Category Archives: Media

Liberal Lies and Hysteria Try to tie Romney with Sensata Closure

The Twitterverse exploded tonight with rage over a company in Illinois called Sensata closing its doors and shipping its production to China. The big story isn’t that the company is closing but that Liberals are actually trying to blame Mitt Romney for it based on ridiculous lies being pushed by theSEIU. No shocker that the SEIU would sink this low but it doesn’t say much about Democrats that they are so easily led to believe outrageous accusations without bothering to do a quick search on the internet to discover the facts. The myths that are being perpetrated and facts are dissected below.

MYTH: Mitt Romney owns Sensata.

FACT: Mitt Romney has nothing to do with Sensata. Bain Capital Investors have a 51.8% share of Sensata stock.

FACT: Romney actually transferred what stocks he did own in Sensata to charities.

MYTH: Romney makes Bain business decisions.

FACT: Romney hasn’t made business decisions at Bain for many years now. He and his wife Ann have a blind trust with Bain which means they have zero clue where their money is invested.

FACT: The key people running Bain Capital Investors are Joshua Bekenstein, John Connaughton, Paul Edgerly, Mark Nunnelly, Stephen Pagliuca, Jordan Hitch and Matthew Levin. It seems that the majority of these ‘key people’, who make decisions like closing Sensata, are Democrats who support Obama.

In 2008, Bekenstein gave over $200,000 to help Democrats get elected. He and his wife are listed as one of the Top Individual Contributors on

In 2010, Stephen Pagliuca ran against Martha Coakley in the Democratic primary for the special Senate seat election, the election that Scott Brown won.

In 2008, Jordan Hitch gave money to both the Obama campaign and to the Romney campaign.

In 2008, Mark Nunnelly gave thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates across the country, including Harry Reid.

In 2012, it was rumored that Matt Levin may speak at the Democratic National Convention. He also donates frequently to Democrats.

MYTH: Romney gets a tax break from outsourcing jobs to China

FACT: Romney doesn’t own Sensata and the ‘tax break’ for outsourcing jobs itself is a myth. It’s a minor moving deduction and it’s miniscule.

MYTH: Romney can do anything to stop Bain or Sensata from making business decisions like shipping 170 jobs to China.

FACT: Romney cannot alter the decisions made by the people are actually running these businesses. He has zero influence on what these people choose to do with their business or employees.

MYTH: Sensata replaced the American flag with the Chinese flag at their plant in Illinois.

FACT: This lie is being perpetrated by people like left wing hacks at DailyKos. The photo they use as ‘proof’ is actually of the Sensata plant in China.

This ‘Bainport’ protest and hysteria is nothing but astroturf by the SEIU and the Occupy ‘rape tent’ crowd. While it is unfortunate that people will be losing their jobs, neither the SEIU, Occupiers or Democrats care anything about them. This is merely a ploy to paint Romney as some evil businessman who ships American jobs to China. What’s more amusing is that Obama has actually shipped jobs overseas with taxpayer funded stimulus money but there’s no protest over that from the SEIU.

It’s understandable for the employees to be upset but they are being used by Democrats as political pawns and it’s actually pretty reprehensible. If they want to direct their anger at Bain, they should direct it to the Democrats who are running it now. Of course, that wouldn’t really fit into the left wing agenda of lies and deceit now would it? Apparently the left will stop at nothing to defeat Romney but using Americans who are actually going to feel pain from this closure is egregious. Using these poor people as political pawns and lying to them shows the lack of character and morals of Democrats. It’s expected that unions and their Democrat lackeys will lie about Romney but it’s not fair to these workers or voters.

Originally posted at

Black Teacher Ridicules White student wearing Romney t-shirt


On ‘dress down Friday’ in a Philadelphia high school, a 16 year old sophomore decided to wear a pink Romney/Ryan t-shirt. Unfortunately for the student, Samantha Pawlucy, she has a Geometry teacher who doesn’t like Romney; doesn’t agree with freedom of speech or expression and doesn’t know history. The teacher humiliated the young girl in class by telling her to ‘get out’ or change her t-shirt. The teacher, who is black, told Pawlucy that her wearing that shirt would be like the teacher wearing a KKK shirt. Apparently the teacher doesn’t know that theKKK was started by the Democrats.

