President Obama: Born In The U.S.A.?

No, I'm not a birther. Until someone proves otherwise, I believe President Obama was born in Hawaii, therefor a citizen of the United States.

No, this is about a Book that is coming out on that subject:

Two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi, a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard and a senior staff writer at WND, has written a new book that promises to be a game-changer on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility.

It's called "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to Be President."

The result of more than two years of solid investigative research by Corsi and a team of WND reporters and editors, this book is destined to be a huge bestseller and change the dynamics of the debate over eligibility – IF, of course, the book is not spiked by the hostile establishment media when it is officially released in May.

There will be a series of TV ads by WND to promote this book and the Authors findings. Here is a sample of the commercial:



The full story is HERE.

Trump double's down on the birth certificate

Perhaps this is a sign that Trump has no intention of running for president. He's most likely just dangling his possible candidacy to create a platform for himself to opine on things like this. Nobody else in the Republican Party could get away with this.

I don't believe we have any birthers on Right Speak, but I found this clip interesting nonetheless.

And So It Begins

None of the potential 2012 candidates have officially declared and already the "he/she is not conservative enough" debate is going on. It happens every election cycle. It is particularly amusing watching the presidential debates among the Republicans. Each one will try to accuse the other of not being conservative enough. The reality is that most governors are not conservative enough. There are two basic reasons for this.

1. The most "conservative" position is not always the best position. For example, today's conservative movement has deemed raising taxes as always liberal. The talk-radio inspired environment simply does not allow for a time when a governor should raise taxes. It is always heresy to do so. Yet, we also have a situation where states are broke. This is precisely why Romney raised fees and not taxes. He wanted to be able to tell the "no taxes" crowd that he never raised taxes, yet he also needed to balance the budget.

2. There are political restraints. Even if we truly believe that Rush Limbaugh's version of conservatism is the answer to all of our problems, there is still the problem of implementing such policies. Here is where governors from liberal states have even more trouble. They must apply Jim DeMint policies in states where Jim DeMint would get laughed off the stage. And if they don't apply Jim DeMint policies with a pure heart and 100% of the time, then they are not "conservative" enough.

It is never going to change. The only thing to do is laugh when you watch a Republican "debate." It is all about folksy one-liners and attaching the liberal meme to an opposing candidate. There is little discussion about whose policies were effective, and a lot of discussion about whose policies resemble the policies of the make-believe Ronald Reagan that conservatives have created in their minds (the real Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times and would never please the purists on talk radio).

So let me add my two cents about the current crop:

1. They are all conservative (Huntsman is slightly moderate).

2. None of the governors were 100% "conservative" while in office (note: Rush Limbaugh conservative, that is).

3. If any of them become President, he or she will not be 100% "conservative" while in office (note: Rush Limbaugh conservative, that is).

4. The more we demand that the candidates be Rush Limbaugh "conservatives," the harder it will be to defeat Barack Obama.

Cross posted at The Cross Culturalist. 

Take The Romney Quiz

Republican Presidential Primary voters: Test your knowledge of Mitt Romney’s principled stands on issues important to you. (Answers below - No peeking!)

1. Amending the Massachusetts Constitution to
define marriage as one man and one woman

A. When running for Governor, Romney
denounced the marriage amendment as
“extreme” and refused to support it.

B. When running for President, Romney supported
the marriage amendment with great enthusiasm.

C. Both A and B.

2. Homosexual Civil Unions

A. Romney stated that he has never supported
homosexual civil unions.

B. Romney lobbied for a state constitutional
amendment that would create homosexual civil
unions.

C. Both A and B.

3. No new taxes pledge
When asked to sign a “No New Taxes” pledge,

A. Romney signed it and bragged about it in
speeches.

B. Romney refused to sign it, calling it a “gimmick”.

C. Both A and B.

4. Gun control

A. Romney said "I don't line up with the NRA. We
do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I
support them. I won't chip away at them."

B. Romney said "I have a gun of my own. I go
hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and
believe firmly in the right to bear arms.

