Puerto Rico politics and Glenn Beck.

When I turn on Glenn Beck each morning for the latest and greatest news on talk radio: I never expect to hear about Puerto Rico for 60 consecutive minutes, forcing me to turn off my radio. It could just be me, but I really have no problem with Puerto Rico becoming our 51st state - if the Congressional legislation is written right, which the current legislation is not.

What's the problem with Glenn Beck? Well, he doesn't like how the legislation is written, or how the legislation will be forcing Puerto Ricans to choose between two unpopular choices - Statehood or the unusual Independence. I agree with Glenn Beck on both of his grievances, but if Congress were to rewrite the legislation, I would without a doubt support a 51st Puerto Rican state.

Wouldn't the State of Puerto Rico lead to millions of new Democratic votes? The idiot would yell "yes!" from rooftops, but Puerto Rico isn't a simple commonwealth. Like our other territories, Puerto Rico has a mixture of the two national major political parties and three local parties, one of which is called theNew Progressive Party.

Sounds like a radical progressive bunch? You'd be mistaken, see the New Progressive Party was established when several local Republicans were agitated with the Republican Party of Puerto Rico over a lack of firm commitment for statehood. It might surprise some, but the party was and is the dominant Conservative party, and their purpose is simple: Achieve statehood through any means possible.

Still unconvinced? Please look up Puerto Rico's Republican Governor Luis Fortuno, a fiscal Conservative who has been fighting the good fight against labor unions, state employees and government spending. Fortuno is also the Chairman of the Progressive Party, though his allegiance lies with Republicans. In all honesty, Fortuno is such a Conservative - he's been mentioned as a potential Republican candidate for President in 2012.

Overall a Puerto Rican state would benefit both Republicans and Democrats, especially if their popular Republican Governor ran for US Senate or the House of Representatives, and though I support their current efforts for statehood, I do not approve of their methods, thus I will not support the legislation being debated this afternoon in Washington.


--Tim K.

An In-depth Look at how Obama has Slowed U.S. Economic Recovery

You may here data saying that the United States is making a rebound economically, with reports citing unemploymentnot rising and the American GDP increasing.  Hearing these sound-bites, devoid of context, some might think that the United States is recovering brilliantly under President Obama.  But I hate to be the one to break it to them, but there are reasons the U.S. economy is recovering, and it's no thanks to President Obama.

Before I go into the data I will state second things from the outset:  first, the information I am using are facts from the International Monetary Fund and the Bureau of Labor Statistics(aggregated through this website).  Second, the United States' economy is resilient, and despite President Obama badly damaging it, it will recover.

Unemployment


Easily the most obvious failure of the Obama Administration is employment.  Way back in his first month in office, the President promised that, if his stimulus bill was passed, that unemployment would not rise about 8%.  As everyone from Main Street to Wall Street knows, he broke his promise.

But even more damning is the unemployment compared to the four Presidents before him. *Author's note, it was difficult to get raw data pre-1980, so that is why the graphs will begin with President Reagan.  Take a look at it:

I bet you can guess who's President on the far right.  Feel free to look at the data here.  The graph is a compilation of yearly unemployment averages.  In fact, the average unemployment under Obama is greater than the highest single year of the last 30 years.


What people need to realize is that when the MSM states that unemployment is down X percent, that it is all relative.  The thing is, unemployment never even should have been that high in the first place.  You will see this trend as the article continues.

GDP


Few economists talk about the GDP of the United States, normally.  They talk it in respect to the President only when it is "rising."  But once again, this is a relative matter.  For example, if the national GDP is $10 trillion and it climbs to $12 trillion, it increases by $2 trillion, but only 20%.  Yet if the U.S. GDP is $1 trillion and it goes to $2 trillion, it increases by only $1 trillion, but is a 100% gain.  This is what is happening under Obama.

Think of headlines by the MSM.  When they talk about American growth, do you ever heard hard numbers?  No, always percents.  Because under Obama the GDP of the U.S. has stagnated, even a small increase seems larger than before.

With the context included, the falling GDP of the U.S. under Obama is even more stark:

Point three percent.  Just wow.  And just to be nice, I added the estimated increase of the U.S. GDP in 2010.  If I had not, the graph would have shown a decrease under Obama at -2.4%, which, by the way, is the lowest of any year in the last thirty (again).

