Veep Pick Ryan Makes Plutocratic Ticket; Ryan's Wealth Sources

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket[scroll down: Ryan and his wife's wealth, includes a trust fund]by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDTBy choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.There's nothing wrong with inherited wealth. Lord knows great presidents from FDR to JFK came into their fortunes through the luck of birth. But there is something wrong with winners of the lineage lottery who want to hammer those who did not have the foresight to select wealthy sperm and egg.Finally, we have peered into Mitt Romney's core. It is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; neither pro-NRA nor pro-gun control; neither pro-equality nor antigay. But it is pro-wealth and very anti–middle class. Mitt Romney has decided to go nuclear in the class war.Paul Ryan, the darling of the New York–Washington media elite, is almost certainly not the most qualified person Romney could have picked. Unlike governors like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty, or a former high-ranking White House official like Rob Portman, Ryan has never run anything larger than his congressional office or the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.You will often hear people who ought to know better dress up Ryan's savage economic priorities with euphemisms. Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare. No, he doesn't. He wants to kill it. Saying Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare is like saying the vet wanted to "fix" my dog Major; that which used to work very well no longer works at all—and Major is none too happy with the procedure.Think about that. As my buddy James Carville has said, what would all the Best People say if Nancy Pelosi made her staffers read, say, Margaret Sanger? Or if Barack Obama made interns study Das Kapital? Sure, a few months ago, facing Catholic protestors at Georgetown University, Ryan said he renounced Rand. But as the national Catholic weekly, America, wrote, he did not change the substance of a single policy. Some renunciation. It seems to me Ryan has renounced Rand's politically incorrect atheism, not her morally bankrupt philosophy of Screw Thy Neighbor.Politically, the choice does the one thing Romney needed least of all: it shifts the focus of the 2012 presidential election away from the soft economy and onto the Ryan—now, Romney-Ryan—budget. The most radical governing document in a generation, the Romney-Ryan budget would dramatically alter America's basic social compact. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering".Don't be fooled. Ryan is no deficit hawk. He voted for all the policies that created the current ocean of red ink: the Bush tax cuts for the rich; the war in Iraq; the Bush Medicare prescription-drug plan, the first entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. Ryan cloaks his brutal budget in the urgent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but that's a Trojan Horse. As the Center for American Progress has noted, under the Romney-Ryan budget, "the national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022."Ryan's real goal is to destroy the ladder of opportunity for the poor and the middle class. Look at his budget: Medicare would be shattered and replaced with a voucher system wherein seniors would be given a stipend and told to negotiate with the health insurance goliaths. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ten years after the Ryan plan was enacted, seniors would pay $6,400 per year more for the same health care, as the stipend would fail to keep up with projected cost increases.And that's just for starters. One out of every four dollars spent on transportation—which is already underfunded—would be cut. Veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent from what President Obama says is needed. Young men Paul Ryan voted to send into combat would suffer once more on the home front. Education would be cut, food safety, air traffic control, environmental protection—almost everything that makes us safer, smarter or stronger—would get hammered.How can a budget so brutal not make a dent in the debt? If you have to ask you have not been paying attention. What is the holy grail for princelings like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Of course: tax cuts for the rich. The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found that under Romney's proposal, 95 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by an average of $500, but millionaires would receive an extra $87,000 tax cut. The net result: an $86 billion annual shift in the tax burden away from those making over $200,000 a year and onto those making less.And so Romney Hood has his Friar Tuck. And somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is cackling with glee. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.Paul Begala is a Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist, a CNN contributor, an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown, and a senior adviser to Priorities USA Action, a progressive PAC.For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.Ryan's budget is the fiscal embodiment of the deeply evil, wholeheartedly selfish so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact, Ryan has described Rand as "the reason I got involved in public service," and reportedly makes staffers read her works.