C. Both A and B.

5. Balancing the Massachusetts state budget
without raising personal income taxes

A. Romney balanced the budget by raising
corporate taxes by $210 million.

B. Romney balanced the budget by raising fees by
$500 million.

C. Both A and B.

Palin Out Of Gas on Energy Policy?

Trying to staunch the bleeding of her support among GOP Conservatives and Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin has been hammering President Obama on the one issue she maintains some credibility – Energy. And more specifically, the current price of gasoline. In a Facebook post on March 15th, Palin tries to saddle Obama with a new political moniker - “the $4-Dollar-Per-Gallon President.”  Palin citied the following Obama positions as causes of the nations current gasoline prices:

• Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium
• Exhibit B: His 2012 budget
• Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies.

Palin further wrote that gas prices have soared "67 percent since he took office," claiming it is "no accident." The former Alaska Governor trades on her assumed expertise in energy issues, even as opponents and former supporters seek to undo many of her policies. In reviewing her latest charges of energy policy malfeasance against the Obama Administration, FactCheck.Org has researched Palin’s claims and discovered them be incorrect.  Among their findings:

§         “We talked to Fadel Gheit, a former Mobil Oil executive who is now a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Asked about the impact of the deepwater moratorium, Gheit said the moratorium had a "negative impact on production, but not as much as the politicians would like us to believe." The impact of the moratorium on gas prices? "Nothing. Zero," he said.”

§         “…on imports, Palin claimed in that same March 15 Facebook post that the administration’s inaction on drilling permits is "allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world."

§         FackCheck.Org however, points out….”First of all, net imports are trending downward. Our reliance on imported liquid fuels — as the EIA calls oil and other petroleum products — declined to less than 50 percent of U.S. consumption in 2010. And, despite an expected uptick this and next year, it will decline through 2035. The EIA’s 2011 Annual Energy Outlook, released December 2010, projects our reliance on imported liquid fuels will drop to 42 percent by 2035.”

§         When looking at Palin’s dangerous regimes claim, FactCheck.Org observed the following…”So, going by the countries that the State Department considers to be "dangerous or unstable," Palin would be wrong when looking at total imports since Obama became president. Individually, however, imports were up from some nations and down from others.”

While there is no doubt a lot more information and detail regarding the issue of Energy Policy and the root causes of price fluctuations, the questions begging to be addressed are:
Is Governor Palin using the current price spike in gasoline as a political tool, in order to pander to her base, in an effort shore up her waning poll numbers?

Or

Does Governor Palin really know enough about Energy Policy, to realistically speak out on the subject?


Author's Note:

I'd post this at WhyNot Romney.blogspot.com - but based upon the number of comments posted there, it's doubtful anyone would even read the article. In case anyone has yet to visit the site, here's a recent picture to let you know what's going on there....

300,000 Protest Government Cuts in London

Fueled by anger at drastic government cuts, 500,000 protesters took to the streets of London yesterday in the largest protest since the city’s 2003 march against the Iraq war.

Few parts of British life will remain untouched by the massive $130 billion in cuts to public services now being rolled out by the coalition government. Local budgets are being slashed by up to 30 percent, leading to cuts in child care, public safety, programs for retirees, and library closures — and an increasing privatization of the popular, publicly-funded National Health Services.

The full story is HERE.

Related videos:

‘RomneyCare’ Facts and Falsehoods

H/T to Right Wingnut for introducing me to this great resource.

It seems that FactCheck.org did some research on the MA Health Care Bill that they posted just the other day.

This is some of what they found. Their article wanted to set the record straight on some claims about MA Health Care (Romneycare):

1.   The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that. 

Analysis: ........Massachusetts has a lower coverage requirement for employers, putting just a $295 per employee “fair share assessment” on businesses that don’t provide insurance. The national law, meanwhile, has a fine of $2,000 per employee for companies that don’t offer coverage, have more than 50 workers and have at least one who receives a premium credit....... 

2.   The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.  

Analysis: .....The latest number from the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy: 98.1 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2010.......The state does better in covering children — 99.8 percent of kids are estimated to have insurance. (Nationally, the figure is 92.6 percent.)....
 
