Today, I went to a Mitt Romney rally in Atlanta. It was a great event. Here are some pictures: 

My fellow conservatives, there is little time before super tuesday, so I must make my final case. The Republican race is down to two candidates: John McCain and Mitt Romney. There are other candidates in the race, but they are only diluting the vote, which is why Mitt Romney needs every vote he can get. Now CNN and the New York Times will have you believe that McCain is the candidate destined for the nomination, because of his ‘overwhelming’ victories of 33 and 36 percent in recent primaries. However, his narrow victories were only made possible by moderate and independent voters; who undoubtedly will vote for a liberal Democrat when given the choice between a liberal Republican (McCain) or a liberal Democrat (Clinton or Obama). They want you to believe that he represents the values of conservatives, but he doesnt. Now Mitt Romney isn’t perfect, but he has a much stronger grasp of conservative principles than his opponent does. So lets jump into some comparisons between the candidates.

While John McCain was ‘crossing party lines’ (a term that only seems to occur with moderate Republicans and never the other way around), working hard to pass such terrible legislation such as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act and of course the McCain-Kennedy Immigration (Amnesty) Reform Act in congress, Mitt Romney was working as the Governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts to turn a $3 Billion budget deficit into a $1 Billion surplus. While McCain was working to block President Bush’s judicial nominations, Mitt Romney was urging Congress to back the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Moving further back in time, in 2001, John McCain voted against the Bush Tax Cuts while Mitt Romney was busy saving the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from corruption and budget shortfalls. When he was brought on to lead the SLOC, the organization was $379 Million short of its revenue benchmarks; and by the time the games ended, they had made $100 Million profit. And in the 90’s John McCain did nothing to stop President Clinton from drastically reducing the size of the US military. What was Mitt Romney doing in the 90’s? He was running Bain Capital, which help successfully grow hundreds of businesses. In the most recent Presidential Debate, John McCain criticized Romney for managing businesses for profit. Thats right, because Mitt Romney was making money for his company (the heart and soul of capitalism), Mitt Romney is a bad guy? McCain also commented on how Romney was using his personal ‘fortune’ to pay for some of his campaign, but McCain never talks about how he amassed his fortune: from his second wife’s Anheuser-Busch inheritance. What happened to McCain’s first wife? Well, after John McCain returned from Vietnam, he began to have extramarital affairs. He divorced his first wife, Carol (who had been in a serious car accident a year prior) and married Cindy Lou Hensley 45 days later.

Now I know this comparison is not conclusive or even chronologically accurate, but, none the less, it shows the comparison between these two men. Mitt Romney has spent a great deal of his life in the private sector,experiencing the economy first hand, instead of in a Senate committee room discussing the economy. He has experience asserting his conservative principals in the midst of liberals, while John McCain has experience working with liberals to achieve liberal principals. Mitt Romney has shown viewers of debates and speeches that he is incredibly knowledgeable and well spoken on all of the major issues. I urge you to please vote for Mitt Romney and please tell your friends. A vote for anyone else (Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul) is essentially a vote for John McCain.

Need more evidence? Listen to these audio clips
Kerry from 2007
Peter Jennings interviews McCain in 2004
McCain "Kerry is a very close friend of mine"
McCain "Senator Clinton would make a good President"

On a lighter note, here are some funny things I’ve found in the past few days. 

Bar Stool Economics by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That’s true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Want to know more about John McCains record on the major issues? Mark Levin has pieced together a nice summary of his record. Its very easy to see that he tends to team up with the liberals, such as Lieberman, Kennedy, Edwards and Feingold. In summary, his voting record shows that he wants to stifle free speech, regulate and tax industry (which will ultimately lower the Federal Governments tax revenues by hurting economic growth), give trial lawyers (and not patients) more rights, and provide amnesty AND Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. He also opposed the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 (although now he campaigns on the platform of making them permanent).

His supporters say that he is ‘great on national security’. But his domestic policy is not so great: McCain wants to close down Guantanamo Bay, which would bring unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists, who never signed the Geneva Convention) into the United States, giving them Constitutional Rights.

