How long do you think you would make it without rednecks?
]]> http://realdealpolitics.com/blog/would-you-survive-without-red-necks/feed/ 0 http://realdealpolitics.com/blog/the-joys-of-muslim-women/ http://realdealpolitics.com/blog/the-joys-of-muslim-women/#comments Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:48:35 +0000 Real Deal http://realdealpolitics.com/blog/?p=388

Rick Santorum Faith Family Freedom

Representative Ron Paul is a great congressman and has been a good ally in the fight for limited government, less taxes, less spending, and less government intrusion.  Paul’s public record shows no record of flip flops, unlike Gingrich or Romney, and consequently seems very congruent to the words that he speaks.

Paul’s “stick our head in the sand” foreign policy scares the heck out of conservatives, but otherwise appeals to many liberals and moderates.  His common-sense limited government views are attractive to people across the political spectrum.

Paul, however, is somewhat unelectable as a presidential candidate.  He is old, has wrinkles, a few strands of white hair, and doesn’t “look presidential.”  I apologize for the reality check but that is the fact of the matter.  He comes across as a charming, doddering, old grandfather-type, which is very appealing to some people, but it doesn’t make him electable.

Given that nobody even knows what Romney or Gingrich actually stand for anymore, the stage has centered on former Senator Rick Santorum.  He has no set of flip flops, environmental or otherwise, unlike the two former frontrunners, Gingrich and Romney.  Oh and let’s not forget, he just swept three states, including an annihilation of the competition in the “show-me-state,” to the tune of 55%.

Just when you thought the race was almost over, and the establishment candidate, Romney, was about to run away with it, a former Senator that is just as knowledgeable on the issues, almost as good looking, and has adequate hair to be elected, has entered from stage right.

It is true that Santorum was fired from his job in the Senate in 2006 by an 18% margin. However, we know that the 2006 elections were a referendum against President George Bush, for his Big Government policies and “war-mongering” in the Middle East.  Some great senators such as Santorum and George Allen (VA) were casualties of this referendum.

American voters smartened up again in the last general election, having realized what a huge mistake Obama has been. If the 2006 election had been in 2010, Santorum and Allen would have likely won in landslides.  When analyzing an election, you always need to take into account the circumstances and the ruling party or president at the time.

The fact that Santorum lost his job is a liability to his candidacy, but appears to be his only real problem.  Normally, the lack of executive (state governor or VP) experience is somewhat of downfall as well, but given the fraudulent elections of Obama and former President John Kennedy (RIP), senatorial experience seems to be adequate.

Years ago, in 2004, I stood outside the voting precinct handing out GOP propaganda, primarily because I was rightfully horrified by the thought of a John Kerry presidency.  My democrat party counterpart engaged me in a discussion of our differences, and I never forgot what he said.

The democrat propagandist was averse to the incumbent President because Bush was a “moron,” primarily.  He had problems with the fact that someone that stupid could be president of the US.  I countered by saying that the president doesn’t need to be a genius, just someone with a vision, and the judgment to put smart people in charge of the cabinet positions, which Bush certainly did.

Another thing I did not forget the democrat saying was that if it were Rick Santorum running for president, he would have probably voted for him.  The democrat said, “Santorum, now that guy is smart. I can see voting for him.” Whoa!  A democrat would have voted for Santorum because he is one of few politicians that actually is intelligent. If you have heard him in a debate, then you understand.

I couldn’t believe my ears at the time, but he was serious, and he had a good point.  Many democrats think they’re intelligent, primarily because they can regurgitate the brainwashing they received from the liberal media and public schools.  Some of them actually are intelligent and just lean socialist, under the faulty conception that socialism can work on a national scale, which has been proven false. In other words, their historical notions are inaccurate.

But the fact that a democrat would vote for a die-hard, solid, unapologetic conservative because such a politician not only seems smart, but is clearly intelligent and has a solid grasp of the issues, was an awakening for me.  Democrats and others voted for Obama because they thought he was smart, which he really isn’t but apparently has done a good job convincing many in the public that he is of higher intelligence, with some help from the media that is in love with him.

Let’s go back to the available list of candidates.  Do you think any democrat would ever vote for Gingrich?  There is evidence that this would never happen, given his consistent opposition to the democrat party.  It is true that Newt passed some great measures in cutting government spending and welfare reform, all of which Clinton took credit for regardless of the fact that Congress would have overrode his veto.  However, all of the measures were very conservative and Newt has little support outside the GOP.