Ryan has family business connection to earth moving industry. A mini-Dick Cheney II in some senses: In recent years, he has significant investments in Oklahoma mineral industries. Read on in Politico.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan’s personal wealth is no mysteryRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23KjyOcVT By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 8/11/12 11:46 AM EDTThe details of Paul Ryan’s personal wealth are no mystery — unlike those of Mitt Romney.And while Ryan is nowhere close to the nine-figure wealth Romney boasts, he isn’t exactly hurting, either.Latest on POLITICO Hirono, Lingle prevail in Hawaii Meet Janna Ryan Ryan is liked by friends and foes Is Ryan just Mitt squared? 8 Dem slams against the Ryan budget Mitt hugs Ryan, not budgetRyan’s overall net worth falls between $927,100 and $3.20 million, making him the 124th wealthiest member of the House, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of the new Republican vice presidential candidate’s 2010 personal financial filings.(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's running-mate announcement)Additional personal financial disclosures by Ryan, who by law has each year filed such reports since entering Congress in 1999, indicate that the Wisconsin congressman has maintained well-above-average wealth for the duration of his congressional tenure.Ultra-wealthy Romney, in contrast, has largely occluded his recent personal financial history.He’s refused to release his recent tax returns before 2010, and unlike Ryan, is under no obligation to release annual personal financial disclosure reports.While running for president in 2007, Romney did file a federal public financial disclosure report that listed hundreds of assets across numerous financial categories.Ryan, meanwhile, has to date been under no significant pressure or obligation to release his personal Internal Revenue Service filings, although calls to do so will likely begin immediately.“It’ll be very, very interesting to see if Ryan releases his tax returns,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money.Ryan’s latest personal financial disclosure report, which covers calendar year 2011, lists several dozen stocks and mutual funds he or his wife, Janna, own.Ryan’s individual investments are generally modest, ranging in value from $1,001 to $15,000. (Federal law only requires lawmakers to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges.) These include stock in well-known companies that run the gamut from tobacco and oil interests to fast food and athletic wear.Among them: Amazon.com, Air Products Chemicals, Accenture, Berkshire Hathaway, Estée Lauder, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Nike, Praixair, Ralph Lauren, Starbucks, Priceline.com, Mastercard, Google, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, IBM, United Technologies, Visa, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Citrix Systems and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris.Ryan also reported a holding in the Ryan Limited Partnership worth up to $250,000. He reported no financial liabilities.(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)Janna Ryan also individually reported a living trust fund worth $1 million to $5 million, that ranks as the largest asset they collectively reported for last year.She also individually reported up to $250,000 in assets tied to gravel rights with Blondie & Brownie LLC, $100,000 in mineral rights holdings, as well as up to $100,000 worth of holdings in the Little Land Co. All are located in Oklahoma.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23Kk7jtXC

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Expands Presidential Debate to Include 2 Third Party Candidates

To contact us Click HERE
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did the great service of expanding the presidential debate to include two third party candidates, Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party). Video is posted at the right on this page.

As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing after Obama’s and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, Dr. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama
Guests:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president.
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party candidate for president.
Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president.
President Barack Obama, president of the United States campaigning for re-election.

.Go to this site for a full transcript of the expanded debate, as broadcast at Goodman's Democracy Now.

Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.

Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...

“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”

The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.

Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.

The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.

“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”

Brandon Darby: New Occupy Explosives Arrests, FBI Vindicated

To contact us Click HERE
Why is the liberal media always silent when their occupy wall street pals get arrested for violent terrorism plans?

The following article is from Texas GOP Vote by Brandon Darby:

New Occupy Explosives Arrests, FBI Vindicated

• By Brandon Darby

Two prominent Occupy Wall Street movement activists have been arrested by law enforcement for allegedly possessing a cache of weapons and explosive material in New York City’s Greenwich Village.
The Occupiers, Morgan Gliedman, 27, and Aaron Greene, 31, were visited by New York City police in due to a warrant for Gliedman over credit card theft. Once in the couple’s apartment, police claim they found the explosive materials and how-to manuals on terrorism.
According to the New York Post:

“A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings. Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said. Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.”

The arrests come at a critical time due to recent left-of-center allegations against the FBI for having apparently infiltrated the revolutionary Occupy movement. A recent document release from the FBI revealed multiple large scale investigation into the movement had occurred and many in the media continued their decades-long attack on the FBI for having looked into the movement.
Supporters of the FBI’s efforts have pointed out that the Occupy movement, though many participants may be well-intentioned, was ultimately started by individuals and groups with long histories of involvement with hostile foreign nations, support for convicted cop-killers, and advocates for arson as a political tool.
(The writer formerly worked undercover with the FBI in counter-terrorism investigations and has previously helped stop Occupy predecessors from using explosives and testified against them in federal court.)

Houston Texas Man Kills Burglar with Concealed Handgun

To contact us Click HERE
All you gun control nuts out there; are you telling me that you would deny innocent people like this the right to defend themselves in their own home? Tell me, without a gun, what would have this old man have been able to do to protect himself and his property from this burglar? Should he have asked him nicely to leave and hope the burglar does not try to attack him like many burglars do to victims inside homes they are robbing. This man had a concealed handgun license. He never once has used his gun for the wrong reasons. He is a law abiding citizen who has a 2nd amendment constitutional right to have a gun to defend himself and that is exactly what he did.

