Yearly Archives: 2012

Open letter to President Obama (Part 158))(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part C)

October 17, 2012 – 8:26 am

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do.

Your liberal friends at www.thinkprogress.org have noted that Romney errored when he stated:

23) “It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.” Obama called the Libya incident an act of “terror” the very next day. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” he said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

_________

However, it doesn’t matter if you mentioned this in a vague way early or not. It matters that you and your officials kept leading people to believe for two weeks that there was a protest and a youtube video inspired the attack, but it was a planned attack and there WAS NO PROTEST!!!!

Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

_

_

Did Someone Say Libya?

The issue was raised in the debate: What did the administration do about security before the Benghazi attack, and how did it respond afterward? It was the question that the president never clearly and explicitly responded to. When it comes to how the White House responded to the attack, the administration has a lot of explaining to do. Its series of explanations were muddled and misleading.

When it comes to responding to the attack, Americans of course expect that our government will go after the perpetrators. The questions of how our government responded to the terrorist threat Libya, however, still has to be answered.

– James Jay Carafano

_________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, President Obama | Comments (0)

The nation’s founders would be horrified by today’s congressional spending that consumes 25 percent of our GDP

October 17, 2012 – 7:10 am

Balance the Budget: Now is the Time

Uploaded by on Jul 27, 2011

__________

I really wish we could pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and control the amount of money the federal government could spend. Milton Friedman in his 1980 film series “Free to Choose” got me thinking about this and in that same film series I got introduced to the brilliant Dr. Walter Williams. Take a look at this article below by him.

How To Control Congress

Let’s assume that each of our 535 congressmen cares about the destructive impact of deficits and debt on the future of our country. Regardless of party, congressmen face enormous lobbying pressures and awards to spend more and little or no pressure and awards to spend less. The nation’s founders would be horrified by today’s congressional spending that consumes 25 percent of our GDP. Contrast that to the years 1787 to the 1920s when federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP except in wartime. Today, federal, state and local government consumes 43 percent of what Americans produce each year. The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation computes that the average taxpayer is forced to work from Jan. 1 to mid-April to pay federal, state and local taxes. If he were taxed enough to pay the $1.5 trillion federal deficit, he’d be forced to work until mid-May.

Tax revenue is not the problem. The federal government has collected just about 20 percent of the nation’s GDP almost every year since 1960. Federal spending has exceeded revenue for most of that period and has taken an unprecedented leap since 2008 to produce today’s massive deficit. Since federal spending is the problem, that’s where our focus should be.

Cutting spending is politically challenging. Every spending constituency sees its handout as vital, whether it’s Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients or farmers, poor people, educators or the military. It’s easy for congressmen to say yes to these spending constituencies because whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in control, they face no hard and fast bottom line.

The bottom line that Americans need is a constitutional amendment limiting congressional spending to some fraction, say 20 percent, of the GDP. That limit could be exceeded only if the president declared a state of emergency along with a two-thirds vote of approval in both houses of Congress.

 
 

 

 

Each year of a declared state of emergency would require another two-thirds vote in each house.

During the early ’80s, I was a member of the National Tax Limitation Committee’s distinguished blue-ribbon drafting committee that included notables such as Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul McCracken, Bill Niskanen, Craig Stubblebine, Robert Bork, Aaron Wildavsky, Robert Nisbet, Robert Carleson and others. We drafted a Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Senate passed that amendment on Aug. 4, 1982, by a vote of 69 to 31, two more than the two-thirds vote required for approval of a constitutional amendment. The vote was bipartisan: 47 Republicans, 21 Democrats and 1 Independent voted for the amendment.

It was a different story in the House of Representatives. Its leadership, under Tip O’Neill tried to prevent a vote on the amendment; however, a discharge petition forced a vote on it. While the amendment was approved by a majority (236 to 187), it did not meet the two-thirds required by Article V of the Constitution. The vote was again bipartisan: 167 Republicans, 69 Democrats. The amendment can be found in Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Tyranny of the Status Quo.”

The benefit of a balanced budget/spending limitation amendment is that it would give Congress a bottom line just as we in the private sector have a bottom line. Congress would be forced to play one spending constituency off against another, rather than, as it does today, satisfy most spending constituents and pass the buck to the rest of us and future generations in the forms of federal deficits and debt.