What is missing in most of the stories that have been published is this teacher’s obviousracism. Had a white teacher done this to a black student wearing an Obama/Biden t-shirt, all hell would have broken loose and it would somehow be the Republican Party’s fault. The race of the teacher hasn’t even been widely reported – why is that? The story is bad enough but it’s far worse that this teacher is black and she specifically used racist terms as an analogy against a white student simply showing her support for a candidate; a candidate the teacher clearly isn’t supporting.

There should be no other alternative than for this teacher to be fired. Children shouldn’t be afraid to exercise their free speech rights in school when those rights are completely reasonable. Teachers probably see many articles of clothing that they disagree with but keep their mouths shut because that’s the right thing to do. This teacher lacks the civility, respect and historical knowledge to be further supported with taxpayer dollars in our school systems.

Continue reading here:

Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!

Originally posted at DRScoundrels April 18, 2011

The premiere of Atlas Shrugged was Friday, April 15th to mixed reviews (not surprising giving Hollywood’s extremely leftist slant) but one stood out that must be ripped apart – not for the opinion – but for the blatant inaccuracies in the review.  This review was written by the know Left Winger Roger Ebert.  No one in their right mind would expect Ebert to write an unbiased review when it comes to a non-liberal leaning movie – it is after all his opinion.  He gets paid to sit on his ass, watch movies and then write his opinion about them.  The problem with Ebert’s review is that he apparently didn’t pay attention to the movie.  He distorts facts and clearly targets ridiculous things in the movie that make him look biased and unprofessional.

Ebert:  I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

Apparently Ebert didn’t actually talk to anyone who had never read the book.  Many people I talked with who never read the book understood what was going on completely (kind of easy since we are basically on the verge of living it in real life).  Everyone I spoke with who had read the book enjoyed the movie – the biggest complaint was that the characters and storylines weren’t developed like in the book but that would have been physically impossible given time constraints.   You’ve got to love Ebert’s injection of his liberal hatred of capitalism and business when he mentions the Robber Baron (this is an entirely different area for which he could be lambasted about as well but would take entirely too long in this space).

Ebert: During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, “What did they just say?” The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

People sip wine at parties and dinner just like in ‘real life’.  They are shown responsibly sipping wine at appropriate times.  Unfortunately for Ebert being outright drunk or drugged up like many Hollyweirdo movies today just isn’t acceptable.  Clearly Ebert doesn’t understand business chatter – that’s why he sits on his ass as a movie reviewer.  Even people who aren’t in business had no complaints about any of this.

Ebert: But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at. When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. “Atlas Shrugged” seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains. Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Clearly Ebert missed the part in the movie where gas prices were almost $40/gallon making train transportation much cheaper than any other form.  This is where he starts to go off into la-la land with his facts.  Because of the insane gas prices, which are hurting all forms of the economy, trains are considered the saving grace which is why it is deemed so important by the news outlets in the movie (mind you, he’s exaggerating this point as it is).

Ebert:  There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

Earth to Ebert – All of the women that I know who watched Atlas Shrugged absolutely noticed that Hank Reardon (Grant Bowler) took his shirt off in the sex scene.  How could anyone miss that?  Another fact that is incorrect from this ‘professional movie reviewer’.  Maybe Ebert is used to the soft porn that comes out of Hollywood such that a sex scene not showing pubic hairs or boobs is deemed abnormal.  Probably a disappointment in Ebert’s case since I’m sure that’s the most action he gets.

Again – it’s Ebert’s opinion and that is his job to provide.  He is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to changing the facts which is exactly what he did.  In a job as tough as his, you’d think he’d get that one little detail correct.  Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!