We already covered Ron Paul, a great congressman and good man, but he seems unelectable.  Move on to Mitt Romney, this year’s establishment candidate.  He has many sets of flip flops on just about every major issue from health care to environmentalism, much like Newt.  However, he is also (gasp) a Mormon, something that doesn’t sit too well with many people.  I have nothing against the church of LDS, but that church is a very small minority in the country, and many consider it a cult.  We are just talking about practical electability here, and sadly, certain religions are a liability.

Here we go around again, full circle to Rick Santorum, who recently said “when the government gives you rights, the government can take them away.”  Let’s face the fact that there is nothing Santorum says that doesn’t make sense.  Foreign policy, domestic policy, all of it is hard to argue with.  So why does the establishment dislike Santorum?  Primarily because he is a true conservative, and the only one left in the GOP race. The establishment desires someone to preside over the decline of America, not a president that might reverse it.

There are four candidates left in this race to oust Obama, and two are proven flip-floppers that will likely not get any votes from registered democrats.  The third is a libertarian that is portrayed as an old clown, and the fourth is a common-sense conservative who has very few drawbacks other than his devout Catholicism and unelection from the Senate.  However, recall that Kennedy also unequivocally proclaimed himself as a Catholic before his fraudulent election as president.

Yes, we realize the likelihood of getting a GOP candidate fraudulently elected is very slim, since those tactics are pretty much reserved for the democrat party. Any republican fraud would be met with the greatest media outrage of all time, while jack-ass-party fraud tactics go largely ignored by the media. That is simply the situation we are in.

However, the appeal of a smart conservative that has command of the issues and can articulate his positions on such can be felt across the political spectrum.  Many democrats, Hispanics, independents, and other special interest groups could be intrigued and interested in Mr. Santorum because of his failure to toe the party line, but instead stand up for his beliefs and principles.

The case being made here is that Senator Santorum, despite his two drawbacks, could be the most electable republican candidate for president this year.  If you can get past his devout Catholicism and his failure to be elected to a third term in the Senate, the latter of which can be blamed on the referendum on GW Bush, then what are the remaining problems? None.

What you have in Rick Santorum is a solid, common-sense, “compassionate” conservative, that is simply unapologetic for his beliefs and principles.  The reason I enclosed the above word in quotations is that the real meaning of “compassionate” is often misinterpreted because of GW Bush using it as a term to propagate a big government socialist agenda under the Republican banner.  Real compassion means getting people off of welfare with jobs, not enrolling them as wards of a state which increases spending.

But Santorum believes in no such socialism as far as we know.  He hasn’t changed his views on the various issues of the day, in order to become more popular or likeable. In fact, he admitted the other day that he has not lost his principles, which the two former front-runners apparently have. Now, Santorum might be the frontrunner, after sweeping CO, MO, and MN.

There is more to it than just being the frontrunner of the day, however.  It seems very likely, given the intelligence of Santorum that even democrats admit to, that he would destroy Obama in any debate.  That of course, may never happen, and might in fact be a pipe dream.  Obama is not required to participate in a debate.  Obama has nothing to gain from a debate, since any of the remaining GOP candidates would utterly demolish him, teleprompter or not.

Instead, Obama will happily continue to let the media prop him up as a legitimate statesman, rather than the miserable failure that he really is, and the “mainstream” media will be delighted to continue endorsing him as some kind of messiah, even as their ratings go down the tubes.  That is because they have an agenda that is the same as that of Obama: presiding over the death and destruction of America.  Santorum has other plans, and that’s a good enough reason to get my vote.

The following comments were recently made regarding Rick Santorum:

What They Say

“Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform, and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News

 Yup, now I see the similarities……..

Date: November 9, 2011

Moderators:  Maria Bartaromo and John Harwood.  Several other CNBC reporters participated in the questioning, including the fiery and popular Jim Cramer of Mad Money.

Immediately below are the participants in order of how they performed in the debate, and their best quotes of the night.  Following that is the debate summary.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul  U.S. Representative (Texas); Physician “The symptom is the current tax code, but the disease is spending.” “We need to differentiate between capitalism and crony-capitalism.” “The fact that there is over $1 trillion in student debt is proof that the government loans program is a complete failure.”

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney  Governor, Massachusetts;  CEO, 2002 Winter Olympics Organizing Comm.; Co-Founder, Bain Capital “The best way to improve the economy is to do the exact opposite of what Obama has done.” “The government needs to get out and let the markets work.”

Hermann Cain

Herman Cain  Chairman/CEO, Godfather’s Pizza; Chairman, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank; CEO, National Restaurant Association “The tax code doesn’t raise taxes, politicians do.” “There are two other big problems with Dodd-Frank: Dodd, and Frank.”