The 1980s discussions settled on giving Congress a spending limit of 18 or 20 percent of our GDP. I thought a 10 percent limit was better. When queried by a reporter as to why 10 percent, I told him that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it ought to be good enough for Congress.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157B)(Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part B)

October 17, 2012 – 7:09 am

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do. Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

 

_

Libya: Another Presidential Non-Answer

The Obama doctrine in action has led us to a point where terrorists feel emboldened again to attack the United States, as they did the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

In the last few days, Mitt Romney has been outspoken on the topic of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, as he was outspoken in his criticism of the statement of appeasement issued by the U.S. embassy under attack in Cairo on September 11. If we are to get the real details of what took place that day, it will have to be under pressure from House Republicans. Did the president mean what he said when stated that he is ultimately responsible? The Secretary of State said the same thing today, but they have yet to show what that actually means.

– Helle C. Dale

__________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, President Obama | Comments (0)

Barrett Jones for Heisman? Part 3

October 17, 2012 – 7:00 am
Barrett Jones
Alabama’s versatile Barrett Jones could become the first offensive lineman to be a Heisman Trophy finalist since 1996

Talking about a beatdown!!! Sadly I saw my Hogs get beaten  52-0 to Bama and it seemed that the Tide liked running up the middle behind the center Barrett Jones, and I must say that  Jones is deserving of consideration of the Heisman Trophy. This is not the first time I have written about this subject. Jones grew up at the same church I went to in Memphis growing up (Bellevue Baptist) and he graduated from the same high school that I did (Evangelical Christian School). I wrote an article last year about Barrett and I just wrote a few weeks ago and they both were published in the Saline Courier and can be found on that website.

Here is what the people from Sports Illustrated had to say about the Heisman race this year:

Can we please just go ahead and fast forward to this time next week? Or better yet, next Thursday night?

Hey Stewart — I saw the video of you and Andy Staples SI Videodiscussing Heisman candidates. What is your recipe for dark horse candidates? Do you see anyone other than a QB or RB who will get enough votes to end up at the ceremony this year?
— Will, Hoboken, N.J.

Twice in the past three years a defensive player has reached New York, and both times the player was barely on the radar going into the last week. In 2009, Ndamukong Suh garnered a little bit of Heisman buzz during the season, but I’d guess 80 to 90 percent of the votes he got came from a dominating performance (12 tackles, 4.5 sacks) against Texas in a much-watched Big 12 title game. Last year, Tyrann Mathieu became a household name starting in Week 1 against Oregon, but most assumed he’d lost his shot at the Heisman following his one-game suspension midway through the year. But his game-turning punt returns in the SEC title game against Georgia (on the heels of another the week before against Arkansas) likely pushed him past idle Matt Barkley as the fifth finalist.

Last impressions are always powerful, but I’ve noticed the past few years that the first Saturday of December is carrying more and more weight in the Heisman race. I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising in today’s media climate; on Twitter, guys win, lose, then re-win the Heisman with each drive of each game. It’s not like a player can be a complete nobody the first 13 weeks and then win with a huge final performance, but RGIII doesn’t win last year without the strong finish against Texas. Ditto Mark Ingram against Florida in 2009. Unless a guy completely blows away the rest of the field, a la Cam Newton two years ago or Tim Tebow in 2007, that last game takes on paramount importance. And that in turn can benefit a so-called dark horse candidate who makes a strong last impression.

As for this year, if ever an offensive lineman was going to make it to New York (for the first time since Ohio State’s Orlando Pace in 1996), you would think Andy’s favorite guy, Alabama center Barrett Jones, would be the one. He’s been around so long and received so much acclaim that he’s got to be the most recognizable offensive lineman in many years. Considering Tide quarterback AJ McCarron isn’t likely to put up Heisman-type numbers, Jones or one of the Tide’s other preseason All-America O-linemen (tackle D.J. Fluker and guard Chance Warmack) might be that team’s best bet. But it would likely require both ‘Bama reaching the SEC title game and Gary Danielson spending at least a quarter dissecting isolation shots of the Tide’s blocking techniques.

A quarterback or running back will still win the thing.

