Mitt Romney, The R&D Candidate

This 2012 election cycle will be the most highly-charged election cycle in my memory (and I remember the Carter/Reagan cycle). There is more at stake in 2012 than there has been since World War II. The battle lines have been drawn and positions on the issues stand in stark contrast. The difference between the Conservative agenda and the Liberal agenda is unbridgeable.

Enter Mitt Romney. (HT LaborUnionReport for the video)

So, Mitt was for it before bein agin it. Or was he agin it before bein for it? Or is he agin bein for it or for bein agin it?

If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote for Mitt because he’s pro-abortion.
If you’re pro-abortion, you cannot vote for Mitt because he’s Pro-Life.

If you oppose mandates, you cannot vote for Mitt because he likes mandates.
If you like mandates, you cannot vote for Mitt because he opposes mandates.

And the beat goes on.

Mitt Romney is straddling the fence, trying to play both sides. In this charged atmosphere, that fence is electrified, and the amperage keeps increasing. The growing differences between Conservatives and Liberals means the electric fence is growing taller. Mitt Romney is doing his best to straddle a 6-foot-tall, fully electric fence. And we know what happens when you try to do that.

Sure would be nice if Romney tried a little integrity.

Let My Criminals Go

Moses told Pharoah “Let my people go!” Obama told the legal system “Let my criminals go!” And he’s still doing it.

Practically as soon as Obama became President, he began his process of freeing his favored criminals. The New Black Panther Party, and certain members of it, were guilty of voter intimidation and other things resulting from their criminal actions in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. The Obama administration dropped the charges after judgment was rendered.

Operation Fast and Furious/Gunrunner. Illegal purchases and transport of firearms from US to Mexico under the watchful and approving eye of the Obama Administration. The gun dealers dutifully notified the authorities, who told them to let it happen. As a result, hundreds if not thousands of guns were illegally bought and walked into Mexico. Two American law enforcement officials were murdered as a direct result. This was going to be a backdoor way to create more Anti-Second Amendment laws and regulations. Until the news of the Obama Administration’s involvement went viral. Fast and Furious/Gunrunner was stopped immediately after it became public knowledge, but not before the damage was already done. How many people were murdered? How many lives destroyed? How much thug rule was created and advanced because the Obama Administration refused to do its Constitutionally-required job?

Now another story breaks wide open, causing the Obama Administration to put a halt to another of its secret Unconstitutional efforts to free criminals from the jaws of Justice. Judicial Watch has the story.

DHS Stealth Amnesty Cover Up Exposed

Last Updated: Mon, 06/27/2011 – 2:34pm

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress and the media to cover up a secret amnesty program that dismissed the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

The scandalous story of how the government agency charged with keeping America safe systematically cancels pending deportations was first reported by Texas’s largest newspaper last year. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who say the government bounced their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.

After the story broke other media outlets began to dig around and Senate leaders launched an investigation into the stealth amnesty program that led to a 40% increase in the dismissal of deportations last year. Homeland Security officials denied it existed and scrambled to conceal details, according to new information revealed by the newspaper that originally cracked the story.

So, Obama’s DHS ordered its people to dismiss deportation proceedings against illegal aliens, including criminal illegal aliens (All illegal aliens are criminal. That’s the definition of “illegal alien”.) that is illegal aliens that have committed crimes since arriving in the US illegally or illegally staying beyond their time limit. And some of those crimes those illegal aliens committed while being in the US illegally include sex crimes.

Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to rape victims? Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to murder victims? Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to voter intimidation? Why does the Obama Administration so willingly violate Federal Law and the US Constitution?

And why do any Americans support him or his administration?

Think he’d do it? And would the Democrats approve?

Our good friend Perry’s latest mantra is that we have a “dysfunctional Congress,” which means, well, I don’t know what it means.¹ But one wonders what Perry would say if Congress declines to pass an increase in the statutory debt limit, and President Obama simply ignores the ceiling and keeps borrowing anyway. From Allahpundit:

Hot new idea: What if Obama just ignores Congress on the debt ceiling?

posted at 3:50 pm on June 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

Yeah, why not? That’s perfectly in keeping with Obama’s M.O. when the legislature gets in his way. Can’t get Congress to move on cap and trade? Make the EPA do something. Don’t want to beg Congress to authorize war in Libya? Send in the Air Force and forget about it.

Annoyed that Congress has refused to raise the debt ceiling because you can’t reach a deal on deficit reduction? Just keep selling Treasury securities and apply the proceeds to paying interest on the debt, then dare the House and Senate to do something about it.

There’s much more at the link, including an argument from The New Republic that the debt limit itself is inherently unconstitutional:

But even if standing could be established and the Obama administration gets taken to court, some legal experts note that an additional argument of surprising strength could be made: The government cannot legally default on its debts. Former Reagan official and maverick conservative budget wonk Bruce Bartlett has suggested as much by invoking Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Although there has been little litigation or discussion of this section, it could be read to imply an absolute firewall against statutory limits on paying or devaluing the debt.

Allahpundit then added:

Now there’s a campaign platform I’d like to see in time for the 2012 election: “The Constitution lets me run up as much debt as I want and there’s nothing your representatives can do to stop me.”

Now, the obvious counter is that the Constitution puts paying our past, legally-incurred obligations ahead of other spending, but how do you determine what gets cut? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional in Clinton v City of New York (524 U.S. 417 (1998)), so the selection of non-debt-repayment items to be deleted would not be solely up to President Obama, and if the Congress couldn’t then agree on what already-appropriated items were to be sequestered, then each appropriated item would have just as much of an obligation to be spent as any other.

