1 piece of American chocolate for $1, or 10 pieces of foreign chocolate for that same dollar, which would they choose? How many kids would forego the extra sweets for the sake of calling themselves a patriot, because by spending on domestic chocolate, they support American labor unions?

So if American companies decide to make chocolate overseas, obama wants to tax them at a higher rate—a penalty for trying to compete in the free market. So, the message then is, don't expand, don't invest, don't headquarter here. instead, either consider the US a minor market, or find a way to dodge the tax. Last night, obama promised to companies that repatriate jobs that they would receive tax breaks. Imagine the sort of incentive it would take to woo Apple, who used to manufacture in the US, to go through the time, trouble and expense of bringing back the thousands of jobs lost to China. Does obama think the Chinese won't offer their own incentives to keep Apple? Where is the common sense?

State of Mindlessness

Raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires—the richest one percent…yadda, yadda, yadda. There's another term for it: redistribution of wealth. It's akin to Communism. Take from those who have and give to those who have not…sounds "fair," right? Another campaign 2012 buzzword to listen for…"fair." If you could stomach the SOTU speech last night, you heard this word a few times. But let's take a look at this. Is it really taking from the rich and giving to the poor? No. It's taking from the "haves" and giving to the "wants." 

Mitt Romney may have "only" paid a tax rate of 15%, but how many people could afford to pay a $6,200,000.00 tax bill over two years? That's a lot of redistribution right there from one person—without the socialist in charge getting his way. Additionally, Mitt donated around $7,000,000.00 to charity. Now aside from removing the incentive to invest, by raising the Capital Gains rate to 30%, how many tax-paying millionaires and billionaires will simply shift those charitable donations into taxes. Okay, Romney is bound by his faith to tithe, but nevertheless, here's the simplest argument one can make. If his $13,200,000.00 we diverted to the government and zero went to charity, who would use that money more efficiently, the government, or private faith-based organizations. Think I'm wrong? Then answer this, who would you trust to get your package across the country overnight, the USPS, or FedEx? 

Lovin' the Spin You're In

I wanted give a blow-by-blow of Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell (or as some know her, Mrs. Alan Greenspan), Chuck Todd, and the rest of the slobbering NBC team's critique of obama's speech, but frankly, it was so over the top, it makes me ill to even have to analyze it. At least NBC still has the common sense to keep Ann Curry away from debates and doing analysis of events like last night's.

I'll Take Florida to Block

Still Redneck After All These Years.

Congratulations to South Carolina for proving that despite electing TEA Party favorites, such as the likes of Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, the good ol' boy voting block is as dense as ever. And I don’t mean dense in a nice way. Last week, after losing to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich boasted about his Georgian roots and ability to connect with voters in SC. Well, connect he did, claiming 40+% of the vote. Perhaps the only other tactic that could have garnered more favor would have been adding a Confederate flag to his logo. Yeehaw!

In recent years, SC's TEA Party has broken through both gender and race barriers, ousting politicians that were stereotypical thugs whose personas were likely used to model authority figures in Burt Reynolds films…if you're old enough, you might remember Buford T. Justice, or the warden from the original Longest Yard. Yup, the self-serving, corrupt, power-abusing, fox-in-charge-of-the-hen-house white guys. Oh, well, SC, so long as you ain't votin' for no moderate Yankee, you kin be proud when yer 'ol boy scares off that thar independent-thinkin' group in the general election.

OMG, and did he really say that?!?! Gingrich, on Meet The Press yesterday, positioned himself as the Washington outsider and Mitt Romney as the "establishment candidate." Really? That's like barrack hussein obama positioning himself as life-long, self-made, businessman success story. We all want to see obama handed his ass in a Newt-style debate smackdown, but every vote for Newt is a shortsighted expression of anger. Just sayin', who is more likely to fix the economy once in office, a politician that barks harsh words at the house and senate, or a Dale Carnegie-style approach of winning friends and influencing people?

Still Batshit Crazy After All These Years

What could Ron Paul possibly be thinking? He has no chance of doing anything more than securing his rabid 20% anywhere he goes. So, why spend millions on an ultimately go-nowhere campaign? 