Related posts:

Barrett Jones and Tim Tebow are very similar

For   Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]

Sound off on Tebow

Denver quarterback Tim Tebow reacts after Broncos running back Lance Ball scored a touchdown against the New England Patriots on Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011. (Associated Press/Jack Dempsey) I think Tebow is fine Christian man who believes in telling others about Christ and he lives a morally pure life unlike many others in our society. Therefore, […]

Barrett Jones wins Outland Trophy

Knoxnews.com reports: LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Alabama’s Barrett Jones has won the Outland Trophy as the nation’s most outstanding interior lineman. The announcement was made during the College Football Awards show at Disney World. Stanford’s David DeCastro and Penn State’s Devon Still were the other finalists. Jones is the third Alabama player to […]

Aaron Douglas played for Vols and Bama before dying because of drugs jh39

Aaron Douglas played for Vols and Bama before dying because of drugs jh39 Aaron Douglas was a lineman for Alabama and I have already written about another Bama lineman by the name of Barrett Jones who was a teammate of Aaron’s. Here are the two links below: Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide (Part 1 […]

Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide (Part 1 of series “Christians in Athletics”)

Today I am starting a new series called “Christians in Athletics.”  Barrett Jones grew up under the ministry of Adrian Rogers at Bellevue. Below is a clip from the Memorial Service for Dr. Rogers.   Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide has spent time the last two years ministering to earthquake victims in Haiti. Actually […]

Bama’s star lineman Barrett Jones puts ministry first

Barrett Jones of Alabama Crimson Tide has spent time the last two years ministering to earthquake victims in Haiti. (Barrett grew up and went to ECS where I graduated and to Bellevue Baptist where I was a member while growing up. Adrian Rogers was the pastor from 1972 to 2004.) Actually I wrote about Barrett’s […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 157) (Libya comments by President at 2nd debate discussed, part A)

October 17, 2012 – 6:11 am

Second Presidential Debate 2012- Obama and Romney on Foreign Policy

Published on Oct 16, 2012 by

With just 21 days to go until the presidential election in the United States, President Obama and his challenger Governor Romney meet for their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

________________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

In the second presidential debate which I watched last night, I was very sad that the administration did not come out in the first week and say that this was a terrorist attack instead of talking about a youtube video that HAD NO PLACE IN THE CONVERSATION SINCE THIS WAS A PLANNED ATTACK!!!!! I don’t understand why you talked about this youtube video for about two weeks and I am hoping you will respond to this letter or I am going to keep writing you about this till you do. Take a look this article below from the Heritage Foundation that discusses this.

Amy Payne

October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Al-Qaeda Still Poses a Threat

During the debate President Obama, once again, took the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and implied that al-Qaeda is down and on the ropes. Although bin Laden is currently sitting at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, the inconvenient truth for the Administration is that al-Qaeda is very much alive and active—especially on the Arabian Peninsula and across North Africa. This was most vividly demonstrated on September 11, 2012, when the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other brave Americans were murdered in Benghazi by terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaeda.

While Obama was blaming a YouTube video and a street protest (which never happened) as the reason for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Heritage expert Jim Phillips made the link to al-Qaeda just a couple of days after the attack. Now, more than a month later, the Administration still has not been able to give a straight answer as to what the circumstances were surrounding the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

The Administration has either been misleading the American people or it is so incompetent that, more than a month later, it is still unable to tell the American people the facts. Either way, the American people deserve better.

– Luke Coffey

___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers, President Obama | Comments (0)

“Woody Wednesday” Review of “To Rome with Love”

October 17, 2012 – 6:10 am

Jesse Eisenberg – Press Conference “To Rome With Love”

Published on Apr 21, 2012 by

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Published: Tuesday, June 19 2012 11:06 a.m. MDT

By David Germain

This film image released by Sony Pictures Classics shows, : Alec Baldwin as John, left, and Jesse Eisenberg as Jack in a scene from “To Rome With Love.”

Sony Pictures Classics, Philippe Antonello, Associated Press

INTERVIEW: Jesse Eisenberg on working with Woody Allen at the To Rome With Love Press Conference at Hotel Parco Dei Principi in Rome, Italy on April 13, 2012.

____________

Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” began with better titles. Yet despite the exquisite locations of the filmmaker’s first story of love, Italian style, this bland ensemble romance deserves the generic name rather than the clever working titles it started with.

Allen initially called it “Bop Decameron,” then changed it to “Nero Fiddled” before he and his distributor decided to slip in the name of the Eternal City.