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich  Speaker of the House, U.S. Representative (Georgia); History Professor “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy … for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”"

Michele Bachmann

Michele BachmannU.S. Representative (Minnesota): State Senator; Attorney “We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  Capital is mobile… and moves to where the lower tax rates are.”

Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman  Ambassador to China, Governor, Utah; Deputy U.S. Trade Representative “People are sick and tired of taxpayer money to bailout big corporations, and we’re not having it anymore.”

Rick Perry

Rick Perry  Governor, Texas: State Representative; State Agriculture Commissioner “Washington shouldn’t pick winners or losers; if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” “All regulations starting in 2008 need to be examined, and if it’s killing jobs, then get rid of it.”

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum  U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative (Pennsylvania); Attorney “We need to repeal all Obama regulations… repatriate those funds… have major energy development, and cut all subsidies.”

The debate was claimed to be almost entirely about the economy, and for the most part it was, but the line of questioning was somewhat odd, of course slanted, and specific questions demanded 30 second sound-byte answers, which kind of defeats the purpose about a general economic debate.

The first question was about whether we should let Italy’s economy fail, kind of an obscure question about the US economy, but no doubt CNBC wanted the participants to either commit or not to a foreign bailout, citing that if the IMF fails, US banks would.

Most of the contestants had different ways of saying we need to get government out of artificially propping up the banks, and let the market work by itself.  Paul was able to enunciate those points the best, and Newt added that Bernanke needs to be fired.

The next question from Maria, directed at Cain was apparently because CNBC was not satisfied with current level of infatuation by the media with the sexual harassment charges against Cain, but the audience became unruly at the question, and emitted some boos from being tired of hearing it already.

Cain stood his ground and was did not falter in vehemently denying what he called “unfounded accusations.”  He went further to say that for every accuser that has come forth, thousands of people would say that the behavior never came from Cain.

CNBC was still unsatisfied with the saturation of this topic, as Harwood asked Romney if, as a CEO he would have fired Cain for such behavior.  This was question was booed out by the crowd, and after the roar subsided, Romney wisely stepped back from the mic and said, “Cain has responded… I have nothing to say about it.”

Harwood then announced he would switch back to the economy, amid cheers from the crowd, and directed a class warfare question to Huntsman about 1% of the US making so much money, to which Huntsman said he wanted to be the president of the 1% and the 99%, but that America is sick and tired of taxpayer money going to bailouts.

Cramer then followed up with another class warfare oriented question to Romney on whether corporations have a “social responsibility” to create jobs, or whether they should just make profits.

Romney explained off the top of his head that profit is what’s left after all the employees and executives are paid, and are then used to expand business and grow jobs.  The profits and the job growth goes hand in hand, but Obama doesn’t like business and that’s the problem.

Newt then ripped into the media, “Sure. Look, obviously, corporations can and should do both. And what is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history.” Then added the media is inaccurate in reporting about the economy.

Maria took offense at this and asked him to be specific about the inaccurate reporting, to which Newt replied, “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”

Then questioning ensued about why Romney doesn’t have a flat tax like the rest of his opponents.  Mitt responded that he’d like to focus on what can be done immediately to help the middle class, which has been hurt the most, by lowering their taxes.  But he’s not opposed to a flat tax in the future.

Others were asked to justify the “fairness” of their plans by making poor people pay more and rich people pay less, obviously with no regard to the fact that the poor pay nothing and the top 25% of income earners pay over 85% of the taxes under the current code.

Bachmann explained it best by saying 53% pay income tax and 47% do not, which is a big problem.  She said everyone should pay something even if it’s only $10, because everyone benefits from living here.

Most of the other candidates agreed that taxes and regulations need to be lowered, and support some sort of flat tax which grows employment, which takes care of most of the problems.  What they forgot to emphasize was that cutting taxes on the job creators is one sure way to create jobs, and we’d rather have poor people working then collecting government welfare.

Maria then gave them 30 seconds to say what they would do instead after repealing Obamacare, to which Newt scoffed and said it’s an $18 billion industry that affects everyone’s lives, and it can’t possibly be answered in 30 seconds.

Most of the others stated in some form that the problem can be resolved by states,  tort reform, and that doctors and patients can work out plans without the government regulating something.  Bachmann added that individuals should be allowed to buy any health insurance they want, outside the office, with no minimum requirements.

Perry said that we need to focus on providing health care rather than sick care, and need to get rid of frivolous lawsuits.  Cain said that the bill was already written called HR3000, which “Princess Pelosi” held in committee and never brought out for a vote.