Burglary suspect shot, killed by man who says he was defending his property
HARRIS COUNTY - From KHOU TV and www.khou.com - A burglary suspect died late Thursday morning after he was shot by a homeowner who said he was defending his property.

The shooting occurred in northwest Harris County on Place Rebecca Lane just off Kuykendahl Road, according to the sheriff’s office.

Harris County Sgt. Robert Spurgeon said it was around 2 a.m. when the homeowner, 51, heard glass breaking in his condo. He went to investigate and found a man entering through a window.

The homeowner told deputies he warned the suspect to leave, but the man allegedly continued to enter the condo. That’s when the homeowner opened fire, striking the suspect in the head. The suspect was sent to Ben Taub Hospital in critical condition.

Deputies noted that the homeowner was defending his property and even has a Concealed Handgun License, but as per protocol, the case would be sent to a grand jury.

The suspect’s identity was not released, but deputies said the man was 22 years old.

The condos where the shooting occurred is the same location as a fire on Wednesday morning. The fire destroyed several units and forced crews to cut power to part of the complex. The male homeowner who opened fire said he decided to stay in his unit overnight to protect his belongings during the power outage.

This story comes to us through KFDM TV's media partnership with KHOU-TV in Houston

Life at Conception Act introduced by Senator Roger Wicker

To contact us Click HERE

 

From: Senator Roger Wicker [roger.wicker@nationalprolifealliance.com]To: David Bellow [mdbellow@gmail.com]Subject: Sign the Petition to Bypass Roe v. Wade Dear David, For 39 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life. They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being "inconvenient." In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat. In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases. But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended. Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it. That is why it's so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment. You see, despite what the pro-abortion media is parroting from the abortion lobby, the untold story is that pro-lifers actually picked up pledged support in Congress for the Life at Conception Act to overturn Roe v. Wade . So it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record. And your petition will help do just that. Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade. A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection. This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse." When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution. Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Instead the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Then the High Court made a key admission: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn't be clearer: ". . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says: "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do. But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight. And that's where your help is critical. You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win. Please click here to sign your petition right away. By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen. If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill. But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the next election. Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing. That's why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act. The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here. They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance's plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They'll also organize: ... Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people. ... Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff. ... A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States. ... An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter. Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money. Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000. Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive. But I'm sure you'll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue. The National Pro-Life Alliance's goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act. When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position. I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions. But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won't be able to contribute. That's why it's vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can. Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act. A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that's too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10. You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%! So please respond right away with your signed petition. And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100. But no matter how much you give, whether it's chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated. That's why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can. Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us. Sincerely, Roger Wicker,United States Senator

Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare, risks fine, stands for faith

To contact us Click HERE
Thousands of employees might even get laid off if company has to close because Obama wants to force company to provide contraception against the religious beliefs of a job creator.

Since when does the gov have power to force a company to pay for employee condoms and abortion pills?... what has this country come to?


the following is from Newser:

Attorney: Hobby Lobby to defy morning-after pill insurance requirement while lawsuit's pending

Atty: Hobby Lobby won't offer morning-after pill

Associated Press | Dec 27, 2012 6:12 PM CST in US

        An attorney for Hobby Lobby Stores said Thursday that the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill, despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day.

Hobby Lobby and religious book-seller Mardel Inc., which are owned by the same conservative Christian family, are suing to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.
The companies claim the mandate violates the religious beliefs of their owners. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb.

read the rest of the article here: http://www.newser.com/article/da3ee7s01/attorney-hobby-lobby-to-defy-morning-after-pill-insurance-requirement-while-lawsuits-pending.html

Two Federal Courts Strike Down Contraception Abortion Pill Mandate for Private Companies, including Domino's Pizza

To contact us Click HERE
Just as Hobby Lobby has declared that they will defy an Obamacare mandate to provide contraception to their employees because abortion pills are not something that the company believes they should provide and it is against their religious beliefs, two different federal court have struck down the contraception mandate for private businesses, including Domino's Pizza.

This is very good news! Two different judges striking down the abortion pill mandate of Obamacare means there is a good likelihood that the government will take this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States where the contraception mandate can be struck down for all of America.

People are fighting back against this unconstitutional breach of freedom of religion. How can the government tell you you have to pay for abortion pills for other people. This is outrageous! Hobby Lobby temporarity did not win in Court but they are still taking a bold stand and defying the mandate. Thankfully, some of the other companies, like Domino's, have been sucessful in court.