Here's a thought…Rand Paul. Could dad be gearing up to be a spoiler? Now, if Newt gets the nomination, most Republicans will fall in line to support him, but the centrists, moderates and Independents will likely not vote, or go back to obama. Should that be the case, then Paul need not do anything further to help his kid. So, if Newt wins in Florida, my bet is that Paul will drop out, because obama is in for four more and Rand makes his run in 2016 to a decimated country...assuming we still have the right to vote.

If, however, FL goes to Romney, Ron Paul runs as an Independent, splitting the vote, a lå Ross Perot, obama wins and Rand is again set to run in 2016. In this scenario, though, Paul is counting on America's short memory, and that he won't tarnish his family name. But considering how quickly people in this country reverted to a 9/10/01 mentality, it's not a huge gamble.

Still Mitt After All These Debates (Better Not Be)

If Romney wants to stand any chance moving forward, he has to get aggressive. Big time. First, he has to release a decade or more of his tax returns and get ready for the heat he'll take for being rich. Second, this goofy country has to wake up and realize that being rich is a GOOD thing! We should celebrate success, not apologize for it, but here comes the politically correct 99%er police to stomp on any notion that one person should have any more then someone else.

C'mon, Mitt, grow a pair, and take a lesson from the Reagan playbook…communicate. Gingrich has an outstanding staff of writers, and crafts sound bytes that bring moments of astounding clarity. For example, equating 99 weeks of unemployment benefit handouts to earning an associates degree. And while you're at it, Mitt, find a way to give a simple tax lesson that explains the difference between 15% capital gains and 35% federal income tax. Simple being the operative word—I used to live in FL, trust me on that tidbit of advice.

Still Milquetoast After All His Life

Rick Santorum simply isn't a factor, but Newt will enjoy a speedbump of a swell when he receives Santorum's endorsement. Yawn.

Lovin' the Spin you're In

If you think Romney's tax issues are a moot point, because he's promised to release 2010 and an estimate of 2011 tomorrow, just tune into the liberal media bias flagship of morning programs, the TODAY Show. Chuck Todd already pointed out that it appears Romney has something to hide. Considering Chuck can't keep his eyes open during his reports, if he can see it, odds are other left-wingers can, too. The fat lady isn’t singing about this one yet.

Romney vs. Gingrich … oh and Ron Paul

Breaking News: Mitt Romney Rich!!!
Romney has an estimated wealth of between $190 million to $250 million, according to financial disclosure reports and pays taxes at a rate of 15%. As if it's an incrimination of some sort, liberal media was abuzz with the story, as it dovetailed nicely with Romney's lukewarm committal in the most recent Republican debate to release his tax returns in April.

Granted the half of America that pays taxes does so at a higher rate, closer to 25%, which makes Romney's 15% look like a bargain. Further fueling the liberal fire was Romney's comment that earning around $375k for speaking engagements wasn't a lot of money. Know what folks? To multimillionaires, it isn't. To the average American, making around $100,000/annum, the offer of being paid $10 to perform a service doesn't sound like a lot either. It's all relative.

Were anyone reporting on any of these points to engage some perspective, they may just make a case that even at 15%, the sheer dollar amount Mitt Romney pays in income tax is likely greater than all of the Occupy Wall Street crowd combined. Or even a simple math equation, Which would you rather have: 15% of $1,000,000, or 25% of $100,000? It doesn't take an accountant to realize that the 15% is a lot more money.

And just a simple reminder: this is America, the land of opportunity. We don't gain wealth by taking it from others (though our government does…hmmm), we have the rights and abilities afforded us to gain our own through personal effort. And to be frank, when it comes to paying taxes, paying as little as possible (via legal avenues) is as right as rain. My accountant gets a lecture every year on keeping his pencil sharp.

Hypocrisy: It isn't Just for Liberals
Newt Gingrich, who began the vilification of Romney's success at Bain Capital, stands to gain a bump in his polling numbers as a result of the resulting hoopla. Yes, the same Newt Gingrich criticized for owning a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany & Company. People who live in glass houses, or in Newt's case, crystal...