On student government loan programs, most agreed that the government needs to get out of education, leading to Paul’s great quote about the loan program being a disaster that lowers the quality of education, and raises tuition rates. The subject then changed rapidly depending on the candidate’s talking points.

In the media highlight of the night, Perry announced he would cut out three cabinet level departments: Education, Commerce, and he forgot the third one.  He appealed to Paul for the third, to which Paul replied he had 5 departments to cut.  Perry would not remember until the next question that the third was Energy. It should be noted here that Perry would have finished about 3rd in this debate without this gaffe.

The media didn’t care that Obama thought there were 57 states, or that he couldn’t name even ONE program he would cut in the debates with McCain, but there will be no such forgiveness for Perry. Similarly, they didn’t care that Clinton was accused of actual physical sexual aggravation charges bordering on rape, but there will be no such forgiveness for Cain.

The question was proposed about how to avoid companies outsourcing to China to save on costs.  Most contestants said that lowering US taxes would level the playing field.  Mitt was most vocal, saying that China was a cheater, and he would label China as a currency manipulator and slap tariffs on them, due to China artificially devaluing their currency, stealing US info through hacking, and piracy.

Newt said the problem was complex and he would probably rely on someone like Huntsman who had a lot of experience with China.  Huntsman said applause-lines like slapping them with tariffs wouldn’t work, and China could claim the US was manipulating their own currency via “quantitative easing,” and then retaliate with tariffs on US products, creating a trade war.

The question was posed about how to gain bipartisan support, and only a few answered it with lackluster responses.  What I really wanted to hear was one of them say: the answer is to get rid of all the democrats in congress that have been steadily destroying this country, and replace them with people that will work for the country rather than against it.

They won’t attack him on his record of running successful businesses or his common sense political views however; it’s time to get personal.

Like Clarence Thomas, who the leftists still hate vehemently, they brought up some old sexual harassment allegations against Cain that were apparently never proven.

The facts seem to be that Cain, as president of the National Restaurant Association, fired a woman, who retaliated with a sexual harassment claim, in order to get some severance pay, which she then received in order to dismiss the matter.

If you’re not familiar with this type of business, what happens especially with large corporate organizations, is they will consider the cost of sending the CEO to court to defend charges versus a payoff to shut up the alleged victims. The cost of the settlement normally pales in comparison to that of the legal battle, which can drag out into massive attorney fees, not to mention horrible publicity for the executive and the company. Even if the charges have no substantiation, some kind of settlement is always far cheaper.

Why is this subject so important anyway? It’s not, but to the Democrat-controlled media it is a big part of their smear campaign against Cain.

It wasn’t important that Bill Clinton had numerous sexual harassment allegations against him, some of which included rape-like cases, rather than just “inappropriate comments” that Cain and Thomas were accused of. They tried to cover up the Weiner episodes and instead go after the accusers to vilify them instead.

It wasn’t important that Obama admitted in his book before being fraudulently elected, that he had been a drug abuser in college. Who cares if the person controlling the world’s largest nuclear arsenal is a drug abuser?

Things like that aren’t important. What is important is to smear conservatives on unsubstantiated personal attacks, because you can’t beat them on the issues.

In a disgustingly biased personal attack on Cain, posing as an actual news article in the Huffington Post titled “Intellectual Rigor vs Rigor Mortis,” the writer tries to portray Cain as some kind of idiot that would get wasted by the intellectually superior Obama in a debate.

No really, this is what they wrote about. The former CEO of a successful restaurant chain and the major national trade association for restaurants, is some kind of a dunce.

Obama, who has never run anything except a successful campaign, would beat up on Cain like Ali vs Urkel, it claims.

Here’s an excerpt:
“Beauty and brains against bigotry and bias. Truffle against trifle. You get the point. Obama does his homework and is not afraid of facts. But taking a look at Cain’s political positions, there is a consistent pattern of obstinate wrongheadedness.”

Wow, no bias there. The Obama “beauty and brains” comment is so nauseating that it’s hard to even read it, or any of the rest of that piece of garbage disguised as an article, but it was worth quoting just so you can see their vile, slanted, hatred towards conservatives.

Obama isn’t afraid of the facts that he has almost completely destroyed the US economy, and would have succeeded by now if the GOP hadn’t taken control of the house? Or the fact that he increased federal spending by over 30% his first year in office? Or the fact that he’s getting beat in the polls by a generic GOP candidate?

There are few facts that Obama should not be frightened about, such as the majority of the media who support him and his communist policies. Or the fact that he will likely raise more money from unknown sources than his opponent in next year’s election.

By far the majority of real facts do not reveal anything positive about Obama or his ability to run anything except a successful campaign using other people’s money.