Borrowing


This will be my last graph, and the only one that's a bar-graph.  Unfortunately, the data bank that I am using only goes back to 2001, but the stats are evident.  This graph will simply show the average amount of money owed/borrowed during any year of the Bush and Obama Administrations, respectively.

I think the graph speaks for itself:

Unbelievable.  And once again, Obama has the most money borrowed in the data's recorded history.

In Conclusion


When you turn on your T.V. or read the newspaper and see the economy rebounding, the see the incredible American economy rebuilding.  What you do not see are results because of the President's actions, but in spite of them.  Our capitalist society and the great people that inhabit it are the driving force behind the strength of our nation and economy, and they do not sit idly by as it falls.

In the end, this shows that without the President's mishandling of the economy, our nation would be doing better.  All President Obama has done is slow our recovery down.

So Who are these Revolution Muslim Scumbags, Anyway?

Let's get down to some bare bones on who these people are who threated to kill South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They're from a site called Revolution Muslim, which if you didn't figure out, is a site dedicated to jihadist principles and Muslim fundamentalism.

They posted that Parker and Stone had to be careful that they didn't turn out like Theo van Gogh, who was brutally murdered for covering extremist Muslims' hatred and maltreatment of women. They also sent writer Ali Hirshi into hiding.

These scumbags were called out by FoxNews two entire years ago for the crap they were pulling. According to the article:

The 39-year-old New York taxi driver launched RevolutionMuslim.com with the mission of “preserving Islamic culture,” “calling people to the oneness of God” and asking them to “support the beloved Sheik Abdullah Faisal, who’s preaching the religion of Islam and serving as a spiritual guide.”

In 2003 Faisal was convicted in the U.K. for spreading messages of racial hatred and urging his followers to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners. In sermon recordings played at his trial, Faisal called on young, impressionable Muslims to use chemical weapons to “exterminate unbelievers” and “cut the throat of the Kaffars [nonbelievers] with [a] machete.”

Let's take a look at their homepage.

Linked is a story glorifying the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq who were recently killed-- who they say are aliveL
http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4509:abu-omar-al-baghdadi-and-abu-hamza-are-alive&catid=47:iraq&Itemid=81

Also-- here you have the article where they list Stone and Parker's addresses and threaten them:

http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/index.php?view=article&catid=52:abu-talhah-al-amrikee&id=4384:south-park-to-air-episode-with-cartoon-of-the-prophet-muhammad-saaws&format=pdf

From the article:

The episode went beyond just showing him, but it outright insulted him, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, by showing him in a bear suit and making fun of our beloved Nabi, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam. It already aired and you can read comments about it here.

And they have a blog. How quant. From the homepage:

If you were to ask any American how many people had been killed in the Iraq war, then he would give you some number around 4,000. The reality is that many estimates put the complete death toll of this war at figures above 1,000,000. America is a country which murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in the decade before September 11th, 2001 under the Iraq sanctions. This is a fact which the American Secretary of State at the time Madeleine Albright admitted to. The attacks on September 11th did not even equal a week of the murder inflicted on the Muslim people by the American imperialist agenda, yet the United States unanimously viewed these attacks as a justification to kill additional hundreds of thousands of Muslims. America props up brutal dictators on our soil simply because they are friendly and they control the oil. America’s military supports the Israeli regime which stole the land it controls from Muslims. The closest thing it has done to helping the Palestinian people is to periodically give fewer munitions to Israel for them to kill Palestinians with. How can anyone possibly champion the values of such a people? In the last century only the Soviet regime and the Maoist regime murdered more innocent people than America. Not even the tyrant of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, beats out America on this list. However, for some reason the makers of South Park in their self-righteous obscenity feel compelled to impose upon Muslims the values of this regime. Furthermore, they felt compelled to do it through the mocking of the man whom we hold in the highest esteem, whose honor we would die for, the Messenger of Allah Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him).

Is Romney sitting on political gold?

Mitt Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts is a smart businessman who is known for turning around the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic games, but I'm not sure the former Governor is aware of his current political situation.


A situation of sitting on pure political gold.



What could I possibly mean by suggesting Governor Romney is sitting on political gold, considering I'm well aware of the Romneycare baggage and how that issue has plagued the former Governor. Well, for those who appreciate history, Cal Coolidge was one of our greatest post-Founding Father domestic Presidents, after Abe Lincoln of course.



Why? President Coolidge was not only a man of few words, a staunch "government cutter" on a federal scale, but he was also a dedicated federalist from Massachusetts who understood the role of state and federal government on the exact same issue, and how the "role" differed between the two.



