Category Archives: Elections

The truth about Warren gets even worse

Professor Warren’s claims and the facts:

CLAIM:  Professor Warren was part of a group from Harvard that did a study claiming that half of all bankruptcies were due to medical reasons.  Note:  Warren is for government run healthcare i.e., the single payer system.

FACT: There has been years of research that proves the exact opposite of what Professor Warren and her group claimed and Democrats continually used when pushing Obamacare.  From the National Center for Policy Analysis:

The idea that half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical debt has become part of the common folklore. But where did the idea come from? What is the evidence for it? The claim, first made in a 2005 Health Affairsarticle, is at variance with four decades of economic research, including a finding that even large medical bills have no impact on family living standards.

CLAIM: Professor Warren wrote a book in 2003 called “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke.” In it she “…made the case that income stagnation — caused by failed pro-market policies — is killing the middle class, forcing them to take on ever greater amounts of debt to afford a traditional middle-class lifestyle.”

FACT:  Not only is income inequality another myth  propagated by the Left but incomes were not stagnant when Elizabeth Warren wrote her book.  From The American Enterprise Institute:

Has the middle class stagnated during the past 30 years? I’ve pointed to a pair of Fed studies that show middle-class wages and incomes rising since the 1970s. But CDO disqualify those studies mainly because liberal economist Jared Bernstein says they’re no good. If only there was some economist CDO respected who could back up my claims. Wait, Robert Gordon does! Here is a bit from an email Gordon sent me in 2007:

The correct statement is that correcting the upward bias of the official [consumer price index] adds more than 1 percent per year to official estimates of the growth in median and mean wages. Cumulatively since 1977, my best estimate of the upward bias in the CPI cumulates to 38 percent between 1977 and 2006. Thus if someone came along and said the male median wage adjusted for CPI inflation has been stagnant since 1977, I would translate this into a true 38 percent increase.

And don’t forget brand-new research from University of Chicago’s Bruce Meyer and Notre Dame’s James Sullivan who find that “median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009.”

CLAIM:  Elizabeth Warren not only helped to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Obama but has continually claimed she is about protecting consumers.  She’s actually made quite a name for herself in this area.

FACT:  Professor Warren consulted with an insurance company to suppress asbestos claims, hardly a trait of someone who claims to protect consumers.  From The Washington Beacon:

Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren publicly supports a consumer protection platform, but records show she received more than $100,000 to help suppress personal injury lawsuits against an insurance company accused of misleading the public about the dangers of asbestos.

Warren wrote in a Supreme Court brief on behalf of Travelers that the asbestos victims’ lawsuits were part of a “global strategy developed by the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar.” Warren also criticized the victims’ “enterprising” lawyers. According to Warren:

After a full, contested evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that all of the pending direct action suits against Petitioners violated the 1986 confirmation order, finding as a matter of fact that these new claims were part of a global strategy developed by the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar to put Petitioners ‘in Manville’s chair’ and thereby collect on claims that had already been channeled to the Manville trust. …

And by effectively rewriting a long-final confirmation order (at precisely the time when its enforcement was necessary), the court of appeals gave enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers an “end run” around a final federal court judgment.

Warren referred in her brief to the court’s responsibility to end “the asbestos litigation crisis.”

Continue Reading more…  http://www.examiner.com/article/can-voters-believe-anything-elizabeth-warren-claims-part-ii


Can voters believe anything Elizabeth Warren claims? Part I

Elizabeth Warren is still being questioned about her Cherokee ‘minority status’ claims by reporters but a much bigger pattern of her ‘lies’ emerge when you look at the many things she has said or written even before becoming a Senatorial candidate.  Most voters are unaware of Professor Warren’s continually debunked claims and outright lies because the media is not reporting them.   For Warren to pretend that she wants more regulations and accountability in government, she sure has a lot of explaining to do regarding the false claims she has made and continues to make on a regular basis.  How can voters trust anything Elizabeth Warren claims?

Professor Warren’s claims and the facts:

CLAIM:  Based on family lore, Warren claimed she is part Cherokee.  She ‘checked’ boxes claiming minority status throughout her career and Harvard listed  her as being a ‘minority’ as well.

FACT: There’s no proof that Warren is part Cherokee.  A genealogist  did research and found the following interesting tidbit of information regarding Warren’s family:

… That in a follow up article about Warren’s ancestry he says that Smith Crawford’s husband, Jonathan Crawford, was a member of the Tennessee militia who rounded up Cherokees and herded them into government-built stockades in Ross’s Landing, which is now Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ross’s Landing was a point of origin for the Trail of Tears.