Hey, it helped to have the City of Light mentioned in the title of last year’s Allen hit “Midnight in Paris.” So putting Rome in the name makes good marketing sense to hint that his latest continues the trend of light romance in a beautiful Old World capital.

Unfortunately, “To Rome with Love” lives up — or rather, lives down — to the superficial postcard sentiment of its title.

Weaving four stories of Italians and American visitors, the writer-director creates a lot of clever moments with his ensemble comedy that features Allen’s first on-screen appearance since 2006’s “Scoop.” In between the good times, the story and characters just drift about awkwardly, stuck on a walking tour of Rome that continually bumps up against dead ends, or worse, circles back so we wind up seeing the same things a few times too many.

It’s hard to even pick out a highlight among the four stories. Parts of each story work quite well, while other portions just weigh the scenarios down.

The film almost comes down to how well the actors inhabit their roles. Allen’s known for giving his cast plenty of leeway. That’s often resulted in Academy Award performances, and just as often has left Allen’s stars nervously milling around.

There are no Oscar prospects on screen in “To Rome with Love,” but Alec Baldwin conveys a sense of wistful nostalgia as an architect seemingly strolling into his own memories of Italy in his youth.

Baldwin’s a wry, omniscient commentator wafting in and out of a love triangle involving Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), Sally (Greta Gerwig) and her seductive pal Monica (Ellen Page). Gerwig’s sadly cast as a flavorless third wheel, but Eisenberg and Page are so tentative and cold in their supposedly impetuous fling that they seem like neutered pups alongside old hound Baldwin.

Roberto Benigni manages a few laughs as a dreary but contented family man hurled into notoriety after Rome’s press and paparazzi inexplicably choose him as a person of interest, shadowing him like an A-lister and hanging on his every word about what he had for breakfast. It’s a lightweight commentary on fleeting fame, and the gimmick quickly wears thin.

The weakest of the stories centers on naive newlyweds Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi), who come to Rome for a fresh start but end up separated and tossed into romantic misadventures with others. Antonio winds up with a bombshell hooker (Penelope Cruz, an Oscar winner for Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), Milly with an Italian movie star (Antonio Albanese).

Antonio and Milly’s meanderings are pointless and uninvolving. Cruz, however, knows how to play voluptuous in her sleep, so she makes her little corner of the scenario fun and sexy.

Allen co-stars as retired music producer Jerry, who comes to Rome with his wife, Phyllis (Allen veteran Judy Davis) to meet the Italian fiance of their daughter, Hayley (“Midnight in Paris” co-star Alison Pill).

After Jerry hears the sublime opera vocals of Hayley’s future father-in-law, Giancarlo (Italian tenor Fabio Armiliato) from the shower, he’s determined to make the humble undertaker into a star. Giancarlo insists he sings only for personal pleasure, and when he auditions at Jerry’s insistence, he discovers that his talent fails him outside the shower.

You can guess the rest. The scenes of Giancarlo performing on stage could have become as repetitious as the media’s pursuit of Benigni, but Allen shows enough restraint and gives the sequences enough diversity that they remain consistently funny.

The time away from the screen hasn’t helped Allen’s acting chops. He’s curiously listless as Jerry, and Davis, who was razor-sharp in Allen’s “Husbands and Wives,” rarely rises above dreary hen-pecking as his wife.

The ineffable magic that made “Midnight in Paris” click eludes Allen here. When in Paris, Allen’s gimmicks coalesced into a sly, engaging romantic fantasy.

When in Rome, though, it’s not Nero who’s fiddling, but Allen, bopping and dithering around the city like a tourist so desperate to cram in all the sights that he comes away only with a few crisp highlights and a lot of out-of-focus snapshots.

“To Rome with Love,” a Sony Pictures Classics release, is rated R for some sexual references. Running time: 112 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Motion Picture Association of America rating definitions:

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 156B) (President Obama’s false claim about mammograms and Planned Parenthood)

October 17, 2012 – 5:35 am

 Planned Parenthood CEO Caught Making False Mammogram Claim

Uploaded by on Mar 29, 2011

Media Contact: Amy Kim, 323.454.3304, media@liveaction.org

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30–A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.