Still baffled? See, when President Coolidge was slashing the federal budget, downsizing the federal government, and decreasing the federal income tax, he was doing so from a federalist mindset, something we know from his record as Governor - He did the complete opposite on those just mentioned issues while Governor, because as Governor he had a right to, but not as President.



Back to Mitt Romney's political gold: President Coolidge is well respected and beloved for his economic and small government policies, along with his dedication to federalism. If Mitt Romney will govern as Coolidge did on a federal scale, we could be looking at an exceptional President who values states rights and their "role" in governing, thus restoring the lost art of federalism.



Over the past few months Mitt Romney has used variations of "states right" arguments to defend Romneycare while bashing Obamacare, but he just hasn't hit the nail on the head. He needs to research Calvin Coolidge, and declare himself a Calvin Coolidge federalist to the American electorate.



Only then will he win receive the Republican Nomination, and only then will he be elected the 45th President of the United States of America.

--Tim K.

Who Would You Support for the GOP Nomination in 2012?

Please vote in our included poll.

I know we're still nine or ten months away from the 2012 Presidential cycle officially beginning, and we're still close to 20 months away from the first votes being cast in New Hampshire (Iowa uses a Caucus formation), but who doesn't want to have a poll asking hundreds upon hundreds of Republican voters who their candidate of choice is, at this time?

That's why I'm asking that all Republicans who participate in this poll (Independents and "Right thinking" Democrats are encouraged to participate as well) spread the word, because we need to know who is popular amongst Republican and Republican leaning voters, as the upcoming GOP nomination will be tight, close and passionate.

Now this poll will differ from previous "opinion polls"  as this poll will include top tier, second tier and downright darkhorse candidates. I also want to invite all of the "voters" to consider Conservative principles, electability, and other contributing issues; such as National Defense when "voting" for a candidate, such as you will come early 2012.

Obama Received $1 Million From Goldman Sachs

Then-candidate Obama witnessed the financial crisis firsthand towards the end of 2008, personally exploiting it to get the final push into office. Now while he was doing that, it now appears that he was receiving a pretty good share from Goldman Sachs-- one of the catalysts causing the collapse.

There's an article from Drudge linked on his site from Open Secrets-- but wouldn't you know it, the link is down:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638


Heck, even Michael Moore is complaining about it. Goldman contribution represented the NUMBER ONE private contribution to the President's campaign. Conviniently he also voted for the TARP bailout giving billions to firms like Goldman.

"I point out in the film that Goldman Sachs is his No. 1 private contributor," Moore answered. "But I voted for the guy. I'm still hopeful that he's going to do the right thing and side with us, and not Wall Street. But the jury's out on that."

I know that Michael Moore isn't credible, but when the left is eating its own, it's kind of fun.

A GOP Governor in Massachusetts?

Don't hold your breath.
Or at lead, that's what I said about Scott Brown's candidacy five months ago.

But let's take a look at the situation here. Current Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, a close ally of President Obama, has helped run the state into the ground after Governor Romney straightened out a lot of the state government. Patrick won 55%-35% in a three-way race in 2006. Now he suffers from anemic approval ratings and in any other state would appear vulnerable.

But this is Massachusetts.

The Republicans have just chosen Charles Baker as their nominee. He is a veteran of two state administrations and is a capable business leader. He's certainly a New England Republican. He supports abortion rights and gay-marriage rights. But he's fiscally conservative and wants to roll back the excesses of the Massachusetts democrats.

Republicans only have 5 of 40 seats in the State Senate, or just 12.5%. So what are the odds of pulling this one off? I'd take a look at several factors:

Pro-Baker:

• The Obama Effect could be at play if he comes to the Bay State.
• Romney could push hard-- believe it or not he still has some credibility there.
• Scott Brown will be an effective person on Baker's side. He can be the voice of reason in this very blue state.
• Now that ObamaCare is passed, Baker can run on an anti-establishment platform-- in RomneyCare land.
• The Tea Party movement may coalesce around this fiscally responsible candidate.

Anti-Baker:

• Higher turnout in a regular election will result in a more-heavily Democratic electorate. Brown's election took place during a special election.
• The election is not during the ObamaCare debate-- and apart from Patrick's incompetence there is no unifying force to rally around.
• Patrick is no Coakley, at least not yet. He campaigned hard to win the Dems' nomination in 2006 and will probably do so again to retain his seat.
• Conservatives may not want to back what they consider a RINO. But what's the alternative?