So, if the Congress does what the people who elected it to do, which is not borrow more money, and declines to raise the debt ceiling, and President Obama goes ahead and takes unilateral action and exceeds the statutory debt limit anyway, will Perry start complaining about “Dictator Obama,” or will he continue the “dysfunctional Congress” meme, and tell us that the President simply had to do what he did?
¹ – Whatever he means, he has used “dysfunctional Congress” enough times in the past two days for me to wonder if that was the latest DNC talking point he was e-mailed.

Absolutely right

John Hitchcock, on Truth Before Dishonor, quotes Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA 3rd):

I’m trying to understand the criticism of Mr. Ryan’s budget from the side that didn’t even have the courage to pass a budget. To sit there now and rail about Mr. Ryan’s budget, about how it’s so ineffective and how it doesn’t work is, to me, the greatest, most hypocritical statement I’ve heard since coming here.


And You Wonder Why Progressives/Liberals/Communists Are Seen As Smug, Elitists, Hate Mongers and all Around A-Holes

David Carr | Maher | Low Sloping Foreheads (In Other Words Cro-Magnum Knuckle Draggers)
New York Times columnist David Carr responds to Bill Maher implying Alabama and Kansas are not the “smart states.” David Carr: “If it’s Kansas, Missouri, it’s no big deal. You know, that’s the dance of the low sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?”


Jim Lynch wrote:

I’m coining a new word — Stregulation. As bad as burdensome taxes, Stregulation — job killing, freedom robing, nanny-state strangulation through regulation — must be addressed.

I’ll let you go to Jim’s original to read the whole thing, but, his next to last paragraph says:

Other things are smaller, but every bit as intrusive into how we can live our lives and what we can do with our property and things we own. How far have we fallen as a nation when the government can tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use?

Mr Lynch addresses just how intrusive regulations are these days, and how they are getting worse. Hoagie is talking about starting a new business; fortunately, it’s near, but not in, Philadelphia, where things would be even worse, but I’m sure he could tell us all about the stregulation he will face.

So, why is Perry going to vote for President Obama again?

Perry attempted to use sarcasm in his complaints about President Obama on his site:

A Progressive’s lament

If we were to elect a Republican President in 2012, here is what we would get:

  • war being waged simultaneously on three fronts
  • a president who tells Congress he has war powers and does not need to seek their approval
  • a failure to investigate or prosecute Bush/Cheney administration officials for torture or war crimes
  • a gutted health care reform bill with no public option
  • a failure to provide relief for homeowners facing foreclosure
  • a president who drags his feet about leaving Afghanistan even after we got Bin Laden (Kudos on that, sir, well done. But it will be ancient history by November 2012. People will vote on the economy.)
  • a president who fails to tax the rich, and whom people no longer trust to defend Social Security and Medicare.

[h/t Janet Rhodes @ FDL]

But wait, this is only 2011!!! And where’s the gap to be bridged?

Perry’s complaints about President Obama’s policies are interesting, but what do they actually mean. He wrote, in a comment on this poor site:

I think what you are seeing is Obama moving to the Right in preparation for the November 2012 election. I fear that if he does not do that, he will not be reelected, which will be a real disaster for this country. We would then be ruled by characters who think and behave just like some of those on this very blog who constantly viciously attack their enemies and who don’t need facts to generate their positions. Their thinking and behavior mimics their leaders almost perfectly, make no mistake about that.

Until November 2012, Progressives like myself will find ourselves more and more angry with Obama, but we will vote for him anyway against any Repub who gets nominated to run against him. This is what happens when a significant minority of the country moves to the far right extreme, with Fox, Rush, the Koch Brothers, and all like them parading in support with tons of money, yelling and screaming and lying 24/7!!!

Naturally, I responded:

An interesting statement: you have just said that either President Obama is a liar, lying about what he believes and even governing in a manner in which he doesn’t believe, all to get re-elected, or that he really is far more conservative that you had thought, but you’ll vote for him anyway, even though you disagree with his positions, because he is nominally a Democrat.

Perry then replied:

I am saying that Obama is starting to focus on policies more to the center. Most politicians shift focus as they take into account the desires of their constituents. This has nothing to do with either lying or being far more conservative, although Obama is not the leftist extremists that you Repubs like to allege.

Yet, four days after that exchange, the esteemed host of Bridging the Gap wrote an article which says, in effect, that President Obama’s policies are essentially indistinguishable from those of any of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

Why, I have to wonder, does Perry spend so much effort defending President Obama and his positions, and criticizing the GOP, if he finds our 44th President’s policies to be almost indistinguishable from what Sarah Palin would do? Why did he say, explicitly, that he will vote for President Obama 16½ months from now — yes, the time really is getting that short — when he disapproves of him so strongly?

It’s always possible that those peeved progressives will find a primary challenger for President Obama. If so, judging by Perry’s comments, he’d be looking to support that progressive challenger, right? :)

One of us doesn’t think that will happen.

And here’s hoping that the late President Harry Truman was right when he said, “If you give the people a choice between a watered-down Republican and a Republican, they will choose the real thing every time.”


Stolen Borrowed from Hube:

Electric cars not the boon for the environment everyone thought

Take that “everyone” as you will, of course!

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed. (Link.)


Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, no, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop looking into clean, and hopefully cheaper, power sources. But we definitely shouldn’t make any ridiculous mandates about switching to this or that NOW in order to “save” the planet from “imminent Armageddon.” After all, the effects of what we’ve done already (in terms of CO2 emissions) supposedly will remain in effect for 1,000 years. So … what’s the hurry?

The hurry, of course, is to get our guilt-ridden, guilt-tripping friends on the left some additional political power, power they can use to depress the just-plain-unfair lifestyles of wealthy, white Americans and Europeans, who so greedily consume the resources of the world, far in excess of what darker-complected people get to use. Rather than trying to increase production and increase wealth for everybody, they choose the alternative, to equalize income by making everyone equally poor.