_________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Last night in the second presidential debate you made a false claim that I wanted to correct you on concerning Planned Parenthood. You will read below:

Despite an extensive investigation by the pro-life organization Live Action, proving that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform the cancer-screening procedure, the claim that it does continues to be repeated regularly and unapologetically by Planned Parenthood supporters.

(Even  the liberal Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog says that the truth is that Planned Parenthood will refer people to other clinics that do mammograms.)

Debate: Obama defends HHS mandate, Planned Parenthood funding, repeats false mammogram claim

HAMPSTEAD, NY, October 16, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack Obama made no secret of his allegiance to the nation’s largest abortion provider at this evening’s presidential debate, making no fewer than five references to Planned Parenthood in the first hour of the debate and claiming, falsely, that the group provides “mammograms.” He also once again implied federal funding for Planned Parenthood is pivotal to his young daughters’ future.

During the town hall debate at Hofstra University, the president pulled the abortion provider into issues as diverse as Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s pay rates, and a question about the George W. Bush administration.

“If anyone ever doubted that President Obama was in bed with the largest baby killing organization in the world, Planned Parenthood; that doubt is now gone,” Bryan Kemper, the youth director of Priests for Life, wrote on his Facebook page, in response. “You would think he was on their board of directors, which he will probably be when his is out of office.”

President Obama again credited the largest abortion chain as a life-saving institution. “When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,” he said.

The claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms has been one of the most persistent political fantasies since the abortion giant clashed with Komen for the Cure earlier this year. Despite an extensive investigation by the pro-life organization Live Action, proving that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform the cancer-screening procedure, the claim that it does continues to be repeated regularly and unapologetically by Planned Parenthood supporters. Obama himself made the claim in a recent interview with Glamour magazine, for which he was roundly chastised by former Planned Parenthood clinic manager Abby Johnson.

During last night’s debate Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, immediately tweeted, ““For the last time: #plannedparenthood doesn’t do mammograms!!!!”

Abby Johnson posted on Facebook: “Did Obama seriously talk about these imaginary mammograms again??”

The most extended discussion of the HHS birth control mandate came after audience member Katherine Fenton asked about “inequalities” in the workplace, with working women making less money than men.

“You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making,” Obama replied. “Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.”

Obama and the pro-abortion movement have spun opposition to the HHS mandate as a form of religious bigotry by which employers impose their religious beliefs on their employees, while opponents of the mandate have said that it amounts to the government violating employers’ freedom of religion by forcing them to subsidize something they believe is sinful.

The Obama administration, in the media and in court, has also presented the HHS mandate as an issue of sexual equality. Justice Department lawyers have argued the government has a compelling reason to force people to fund contraception, because it allows women to choose to work rather than have children.

“In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured,” Obama stated.  “Because this is not just a health issue. It’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket.”

“It makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work…and earn a living for their family,” he said.

The president again invoked his daughters, Sasha and Malia, as he defended Planned Parenthood. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have. That’s part of what I’m fighting for as president of the United States.” 

When moderator Candy Crowley of CNN asked the president if he believed Governor Romney had been forthcoming enough about his tax plan, Obama replied,“We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood.”

When asked how he differed from the previous Republican president, George W. Bush, Obama retorted Romney was more extreme than Bush-43.

“George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, so there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush,” Obama said.

While the contentious debate focused largely on economic issues, one other exchange was noteworthy for social conservatives: it happened when Governor Romney mentioned the role of families in preventing violence and caring for children.

After an audience member asked about gun control, Romney replied he would want to reduce the culture of violence that surrounds young people.

“Let me mention another thing, and that is parents,” he said. “We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. [There are] a lot of great single moms, single dads.”

“To tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea,” he stated,

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Prolife | Comments (0)

Ryan is the shot in the arm that Romney needed.

October 16, 2012 – 2:52 pm

Maybe Romney will focus on cutting spending now that Ryan is on board.

Is the American Electorate that Dumb?

Posted by Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Can Ryan boost Romney’s poll numbers?

My response:

Ryan is the shot in the arm that Romney needed. If last night’s “60 Minutes” interview of the two is any indication, Romney is finally focused on the big issues. It’s rare that a vice-presidential pick adds much to a ticket, but this case may be the exception. So, yes, Ryan can boost Romney’s poll numbers. Just look at the weekend crowds.