And if this weren’t enough, the New York Times (a very left leaning newspaper) has endorsed John McCain.

Check out Democrat Equal Socialist.
I added this site to my ‘Link’ section, as well.

The environmentalists have been pitching this ‘consensus’ nonsense that manmade emissions of greenhouse gasses is going to lead to catastrophic global warming for some time now. They cite charts and graphs created by grossly exaggerated computer models and say that everyone in the scientific community agrees (despite a recent US Senate report where over 400 scientists dispute these claims). They tell us that it is hotter now than ever before, but don’t bother to tell us about the closure of hundreds of measuring stations in the Russian arctic. They also neglect to mention that much of the ‘warming’ is occurring at night and that Southern Hemisphere temperatures remain virtually unaffected. Instead they pull up their custom tailored charts and models and say that manmande CO2 emissions are to blame, even though we only contribute 3% of all CO2 emissions. They also never mention that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses which, by the way, make Earth inhabitable, unlike any other planet. Speaking of other planets, how do they explain that the temperatures on Mars are increasing too (linked below)? Well, they simply ignore it.

The fact of the matter is that ending ‘global warming’ isnt about the environment, its about regulating and taxing corporations for their ‘carbon footprint’ (another bogus term), becoming ‘energy independent’ (ending the use of those pesky fossil fuels and ignoring nuclear power for some reason) and redistributing wealth. But I digress, this is a topic that deserves its own post.

Below, I have comprised a small list of ‘recommended reading’ for anyone who wants to discover more about this so-called ‘global warming’. It is by no means conclusive, but I hope that it will help you to be more skeptical of the next ‘global warming’ piece that is spewed out by the mainstream media.

Part of the Global Warming Model May Be Wrong

The Global Temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

McCain-Lieberman Climate Bill Based on Bad Science, Bad Economics Says NCPA; Experts Available to Discuss Science, Economic Implication

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Manmade Catostrophic Global Warming Not True

Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warming

Gore’s ’science’ called into question

2007: Year of Global Cooling

Will the Ice Caps Melt?

CO2 Doesn’t Cause Global Warming (right click, save as)

Too many gas guzzling SUV’s on Mars? Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Heat from Earth’s Magma Contributing to Melting of Greenland Ice

How Not to Measure Temperature

Reports of global warming are grossly exaggerated hobgoblins

U.N. Climate Distractions

Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming

The Truth Regarding CO2 and Climate Change

If you have your own links that you would like to share, please post them in the comments section below.

Straight Talk from the Pandercrat’s mouth:

Jaunary 27th will mark the 10th birthday (or anniversary) of Hillary Clinton’s birthing of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”. American Thinker writer, Bruce Walker writes: 

Hillary expected serious Americans to believe that the Whitewater convictions (which put a sitting Arkansas governor in prison), the suicide of the Deputy White House Chief Counsel under mysterious circumstances, the unconscionable firing of the White House travel staff, Hillary’s strange acumen in predicting the cattle futures market, an allegation of brutal rape against her husband, the perjury of Bill Clinton in a federal grand jury proceeding, his affair with a White House intern, and the countless other moral debauches of the Clintons were created by some cabal with power greater than the president, the Democratic Party and the huge phalanx of media flacks, fawning Hollywood starlets, militant activists and nihilistic academicians.    

I am happy to be a member of this ‘conspiracy’ and will continue to seek the truth despite the media’s attempts to hide it.

Former President Bill Clinton stands to earn as much as $20,000,000 for his role as an ‘adviser’ to billionaire investor Ron Burkle.

So, what’s wrong with that? Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. LLC is based in the Cayman Islands, which means that his earnings are not subject to US taxation and his role as an ‘adviser’ means that he can be compensated with a stake in the company, rather than a salary. These ‘equity incomes’ are taxed at a rate of 15%, which is far lower than the standard income tax.

Again, what’s so wrong with that? Its not illegal. Hills wife, Billary, said in 2004 that she wanted to close the “loopholes for people who create a mailbox, or a drop, or send one person to sit on the beach in some island paradise and claim that it is their offshore headquarters”. It sure is an interesting contradiction within the Clinton family….Read more on Bloomberg.com