While he still trails Romney, Gingrich continues to run ads in South Carolina stating that only he stands a chance of defeating b. hussein obama in the upcoming presidential debates. While it's commonly accepted that Newt is a consummate debater and usually exits the events with the most applause and sound bytes, there will be more to winning the White House than winning debates.

First, there have been on the order of 18 Republican debates, and even if obama had a semi-decent record on which to run, there isn't a prayer that he'd agree to more than two or three debates. Let's also consider that obama knows he cannot speak coherently without the use of a teleprompter. Does anyone really believe that the current president will allow any sort of an open format? Not a chance.

Any debates slated for the 2012 presidential campaign season will all be set with obama having home field advantage, meaning that they will be tightly controlled events. Candidates will receive questions well in advance, teleprompters will be used when delivering answers and no unscripted questions will be allowed. Newt's greatest skill is neutralized, or Newtralized, if you enjoy bad puns as do I.

Lovin' the Spin you're In
The TODAY Show's Matt Lauer, in an interview with New Jersey Governor, Chris Christy, this morning was again making a case for social justice and redistribution of wealth. Christy was an early supporter of Romney and potential running mate, was forced to defend his nominee's apparent reluctant disclosure of tax returns.

No matter how much Mitt Romney has made from his investments, interest, speaking engagements and other sources of income, he has the right to keep what he earns and pay as little as possible to the government, so long as it is done legally, it shouldn't be an issue. 

Marines Desecrate Enemy Bodies…SO?

The Taliban may be Joe Biden's friends, but they're not mine; not by any stretch of the imagination. While the idiot, second in command to the Commander-in-Chief, feels warm fuzzes for these murderous thugs, I do not.

The image flashed all over the media of four United States Marines urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters does not offend me, not one bit. These young soldiers have been trained to be ruthless killing machines in the name of liberty, and they take their jobs seriously. I, for one, am glad they do, for they do it so well, I don't have to take it upon myself to do, and that goes for every other person—even those illegally—within the boders of the United States.

We can read and write our blogs, debate politics and religion over a cold beer and armchair quarterback Monday night's game until we're blue in the face, because these flesh-and-blood killing machines are out there doing the hardest, most miserable job in the world. And they do it for little thanks.

Did you notice that as this story broke, it was accompanied by images of Abu Ghraib? Is it just journalism standards now that any unfavorable story on the US military is accompanied by Abu Ghraib photos? Should we in turn show the video of Daniel Pearl's beheading with every story out of the middle east that includes reports of stonings, dragging bodies through public streets, beheadings and any other number of atrocities performed on bodies of US and Coalition forces in the name of allah?

I understand we expect our Service Members to be held to a higher standard, and that there are laws to prevent desecration of combatant bodies, but breeches of this nature are few and frankly, it's this sort of animalistic behavior that should send a chill through any young muslim standing in line to be fitted for his explosive vest.

Who really thinks that such images embolden our enemy? I'll tell you who…the same idiots who think sending billions of dollars to countries that HATE us will make them like us. Folks….it ain't gonna' happen. Ronald Reagan had it right, "Peace through strength."

God Bless our Armed Forces!

Breaking the 11th Commandment

Glass Houses
Much to the delight, no doubt, of the obama reelection machine, the Republican field is redistributing its wealth. With every attack line, sound byte, image and video clip belittling Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, David Axelrod and company must feel like they've been handed a fortune in Republican hide for doing nothing more than letting the MSM manipulate and bully.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with contrasting differences between yourself and your opponent—it's an absolute necessity during a campaign. In recent days, however, superPAC and candidate-endorsed attack ads have become downright vitriolic. We all heard Newt Gingrich seemingly whine about the Romney superPAC ads heading into New Hampshire, and now Newt, as well as Rick Perry are airing ads attacking Romney as a "vulture capitalist" and "untrustworthy."

One of the more popular images to help portray Romney as a corporate raider is from his days at Bain Capital. The image, according to the Boston Globe, as reported by The Atlantic.com, states, "After posing for a company-brochure photo, Romney and his Bain associates snapped [the photo] again with $10 and $20 bills. Romney led Bain Capital to grow from a staff of seven managing $37 million to a staff of 115 managing $4 billion." 