Ryan put it simply: The country’s going broke. You’d never know that from listening to the Democratic response to the pick. For that side, it’s all about what the Romney-Ryan team will take away from seniors, women, students, and the middle class — as if all of that ”stuff” were free from government. They’re counting on seniors being too senile, women being too emotional, young people being too uneducated, and the middle-class being too focused on their mortgages to understand the situation we’re in, where we borrow 40 percent of what we spend and add trillions to the national debt every year. The Ryan budget won’t push Granny over the cliff. The Obama team’s head-in-the-sand will.

And it isn’t as if the Obama team doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing. In Obama’s latest ad, run last night during the Olympics closing ceremonies, he himself states plainly that the nation faces two fundamentally different visions of where we’re going. But he talks only about government benefits, not about costs — the “Life of Julia” nonsense. It’s a cynical view of the American public — a view that this election, more than any in recent memory, will put to the test.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?

October 16, 2012 – 2:43 pm

On October 15, 1992 in the Presidential Debate this question was asked:

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

I wish one of the three candidates would have  given a blunt answer. We don’t need more government but we need less. Why does anyone think that the government should try meet everyone’s needs? Why does anyone think that equality at the finish line is what we are seeking? We need the federal government to stop spending almost 25% of GDP. The people should be allowed to spend more of their own money.

Take a look at this fine article below and the great quote by Barry Goldwater:

In this modern era where we’re all supposed to share our innermost thoughts, I’ve openly discussed my fantasies.

I confessed to the world, for instance, that I have a fantasy that involves about one-half of the adults in America. And I’ve also admitted to a fantasy involving Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

Now I’m fantasizing about something new, and it’s all the fault of the Cato Institute. In a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, I have to watch tonight’s presidential debate in order to add my two cents to Cato’s live-blogging of the clash between Obama and Romney.

That got me thinking about some of my least-favorite episodes from past debates, and this moment from 1992 is high on my list (I had to watch that debate because my then-wife worked for the Bush Administration and I had to offer some insincere moral support).

The clip is a bit over three minutes, but it will only take a minute or so to see why this was such an unpleasant segment.

Here’s my latest fantasy. If there’s a similar question tonight, I hope either Romney or Obama gives the following response:

I’m not your daddy and you’re not my child. I’m running to be the President of the United States in order to oversee the legitimate executive branch responsibilities of the federal government. And I hope to reduce the burden of government to give you opportunities, not to take care of your needs. You’re an able-bodied adult. Take responsibility for your own life and provide for your own needs.

But I don’t expect my fantasy to get fulfilled. If a question like this is asked, both Obama and Romney almost surely will express sympathy and support.

The good news is that there have been a few politicians in American’s history who have been willing to say the right thing. Here’s a quote from Barry Goldwater that warms my heart.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. …I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

The bad news is that he got his you-know-what kicked in the 1964 election.

On the other hand, America did elect a President who said during his inauguration that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

And a 2011 poll showed that Americans – unlike their European counterparts – do not believe it is government’s job to guarantee that “nobody is in need.”

In other words, Julia, the fictional moocher woman created by the Obama campaign, is not representative of America. At least not yet.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Liberals idea of equality

October 16, 2012 – 1:54 pm

Instead of moving to school choice and vouchers the liberals in France have come up with a better idea. Conservatives have a better grip on the issue of equality.

France to Ban School Homework

Posted by Marian L. Tupy

Let’s say that you are a newly-elected French president and you have a lot on your plate. The unemployment rate is 10.2 percent and youth unemployment hovers around 23 percent. The budget deficit is 4.5 percent of the GDP and the explicit national debt 90 percent of the GDP. Your economy is at a standstill and your currency is on the verge of collapse. Many of your most productive people wonder if they should pack up and leave, because you have just asked them to fork over 75 percent of their earnings to the taxman. Your popularity is shrinking faster than you can say sacre bleu! So, what do you do?

Easy. You switch the subject and start talking about something completely different …  even if it is, well, a little crazy.

Thus, “French President François Hollande has said he will end homework as part of a series of reforms to overhaul the country’s education system. He doesn’t think it is fair that some kids get help from their parents at home while children who come from disadvantaged families don’t.”

Better that all children suffer, so long as they suffer equally. Equality of misery—that pretty much sums up socialist mentality everywhere.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Vouchers | Comments (0)