I pray that, in the end of this Obamacare mess, our religious and constitutional rights have been restored!

from Fox News:

Judge halts contraceptive mandate for Michigan firm owned by founder of Domino's Pizza

Published December 31, 2012Associated PressA federal judge has ruled a property management company owned by the founder of Domino's Pizza doesn't have to immediately implement mandatory contraception coverage in the health care law.U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corp., near Ann Arbor. Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a "gravely immoral" practice.
 from National Review:
The Seventh Circuit Blocks the HHS Mandate for a Private Business
Late yesterday afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners. My colleagues at the ACLJ represent Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family-owned, full-service construction contractor. The company is located in Highland, Ill., and employs about 90 workers. The brief opinion is worth a read in its entirety, but two parts stand out. First, the court disagreed with the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request for a similar injunction. In a key paragraph the court stated:

The government also argues that any burden on religious exercise is minimal and attenuated, relying on a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12‐6294 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2012). Hobby Lobby, like this case, involves a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against the mandate brought by a secular, for‐profit employer. On an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, the Tenth Circuit denied an injunction pending appeal, noting that “the particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity condemned by plaintiff[s’] religion.” Id. at 7 (quoting Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1294 (W.D. Okla. 2012)). With respect, we think this misunderstands the substance of the claim. The religious‐liberty violation at issue here inheres in the coerced coverage of contraception, abortifacients, sterilization, and related services, not—or perhaps more precisely, not only—in the later purchase or use of contraception or related services. 

This is exactly right. The mandated coverage exists — regardless of the actions or activities of the individual employees — and it is the mandate that violates the religious liberty of the employer.Second, the court distinguished Justice Sotomayor’s recent decision not to grant Hobby Lobby emergency relief, rightly noting that Justice Sotomayor applied a much different standard:

But the “demanding standard” for issuance of an extraordinary writ by the Supreme Court . . .  differs significantly from the standard applicable to a motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal in this court. As Justice Sotomayor noted, the entitlement to relief must be “‘indisputably clear.’”

Veep Pick Ryan Makes Plutocratic Ticket; Ryan's Wealth Sources

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket[scroll down: Ryan and his wife's wealth, includes a trust fund]by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDTBy choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.There's nothing wrong with inherited wealth. Lord knows great presidents from FDR to JFK came into their fortunes through the luck of birth. But there is something wrong with winners of the lineage lottery who want to hammer those who did not have the foresight to select wealthy sperm and egg.Finally, we have peered into Mitt Romney's core. It is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; neither pro-NRA nor pro-gun control; neither pro-equality nor antigay. But it is pro-wealth and very anti–middle class. Mitt Romney has decided to go nuclear in the class war.Paul Ryan, the darling of the New York–Washington media elite, is almost certainly not the most qualified person Romney could have picked. Unlike governors like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty, or a former high-ranking White House official like Rob Portman, Ryan has never run anything larger than his congressional office or the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.You will often hear people who ought to know better dress up Ryan's savage economic priorities with euphemisms. Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare. No, he doesn't. He wants to kill it. Saying Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare is like saying the vet wanted to "fix" my dog Major; that which used to work very well no longer works at all—and Major is none too happy with the procedure.Think about that. As my buddy James Carville has said, what would all the Best People say if Nancy Pelosi made her staffers read, say, Margaret Sanger? Or if Barack Obama made interns study Das Kapital? Sure, a few months ago, facing Catholic protestors at Georgetown University, Ryan said he renounced Rand. But as the national Catholic weekly, America, wrote, he did not change the substance of a single policy. Some renunciation. It seems to me Ryan has renounced Rand's politically incorrect atheism, not her morally bankrupt philosophy of Screw Thy Neighbor.Politically, the choice does the one thing Romney needed least of all: it shifts the focus of the 2012 presidential election away from the soft economy and onto the Ryan—now, Romney-Ryan—budget. The most radical governing document in a generation, the Romney-Ryan budget would dramatically alter America's basic social compact. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering".Don't be fooled. Ryan is no deficit hawk. He voted for all the policies that created the current ocean of red ink: the Bush tax cuts for the rich; the war in Iraq; the Bush Medicare prescription-drug plan, the first entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. Ryan cloaks his brutal budget in the urgent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but that's a Trojan Horse. As the Center for American Progress has noted, under the Romney-Ryan budget, "the national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022."Ryan's real goal is to destroy the ladder of opportunity for the poor and the middle class. Look at his budget: Medicare would be shattered and replaced with a voucher system wherein seniors would be given a stipend and told to negotiate with the health insurance goliaths. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ten years after the Ryan plan was enacted, seniors would pay $6,400 per year more for the same health care, as the stipend would fail to keep up with projected cost increases.And that's just for starters. One out of every four dollars spent on transportation—which is already underfunded—would be cut. Veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent from what President Obama says is needed. Young men Paul Ryan voted to send into combat would suffer once more on the home front. Education would be cut, food safety, air traffic control, environmental protection—almost everything that makes us safer, smarter or stronger—would get hammered.How can a budget so brutal not make a dent in the debt? If you have to ask you have not been paying attention. What is the holy grail for princelings like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Of course: tax cuts for the rich. The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found that under Romney's proposal, 95 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by an average of $500, but millionaires would receive an extra $87,000 tax cut. The net result: an $86 billion annual shift in the tax burden away from those making over $200,000 a year and onto those making less.And so Romney Hood has his Friar Tuck. And somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is cackling with glee. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.Paul Begala is a Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist, a CNN contributor, an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown, and a senior adviser to Priorities USA Action, a progressive PAC.For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.Ryan's budget is the fiscal embodiment of the deeply evil, wholeheartedly selfish so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact, Ryan has described Rand as "the reason I got involved in public service," and reportedly makes staffers read her works.