CLAIM: Professor Warren claims that she is not wealthy or not so wealthy that she has millions in investments.

FACT:  Warren is a multi-millionaire who comfortably enjoys being in the top 1%.  From Buzzfeed:

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment.

Continue reading … http://www.examiner.com/article/can-voters-believe-anything-elizabeth-warren-claims-part-i


Wake me after the GOP primaries are over

The GOP primaries have become such a bore they aren’t worth watching any longer (all the good soundbites come out right afterwards anyway so it’s not like I’m missing anything).  How many debates do Republicans and the media think people can take within a given amount of time?  One debate per primary would serve the purpose.  The debates I truly care about seeing are the ones between Obama and the GOP nominee.  Those will be interesting debates although odds are the Liberal moderators will throw Obama fluff questions rather than hard hitting questions about his failed presidency.  I have no horse in the GOP race nor am I overtly fond of any of the candidates still in the race.  I like something about all of them and dislike things about all of them.  What I DO know is that ANY of them would be better than Obama.

There are only 4 GOP candiates left…. so what have we got?

Mittens aka Mitt Romney – the (cue the far right’s scary music) ‘Massachusetts Republican’.  He’s an extremely successful businessman who also ran the state of Massachusetts pretty well.  People whine about ‘Romneycare’ but what they don’t get is many in MA wanted that crap sandwich (remember… Marxichusetts is uber progressive HELL).  If the majority of MA residents didn’t want it, they would have done something to get rid of it by now –  they haven’t.  Mitt comes off as what I call an ‘Alex P. Keaton’ Republican – safe, intelligent, dresses well, great business/economic mind but isn’t very exciting.  The thing is there are many Indies who would vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama even though they voted for Obama in 2008.

The Lizard King aka Newt Gingrich – the man who cheated on his 1st wife with his 2nd wife then cheated on his 2nd wife with his 3rd and current wife aka helmet head.  I somehow cannot see a ‘floozy FLOTUS’ in the White House.  Granted Michelle Obama lowered the bar in her roll as FLOTUS but not even low enough for people to believe someone like Gingrich’s wife OR Gingrich should be in the highest position in this country.  Not to mention Newt is the KING of Establishment even though he feigns he is not.  He never left D.C. when he was forced to resign.  He just made millions of dollars as a ‘non-lobbyist’ lobbyist.  The man has his hands in all kinds of organizations, including his own, that stand to make millions off of things like Obamacare.

Sanitorium aka Rick Santorum – the man who people believe ‘hates gays’.  Yeah that’ll win over the Indies (who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate).  Santorum is a dud.  He lost his last senate race by such a huge margin  they should have forced ‘mercy rules’ on his opponent.   Santorum lost me when I found out he voted AGAINST a National Right to Work bill while Senator. 

The Angry Elf aka Ron Paul – the man who people think of as their ‘crazy Grandpa’.  The oldest and oddest of all the candidates.  Ron Paul has been in Congress for over two decades yet has gotten jack & squat accomplished.  Sorry but any ass can vote ‘NAY, ‘YEA’ or ‘PRESENT’ – Obama is a perfect example.  Paul doesn’t win  a majority of ANY voter type unless you are an anarchist.  Some of his rabid followers aka Roasted Paulnuts claim HE is the most Conservative of all the candidates yet he has not won the majority of Conservative votes in any of the primaries to date, not even in New Hampshire which is where the Libertarian ‘Free State Project’ set its roots.  Just imagine what ‘regular Americans’, who are not involved in politics at all, would think if they saw Paul in a general election debate with Obama?  Obama wouldn’t have to spend a dime of his huge campaign coffers to win against Paul.

So again… wake me when the GOP primaries are over.  I’m hoping Republicans actually pick the best candidate to win against Obama.  This whining about ‘who is more conservative’ or ‘who is more liberal’ really doesn’t matter.  YOU, my dear Republicans, do not win elections – Indies do.  If you are smart you will pick the right candidate and you will make SURE that Republicans take over the Senate and maintain control of the House because no matter who is elected, they will need to be reigned in and controlled by ‘we, the people’ aka GOOD representatives.  I shudder to think that if Obama is re-elected he will possibly have two SCOTUS nominations.  If that were to happen, we can all kiss the Constitution and this country BUH-BYE.


What NH Exit Polls say about Romney and Paul

What exactly did the exit poll numbers say?  (You can see some of the charts depicting the results for the top candidates below).