.......Huckabee was dead wrong when he said that the law "ended up having almost the polar opposite effect of what was intended." A major goal — if not the goal — was to reduce the number of uninsured. The state was very successful in that regard. We called and e-mailed the press office for Huckabee’s political action committee several times, asking for back-up for his claims. A spokesman told us he would get back to us, but we have not yet received a response. We will update this article if we do.  

3.   Claims that the law is "bankrupting" the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.  

Analysis:....It certainly takes money to create a subsidy program and expand Medicaid coverage. But is the Massachusetts law “bankrupting” the state? The foundation says no. In May 2009 it put out a report called “The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs," which concluded that the net added cost to Massachusetts taxpayers was $353 million in 2010, or roughly 1.2 percent of the state budget.... 

4.   Premiums went up.

Analysis: ....The truth about premiums is that they’ve gone down for those who buy their own insurance (in what had been the so-called "individual market’), and the health care law is given credit for several reasons. And while premiums have gone up for large employers who buy coverage for their workers (the so-called "large group market"), there’s no clear evidence that the law was the cause....

5.   Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.

6.   Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of non-elderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.

Analysis:  

Claim: "… people were greatly dissatisfied." — Huckabee
Claim: "Massachusetts has a state health insurance program that they’re happy with." —

....Score one for Haley Barbour. The state’s health care efforts haven’t been plagued by claims about grandma’s life-support, as we saw on the federal level. For now, public support and physician support are both high in the state......

 Read the full article and extensive analysis HERE.

Mitt Romney's Record on Sanctuary Cities

This appears to have been another attempt by Mitt Romney to appeal to Republican primary voters. If he was so concerned about the danger imposed on the residents of sanctuary cities, why did he wait until the final days of his term to address the problem? Moreover, Gov. Elect Patrick was already on record promising to rescind the agreement. Romney was well aware that it would never take effect. Would this have been part of his platform had he decided to run for re-election in Massachusetts? Not likely.

From Fact Check.org:

“Mitt Romney casts himself as tough on illegal immigration in a new ad in which he says that, as Massachusetts governor, “I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws.” He doesn’t mention that his order never took effect. It came in the closing days of his administration and was rescinded by his successor, as we wrote back in August.

He also promises, “As President, I’ll . . . cut funding for sanctuary cities.” Maybe so, but as governor he took no action against several such towns in his state.

We find Romney misleading on both counts.”

(...)

Well, yes. But, as we noted in August, he didn't do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.

Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn't sign an agreement with the federal government - a necessary condition for that authority to be granted - until Dec. 13 of that year. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007. Democrat Deval Patrick, who had won the race to succeed Romney, had already said the program was a "bad idea" because troopers were busy enough as it was.

Sure enough, Patrick rescinded the agreement within his first week in office so troopers could "focus on enforcing Massachusetts laws." The policy never had a chance to take effect, because those troopers chosen to carry it out hadn't yet begun a required six-week training course.

Read More

Cross Posted at Why Not Romney

Was Sarah Palin's relationship with the Alaskan Independence Party based on similar beliefs or convenience?

H/T Right Wingnut

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates an in-state referendum which includes the option of Alaska becoming an independent country.

The following is a video that offers evidence of Sarah Palin's relationship with the AIP. I realize, and can accept that minds, tastes, and associations can change over time. However, I have one question for Palin supporters. Do you believe that Sarah Palin was sincere in her statement about the AIP when she says, "Your party plays an important roll in our state's politics. I share your Party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state."



I look at this association and praise of AIP in 2 possible ways:

1. She believes or believed at that time in the views, values, and goals of the AIP.
2. She didn't believe in this group and was simply pandering to them because of their influence in getting her elected and/or re-elected as Governor.

Bryan Fischer Is A Bigot

Remember Mike Huckabee's foot-in-the-mouth interview where he got confused about Barack Obama's upbringing? Well, it was probably because he was being interviewed by Bryan Fischer and therefore felt pressured not to disagree with Fischer's bigoted worldview.