Hermann Cain is infinitely more qualified than Obama to run anything, including his mouth. Cain actually understands how businesses operate and create jobs and wealth, since that is what he spent his career doing.

Obama only knows how to rob people of their wealth so that the government can spend it, while running his mouth about how great he is for doing so.

One of the best racist liberal rants about Cain is that “he knows his place in the back of the bus.” If the back of the bus includes being a CEO for a multimillion dollar company, maybe more people should be headed for the back seat.

Perhaps she is, but Michelle still has no pride or respect for the American Flag, that’s for sure. You don’t have a to be an expert lip reader to see that in this video, after the flag ceremony at a funeral, that she turns to Obama and asks, “All this for a damned flag?” To which, Barry just nods as she shakes her ugly, disrespectful, pathetic head.

You may not have any respect for the flag, Michelle, but for many of us it stands for a country that once meant something for freedom and economic opportunity, something that your husband and his fascist commie henchmen have taken away with every passing day.

Please continue to share the truth about these communist tyrants that are pretending to run the country.

Sponsors:  Godfather’s Pizza and the GOP

Location:  Chicago, IL

Moderator:  None

Participants:  Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Rick Perry, Gov Jon Huntsman, CEO Herman Cain, Sen Rick Santorum, Rep Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, Rep Michele Bachmann

In a more friendly form of debate this week, the GOP candidates gathered around for a friendly pizza party at Godfather’s Pizza to discuss the issues.  There was no moderator, but most of them were stuffing their faces enough that everyone had sufficient time to speak.

The results are in, and here is the summary of their individual performances.

Mitt Romney and his leftover pizza for Obama HQ

Candidate	Pizza Choice	Details
Rick Perry	1 large meat-lovers	Perry couldn’t quite finish his pizza, but gave it a good run.  He explained that the cattle and pork industry in Texas was large enough to feed the entire nation with all the meat-lovers pizzas they could buy.  He also poked fun at Mitt’s choice of pizza, calling it a “Romneycare pie.”
Mitt Romney	2 small veggie pizza	Mitt ate one entire personal thin crust pizza slowly with a fork and knife, taking time outs to rag on Perry’s policies, and at one point claimed that Perry’s pizza was probably made mostly by illegal immigrants from Texas. He sent his leftover pizza to Obama’s campaign headquarters.
Michele Bachmann	1 medium Hawaiian	Although she ordered a medium, Bachmann could only eat 2 slices before going to the restroom during the commercial break to purge.  After that, she was significantly hungry to eat one more slice.  She said if the income tax were removed, more Americans could eat pizza regularly.
Jon Huntsman	1 medium Peking pie	The Peking pizza consists of some chicken breast, peppers, and onions, topped with Peking duck sauce.  Huntsman said he discovered it while ambassador to China.  He said that companies should be able to experiment freely with pizza and come up with their own breakthrough ideas.
Rick Santorum	3 large pizzas: 1 supreme, 1 veggie, and 1 pepperoni	Santorum ate a few slices of the supreme, saying he liked meat but the veggies help with his constipation. He gave the rest to his family sitting nearby, explaining his girls like the veggie pies.  He claimed a proven track record of standing up for pizza choice in America.
Hermann Cain serves up some pie
Hermann Cain	1 medium pizza with sausage, ham and onions	Cain said he liked his pizza simple, but that it wasn’t as good as when he was CEO of Godfather’s.  He said that his 999 Plan would enable more pizza companies to go into business, as well as making pizza more affordable to taxpayers at all levels.
Newt Gingrich	2 medium supremes	Newt said he would have ordered a large, but might still go hungry, and that life is too short to not enjoy as much pizza as one wanted.  After all of that talk, he couldn’t finish the second one, but promised he would after he got home.  In between stuffing his pie-hole, he delivered his usual glib witticisms and told the fellow candidates to stop squabbling like children, but what else is new?
Ron Paul	1 medium supreme	Paul ate most of his supreme, supporting Santorum’s claim that the veggies help keep him regular.  He caveated that by defending everyone’s right to eat pizza however they want, without being judged.  He added that government intervention in the pizza industry causes problems, and vowed to get rid of pizza subsidies.  Paul also delivered the most memorable line, “nothing shuts my pie-hole but pie.”

http://realdealpolitics.com/blog/images/newt-cnn1.jpg

The winner of the debate? You decide. Just don’t judge based on their pizza orders…

(This has been a fictional piece of satire provided by Real Deal Politics.  The pizza party debate never happened but perhaps would be a good thing to have so we can find out more about the candidates.)