A Picture Speaks
Now, the image is an obvious tongue-in-cheek moment of a successful group of professionals capturing a light-hearted moment at a peak of performance…who hasn't seen the stereotype image of someone rolling in a pile of cash after hitting a jackpot? Venture capital is big bucks. Big rewards follow big risk. So here's a celebratory moment illustrating the business savviness of the group.

Were this an image of Romney while serving as Governor of Massachusetts, or any of the career politicians in the race, I'd have a problem with it, because in that circumstance, it'd be taxpayer (yours and mine) dollars in their mouths, hands, etc. So lambasting a businessman for money seemingly falling out of his ass is a stupid argument. Period.

Glass Houses Part Duex
Our favorite obamaites were back on their MSM stump this morning, this time highlighting the Homes of the Rich and Infamous. The TODAY Show news reader turned anchor, Ann Curry introduces a segment she calls, "an unusual look at the GOP presidential field," asking the question, "What can you tell about them from their current homes?" Curry then introduces NBC Contributor, Barbara Corcoran, who has compiled her report, based on idea from New York Times Magazine…so you just know it's gonna' be good.

Before even delving into the segment, Barbara spoils the ending by giving Curry the answer which she seeks…"You can learn that they're all very, very rich" says Corcoran.

In brief, the segment highlights Mitt Romney's $10 million, lakeside home, though Curry points out it's only one of six homes…and Corcoran points out that the $10 million price tag is "…just for this one home."

On to Ron Paul's relatively modest 4/5 ranch in Texas, which he is offering for sale at $325k, for which Barbara offers the analysis that its statement on Ron Paul is, "Hey, I'm just a regular guy." She then goes on to point out that he mustn't be a very good delegator, since he has time to sell it himself and gives him some tips on curb appeal to boot.

And make no mistake, Jon Huntsman's home, a beautiful brownstone, is a mansion…again, Corcoran was emphatic on that point. Then, as if it has anything to do with anything, she goes off on a tangent about his parent's opulent home in Utah.

Newt? Well, high praise for his real estate savviness, as Newt bought his home for under $1 million in 1995 in an area of Virginia that touts itself as the land of high influence, surrounded by power brokers.

Rick Santorum lives in, as Barbara puts it, "the most affluent town in America, bar none." And she's quick to point out, in a house that says, "I am rich."

And poor displaced Rick Perry, having to endure temporary digs while the Texas governor's mansion undergoes renovation…his flat? Only a $10k/month, three-acre estate that is so exclusive, even Barbara couldn't get a photo, though she showed one nonetheless.

Lovin' the Spin You're In
Okay, so NBC, we get it….every soul in the Republican field is Rich, with a capital "R." Now, aside from Mitt Romney and Dr. Ron Paul who both worked for a living outside of the government, what does that tell us about the remaining field?

Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and even the almighty b. hussein obama, all got capital "R" Rich as public servants! None of them have worked a day as a professional in any career—not a day—in their adult lives to earn a dollar. Every penny in their coffers has come from your pocket, or mine….assuming you're one of the 53% of Americans that actually pays taxes.

Wealth or Consequences

Redistribute This.
The obama 2012 reelection machine was in overdrive this morning. NBC's TODAY Show host, Matt Lauer, kicked things off during his interview with Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney. After discussing the results and numbers coming out of the New Hampshire primary, Lauer asked Mitt to clarify a statement made by Romney in which he used the word "envy" to describe obama's divisive policies. Lauer asked Romney if "…anyone who questions the distribution of wealth in this country is envious…"

Mitt responded to the question citing obama's use of class warfare and his embrace of the Occupy Wall Street’s 99% mentality, pointing out that such a position essentially opposes the American ideal.

Dissatisfied with the answer of work-hard-and-get-rich, Lauer stayed on point, following up with, "Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth…?".

Now, in and of themselves, the questions which smack Communist/Socialist philosophy are bad enough, but it doesn't end there.