Then there is this:

People For the American Way is calling on three potential Republican presidential candidates to tell Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association that the First Amendment applies to all Americans and doesn’t exclude Muslims.

Fischer wrote Thursday the First Amendment was only meant to protect Christians. On Friday, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee were scheduled to appear on Fischer’s radio show following appearances at a controversial gathering of Iowa pastors in West Des Moines known as the Iowa Renewal Project.

Fischer also had this to say about gays:

Fischer claimed in 2010, while his group was spending around $140,000 in Iowa to oust three Supreme Court justices, that Adolf Hitler was gay and hired gays to be Nazi stormtroopers for their “savagery,” that homosexuals should be banned from public office, and having fewer homosexual students would reduce teen suicide rates. In December, he called for homosexual sex to be made illegal because it was as dangerous as intravenous drug use.

Now, I am very much against the concept of gay marriage, but really? Is it necessary (or accurate for that matter) to describe homosexuals for their "savagery?"

I join the call for Huckabee and Barbour to condemn Fischer. I know they won't and I won't even bother extending the call to Gingrich and Bachmann. This is just another example of how responsible conservatives need to stand up and reclaim the Republican Party.

New Jersey 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Straw Poll

At a gathering of Republican candidates, campaign managers, staffers and grass root activists, White House 2012 and Building the New Majority sponsored New Jersey’s first Republican presidential straw poll for the 2012 election and the winner was their own Governor, Chris Christie:

Following Romney in this second choice category was Sarah Palin, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, each with 8.3%, Mike Huckabee 6.3% and Mitch Daniels 5.2%:

None of the respondents described themselves as liberal but 75%, or 144 of the participating voters called themselves conservative, and the remaining 48 (25%), described themselves of moderate.

 The full story and further analysis is HERE.

What I found interesting is Mitt Romney being the overwhelmingly SECOND CHOICE of 40% of those polled. With Christie not running and Romney's close association with Christie, I have to wonder if Romney would receive most of the Christie votes if they had run a poll with out him. My guess is yes.

Mitt Romney's Planned Parenthood Questionnaire

The following is a list of questions Mitt Romney answered for Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts in 2002. I realize, and can accept that minds can be changed on the issue of life. However, I have one question for Romney's supporters. Do you believe that Mitt's answers reflected his sincere views at the time?

1. Do you support the substance in the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade? YES

2. Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

7. In recent years, a campaign of violence, intimidation and harassment has been waged against reproductive health providers, parents, and their families. Planned Parenthood believes the federal government should take an aggressive role in enacting and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients. YES

9. In 1998, the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as "the morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support the efforts to increase access to emergency contraceptives? YES

A copy of the original document can be viewed HERE

Cross posted at Why Not Romney

LIVE FEED from IOWA: Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee (PAC)

Several possible 2012 Republican Presidential candidates are in Des Moines, Iowa, today to speak at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee (PAC) day-long conference.

Notable speakers include: Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain and Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

RIGHT CLICK on the photo below. Choose, "Open link in New Window". A window will open. if asked to download software, say NO. then choose either of the CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES CONFERENCE channel in the right column. If your 'FLASH PLAYER' is up to date, the feed will work fine. If not, start the process again, and when asked this time about the software, choose yes.

A Second feed: RIGHT CLICK on the photo below. Choose, "Open link in New Window":

Previous Speakers (video):
RIGHT CLICK the names below. Choose, "Open link in New Window".

Newt Gingrich

Haley Barbour

Herman Cain

Michele Bachmann

John Bolton

Mike Huckabee on President Obama's lack of Leadership in the Middle East

Mike Huckabee sits down with Fox News Insider and discusses Obama's lack of leadership on Libya and the Middle East.




Check out this weekend's Huckabee Show with guest Ron Paul discussing his recent vote against stop gap spending.

Palin Goes On The Record

Sarah Palin sat down with Greta Van Susteren Wednesday night in Naples, Florida. They spent the majority of the interview discussing foreign policy - specifically Libya and Israel. Palin had just returned from a visit to Israel, where she met with Prime Minister Netanyahu.