What’s interesting about these exit poll numbers is that people continue to claim Ron Paul is the most Conservative candidate yet it seems the people who are most conservative voted from Romney.  He and Romney almost tie in the ‘somewhat Liberal’ category. 

The exit polls showed that while Paul earned the majority of his votes from the younger crowd, Romney earned the most votes from every other age range, including 26% of the younger vote.   In line with age, Paul also earned the most votes from those making the least money at 35% with Romney not far behind at 31%.  Romney won the votes by all other income levels with only Paul close behind in the $30-50K levels.

Voters who have never voted in a Republican primary before gave Paul the most votes while those who have voted in a primary before gave Romney the majority of votes.

When it comes to Party Identification, meaning which party the voter most identifies with, Huntsman scores Democrats with 40%, Paul with 25% and Romney only 14%.  Republicans overwhelming voted for Romney and Independents went for Paul with Romney only 1% point behind.

Romney wins both Registered Independents and Republicans with Paul only 3% points behind for Registered Independents.

Finally when it comes down to voter ideology, Romney earns the most by people from across the spectrum from ‘Somewhat Liberal’ (Paul is only 2% points behind) to Very Conservative.  No other candidate comes close to Romney in the Moderate to Very Conservative ideologies.

What’s interesting is that the Paul camp claims that Ron Paul has won over Independents.  Clearly he has not or the percentages would have been much higher in his favor, especially in New Hampshire where Libertarians (Paul’s true ‘party’) have pretty decent numbers and Paul has had a big presence here since 2008.  They also claim that Paul is the most conservative but he didn’t even come close to Romney in garnering the Conservative voters.  What is very interesting is support from the Tea Party.  Ron Paul’s proponents claim he started the Tea Party yet Romney appears to have gotten far more support from Tea Partiers than Ron Paul.  One thing is pretty clear, some Republicans do not seem to have a grip on Independents.  The candidate that can win over Republicans AND the Indies, will win the race.


Dead People Vote in New Hampshire

This is outrageous and further PROOF that New Hampshire needs to pass a voter i.d. law.  Democrats in the State Legislature are part of the problem.  It’s time to stand up and create a solution!


Trump’s three-ring circus finally comes to an end

Donald Trump announced that he will not run for President in 2012 – bringing his three-ring circus to a long-overdue end.  Why anyone thought that ‘The Donald’ was ever a serious candidate is befuddling.  Trump is known for his antics to get ratings and draw attention to himself and his business endeavors such as ‘The Apprentice’ and the Miss USA pageant.  Trump has a long list of why he isn’t a Conservative yet because he was opening his big mouth and feigning to actually care about the conservative movement, he won over some Independents and even Republicans.  His polling numbers were sky high for a while but thankfully, as people learned the truth about him, his polling numbers started tanking.  Frankly he shouldn’t have ever been on the radar.

Trump did nothing but make a mockery of conservatism and aided the Democrats in making Republicans look foolish – think ‘Birthers’.  As if Trump actually got Obama to release his long-form birth certificate.  Voters need to really start vetting candidates better before they jump on any bandwagon.   It’s not enough to listen to the words candidates are spouting; their past history must be researched.  Voters know this all too well since Obama was elected based on his speeches and not what his past actions told about him.  Had voters actually researched Obama’s past, they would have seen what many Conservatives discovered and realized the man was not suited for the Presidency, same thing with Trump.  Interesting that both Obama and Trump have a lot in common – both narcissists, both like to hear themselves speak but don’t like when others have differing opinions and both like to bloviate rhetoric without having mentionable actions to back up their ‘ideology’.

Continue reading at Examiner.


Obama’s fantasy DREAM Act – votes only please

Yesterday Obama gave a speech, conveniently, at a border town in Texas.  He was promoting his new campaign issue – the DREAM Act – yet to anyone who has been paying attention to politics the past 3 years, his speech fell flat.  His ‘dream’ is nothing more than more of his broken promises.  There’s this little fact that Obama forgets about his presidency – he had a majority in the House and Senate when he got into office.  Obama squandered his majority rule over a failed stimulus and the epic failure of Obamacare, completely ignoring the pro-amnesty quadrant that helped vote him into office.

Obama had an entire year with a total Democrat majority yet did absolutely nothing to move the DREAM Act forward.  He completely ignored the illegal aliens who voted for him and the pro-amnesty people who voted for him by pushing the DREAM Act to the side.  Now he feigns to actually care about immigration by pushing it as part of his ‘Wrecking The Future’ re-election campaign.  Is Obama speaking out of one side of his mouth again as he did in 2008 to woo Latino voters who are already unhappy with his presidency?

Read more at Examiner