Ryan has family business connection to earth moving industry. A mini-Dick Cheney II in some senses: In recent years, he has significant investments in Oklahoma mineral industries. Read on in Politico.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan’s personal wealth is no mysteryRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23KjyOcVT By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 8/11/12 11:46 AM EDTThe details of Paul Ryan’s personal wealth are no mystery — unlike those of Mitt Romney.And while Ryan is nowhere close to the nine-figure wealth Romney boasts, he isn’t exactly hurting, either.Latest on POLITICO Hirono, Lingle prevail in Hawaii Meet Janna Ryan Ryan is liked by friends and foes Is Ryan just Mitt squared? 8 Dem slams against the Ryan budget Mitt hugs Ryan, not budgetRyan’s overall net worth falls between $927,100 and $3.20 million, making him the 124th wealthiest member of the House, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of the new Republican vice presidential candidate’s 2010 personal financial filings.(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's running-mate announcement)Additional personal financial disclosures by Ryan, who by law has each year filed such reports since entering Congress in 1999, indicate that the Wisconsin congressman has maintained well-above-average wealth for the duration of his congressional tenure.Ultra-wealthy Romney, in contrast, has largely occluded his recent personal financial history.He’s refused to release his recent tax returns before 2010, and unlike Ryan, is under no obligation to release annual personal financial disclosure reports.While running for president in 2007, Romney did file a federal public financial disclosure report that listed hundreds of assets across numerous financial categories.Ryan, meanwhile, has to date been under no significant pressure or obligation to release his personal Internal Revenue Service filings, although calls to do so will likely begin immediately.“It’ll be very, very interesting to see if Ryan releases his tax returns,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money.Ryan’s latest personal financial disclosure report, which covers calendar year 2011, lists several dozen stocks and mutual funds he or his wife, Janna, own.Ryan’s individual investments are generally modest, ranging in value from $1,001 to $15,000. (Federal law only requires lawmakers to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges.) These include stock in well-known companies that run the gamut from tobacco and oil interests to fast food and athletic wear.Among them: Amazon.com, Air Products Chemicals, Accenture, Berkshire Hathaway, Estée Lauder, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Nike, Praixair, Ralph Lauren, Starbucks, Priceline.com, Mastercard, Google, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, IBM, United Technologies, Visa, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Citrix Systems and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris.Ryan also reported a holding in the Ryan Limited Partnership worth up to $250,000. He reported no financial liabilities.(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)Janna Ryan also individually reported a living trust fund worth $1 million to $5 million, that ranks as the largest asset they collectively reported for last year.She also individually reported up to $250,000 in assets tied to gravel rights with Blondie & Brownie LLC, $100,000 in mineral rights holdings, as well as up to $100,000 worth of holdings in the Little Land Co. All are located in Oklahoma.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23Kk7jtXC

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Expands Presidential Debate to Include 2 Third Party Candidates

To contact us Click HERE
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did the great service of expanding the presidential debate to include two third party candidates, Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party). Video is posted at the right on this page.

As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing after Obama’s and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, Dr. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama
Guests:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president.
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party candidate for president.
Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president.
President Barack Obama, president of the United States campaigning for re-election.

.Go to this site for a full transcript of the expanded debate, as broadcast at Goodman's Democracy Now.

Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.

Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...

“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”

The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.

Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.

The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.

“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”