Democrat Pollster Has Obama Behind Romney, Huckabee

Perhaps not the favorite of the GOP candidates for President in 2012, but it appears that President Obama is facing a tougher challenge for his reelection than he would have wanted. According to PPP, which is a traditionally Democratic Party poll, Obama trails both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Matchups:
Huckabee: 47
Obama: 44

Romney: 45
Obama: 44

Gingrich: 45
Obama: 45

Obama: 47
Palin: 45

And some interesting news from the article:

It's not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly popular, or even that Obama's approval numbers have declined. But whereas in previous months a good number of the voters disapproving of his job performance weren't ready to commit to voting Republican in 2012 yet, now 85-89% of them do in each of these hypothetical contests. That suggests that even if Obama's overall unpopularity has not increased, the intensity of it has. For instance among voters who disapprove of Obama but also have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin, she leads him by 22 points in a head to head contest. That wasn't necessarily the case in previous months.

Crist in Lead as Independent?

Some potentially explosive news out of Florida. Current Governor and candidate for the Senate Charlie Crist would be leading in athree-way race against Marco Rubio and Democrat Charlie Meek. This comes as Rubio is crushing Crist in the Republican primary race for the Senate.

According to the poll:

GOP Primary:
Rubio: 56
Crist: 33

General Election:
Crist: 32
Rubio: 30
Meek: 24

Also from the poll:

• Crist would get 30 percent of Republicans, 27 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independent voters;
• Rubio would receive 64 percent of GOP votes, 5 percent from Democrats and 29 percent of independents:

Meek, a congressman from South Florida, would get 55 percent of Democratic votes, 15 percent of independents and no Republicans.

An interested November is coming up...

Interview with BillboardsAgainstObama.com

Today we are proud to present our interview with Billboards Against Obama. They're a fast-growing site that have received high praise in the short time that they have been running ads. They were gracious enough to take some time and answer some of our questions. 

1. When and why did you start Billboards Against Obama?

This initiative was conceived about two months ago by a group of small business owners and the site went live in the last week. Donations have been coming in for the last week and range from one dollar to $3200.

2. What is your overall goal?

The overall goal is to awaken more taxpayers and other citizens to the dangers of dependency and collectivism being promoted by the Obama administration. As the founders emphasized, a spirited debate is in the best interests of our republic.

First, we want to catch people’s attention and heighten their awareness to the path we are on as a nation and secondly, provide education in the principles of freedom and the character qualities of personal responsibility, service, work ethic, thrift, and self-motivation. We are especially interested in providing resources for those who haven’t typically been involved in politics, but now feel compelled to get out of the stands and onto the field to make a difference for the generations to come.

3. Has President Obama been better or worse than you expected/feared?

In virtually every category the president has behaved in office as expected (unfortunately). With very little due diligence, any voter or potential voter could have learned (before the election) much about Barack Obama’s personal philosophies which clash severely with the principles and intentions of the Founding Fathers. And his lack of experience in the business sector, as a chief executive, or service in the military rounds out his distinct worldview and shallow resume as president of the United States.

4. Any favorites yet for the 2012 presidential race?

We would certainly like to support a candidate who understands and appreciates the private sector(and has a successful track record) and the contribution that free markets have made to the dramatic prosperity of our nation. Secondly, we would like to support a candidate who values the Constitution and the principles of individual liberty outlined by the Framers. This candidate should appeal to taxpayers and to all citizens who understand the virtue of limited government and the dangers demonizing America’s most productive. Last but not least, this candidate must have the ability to articulate freedom principles in a clear and simple fashion so he connects with a widespread group of voters.

5. What has been the best part about running your site?

The best part has been the amazing support in a short amount of time from Americans across the country who have learned of our efforts and have reinforced our determination with their donations and with their words of encouragement. In the brief time we have been up and running, we appear to be giving an outlet or platform for those who feel their voice has been smothered by the mainstream media and those seeking to be taken care of as wards of the state.

6. Are you afraid of any backlash?

We anticipate a backlash and the standard labels that are likely to be hurled by those who cannot defend the philosophy or policies of the president on its merits. Liberty isn’t free and spreading the truth will always be met with resistance. We intend to stimulate a spirited and respectful debate that will have ramifications for generations to come.