Kerry On.
Turning to the "news," Lauer throws it to Kerry Sanders in Tampa, Florida, where he is covering the murder of a wealthy couple living in a very upscale neighborhood. After a brief introduction to the story, just before running his prerecorded portion of the report, Kerry let's us all in on the motive….GREED. Not robbery, not theft, not any of the typical vernacular associated when someone shoots someone else and takes their stuff. No, this was GREED.

Why all of the drama and not just call it robbery? Ah, because that might not connect the dots clearly enough when about three minutes into his report, Kerry points out that the victims live in a neighborhood privy only to the "One Percent."

Lovin' the Spin You're In
So, this morning's bottom line from NBC, just in case you missed it is: Redistribute the wealth, or face the consequences. It was greed, not envy that drove that poor 99%er to off the doctor and his wife in an effort to do a little self-service redistribution.

Whose Street is this Anyway?

There's some good Newt and bad Newt
Congratulations to the liberal MSM for getting the Republicans to take off their gloves and start infighting, and thereby helping obama write his playbook for the 2012 campaign. To borrow a popular phrase, Mission Accomplished! Yes, the talking heads are taking full advantage of the battle for the Republican nod.

After caving to the pressure brought about by Political Action Committee (PAC) ads attacking him, Newt has come out swinging at Romney. In what Karl Rove refers to as "Bad Newt," the high road has been deserted for the road more traveled and the politics-as-usual mudslinging. So, now that Newt's all in with the "I won't go negative, but reserve the right to tell the truth" campaigning, he's being very frank about what he sees as Romney's Achilles heel, Mitt's time with Bain Capital.

The fact of the matter is that, as the Wall Street Journal reports, "The Journal's findings could provide fodder for both critics and supporters of Mr. Romney's presidential ambitions and of his role at Bain." So portraying Romney as the (con) Wall Street, or (pro) business-savvy candidate doesn't appear to be as damning, or as impressive as it sounds in the media.

Nevertheless, the opposing Republican camps are making hay while the sun shines. The loudest argument out of the Newt Gingrich camp is that Romney cannot beat obama, because of Romney's Wall Street and big business connections. Really, Newt? From where I sit, it makes it an even fight, though again, while the obama White House and the MSM exploit the Occupy Wall Street movement, few are calling out the hypocrisy of the matter.

Wall Street? What's Wall Street?
How the label of Wall Street Candidate can be attached to anyone other than obama is beyond incredulous. In fact, the roster of this dismal administration reads like invitation list of a Goldman-Sachs corporate retreat… Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Mark Patterson, to name a few, but of course we all know Rahm is now king of Chicago, which brings us to his replacement... Bill Daley who has strong Wall Street connections as well, including a stint with JP Morgan Chase. Meet the new chief, same as the old chief.

By the by, anyone recall Jon Corzine, former Democratic U.S. Senator from New Jersey and former Governor of the state? Corzine is a former head of Goldman-Sachs. Oh, did I mention Goldman was a top contributor to obama in '08? Apart from the obvious sliminess of the relationship between Goldman and obama, there is potentially bombshell news here as well. For a fleeting moment in recent weeks, the MSM made mention of a Wall Street company called MF Global, "losing" $1.5 Billion. The CEO of MF Global? You guessed it, former Senator, Governor and CEO, Jon Corzine. And now it is speculated that obama wants Corzine to replace Geithner as Treasury Secretary....yes, of the United States.

Lovin' the Spin You're In
Meanwhile, back in TV Land, I'm actually a little surprised that I didn't hear any of the MSM outlets using sound bytes from Rush Limbaugh, as Rush seems to ascribe to Newt's theory (and that of the MSM) on Mitt being a Wall Street guy. I would have thought Rush's word on the matter would carry significant weight, but Rush also stated that obama's camp wants Romney to be the nominee, because they feel they have a better shot against Mitt than Newt. Could the noticeable omission support that theory?

Welcome to 2012 Reelection Palooza

obama Cheerleaders—Um um um
Media bias is hugely entertaining, so long as you're able to decipher what's news and what's opinion in any given report. This is particularly true of the "Mainstream media" (MSM). In particular, NBC is at the top of the deception game.

In this morning's political review on the TODAY Show, Ann Curry—former news-reader made co-anchor of the program—bantered with Carl Quintanilla about the strengthening economy and jobs recovery. In a classic "heads, I win; tails, you lose" fashion, Curry beat the drum of an 8.5% unemployment number showing obama-nomics (intentionally lower case "o") as the answer to the nation's woes.

While there was a brief mention that the lower number may be the result of holiday seasonal hiring and/or millions of people having dropped out of the job market, both commentators made clear that the economic news is ultimately good. Furthermore, it was suggested that should unemployment numbers worsen in days to come, it's merely another sign that obama is fixing the economy. For, you see, when those that have simply given up on finding a job realize that the economy is indeed fixed, they'll be back on the job hunt, artificially swelling the unemployment percentage.

And get ready...this is only the tip of the re-election iceberg. In the wings is a housing bailout that will dwarf any welfare program in the history of mankind. The obama administration is gearing up to forgive mortgage debt. Big time.

Buying 2012
The plan will allow for every homeowner with a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) mortgage to refinance his or her mortgage with a new mortgage at a current fixed of 4.20 percent or less. To qualify, the homeowner must be current on his or her mortgage or become so for at least three months. Other than being current, there are no other qualifications or applications—no appraisal, no income verification, no tax returns. Period.

Remember before the 2008 election, the uneducated expected to line up to receive their "obama money" once he was inaugurated? Those same ones that walked into clinics demanding healthcare the day he signed obamacare into law? Well, now you get to pay for the homes of those who purchased outside their means and have managed to stay afloat…for three consecutive months, anyway. Who wouldn't vote for the promise of a free mortgage reduction? The good news is that once again, the Nanny State steps up to prevent the masses from having to take responsibility for their actions and decisions.

The MSM has yet to report on the "mortgage forgiveness," but when they do, it surely will be made to sound as innocuous as a school lunch program change. In the meantime, TODAY and Nightly News will continue to interweave stories of global warming and Christian nut-jobs and the Royal Family (can anyone tell me why they're even in the headlines daily?) into the "news" they report.

It's hard to fathom that there are those out there who believe what they're told by the likes of Lauer, Currey, Guthrie, Mitchell, Williams, Holt, etc., and take their word as fact-based truth. However, if you rely upon multiple sources for information, the bias becomes easier and easier to pick out…to the point that it becomes comical, at least for me.

Changeless and Hopeless
Back to the 2012 election—another favorite tactic of the MSM is to portray the Republican field as weak and divided. Not true. First, though the field has narrowed, we have some excellent choices, from moderately conservative Romney, to far-right Rick Perry. It's unfortunate Michele Bachmann decided to drop out, and I respect her for not allowing the MSM to catch her in a single "Palin moment." Despite the best efforts of the MSM to belittle her, when they couldn't, they resorted to the lowest of tactics…an unflattering image with the caption "Queen of Rage" on a Newsweek cover. Obviously, despite their best efforts, it just didn't stick.

For all of the hoopla from the MSM about a rift between GOP and TEA Partiers, they seem to forget the chasm between obama and Hillary a few years ago. The next few weeks will be interesting as events play out. I will say that I am slightly disappointed in Newt for whining about attack ads…despite the violation of Reagan's 11th Commandment, they're par for the course. And though I like Newt and could easily back him for president, if his baggage is going to be his undoing, then better to have it happen now, than in the general election.

Lovin' the Spin You're In
In wrapping up this first commentary, I'll close by saying I'll be fascinated to see how the MSM spins the premature troop evacuation and subsequent increase in violence in Iraq, the gutting of the US military budget (well, we already know part of the spin here…we're a lean, mean fighting' machine), and especially the increasing threats of both North Korea and Iran.

Last week, Iran issued a direct threat to the US, stating that they would take action if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. Thus far, the official reaction from D.C. has been to dismiss the threat. Well, maybe, if like the terrorists and War On Terror (a.k.a. Overseas Contingency Operation) we just ignore it, it'll go away.