Romney said the following at a fund raiser in May of this year.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the secretly recorded remarks. "There are 47 percent who are with [President Barack Obama], who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

"My job is not to worry about those people," he continued. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Romney was speaking in the context of votes. Romney is not worried about trying to win the votes of people who will vote for Obama because of their dependency.

In a Fox News interview Romney stood by his 47% comment; further explaining what was already obvious considering the context in which it was stated.

The problem, Romney argued, is that people are so poor nowadays that they’re not paying taxes.

“I want to get people back to work,” he said. “I’d like to see everybody who’s not retired, not in the military, having the privilege of having a good job and a good income – enough that they qualify to pay taxes.”

But even while he tried to make a broader policy argument, Romney in the next breath said that his comments at the fundraiser were not about policies – they were a measure of his political chances of winning the White House.

“I was talking about the fact that I don’t expect to get 60 or 70 percent of the vote,” Romney said. “I understand that some portion will be the president’s, some portion will be mine. I’ve got to get as many as I can from every single cohort in this country.”

Romney several times referenced a 1998 clip that surfaced just before his interview, which shows Obama, then a state senator, advocating for helping the poor through “redistribution.”

I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. Now let's shift gears for a minute to what Obama has said. Of course everyone remembers Joe The Plumber right.

OBAMA: ... in order to give -- in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000.

Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.

So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.

The 47% comment by Romney is correct. There is a large percentage of the population that stands to benefit from handouts. If that were not the case why then vote for Obama? What has Obama done to limit government dependency?

This Obama comment from 2008 gets to the core of the debate. Obama actually believes that "investment" in government is going to make the economy strong. Romney was pointing out that he wants the economy to do better by having less government involvement. The government will have increased tax revenue when more people pay into it, not taking more from the few that pay in now.

The economy is the private sector. Taking money from the private sector and putting in government is never going to result in a stronger economy. It simply makes no sense.

Obama has been an advocate for higher taxes and more government economic intervention from the very beginning, even before the 2008 election. People just didn't catch on. I only hope this time that people pay more attention to what Obama says and include his past actions when formulating their opinion of him.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The Middle East is once again becoming unavoidable for Obama. Obama has praised the "Arab Spring" from the beginning without actually knowing what was really going on there.

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya. March 28, 2011.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

At the time Obama made these remarks; there was still debate over whether or not to arm the Libyan "rebels" because we didn't really know who they were. But somehow Obama knows that they share our core beliefs?

A U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans died in Libya on September 11, 2012 as the result of an attack on the consulate.

TRIPOLI, Libya — US officials are increasingly suspicious that the murder Tuesday of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials was not the result of a protest against an anti-Islam film, but instead was a coordinated terror strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Stevens, 52, died as he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as a crowd of hundreds attacked the consulate Tuesday evening, many of them firing machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

By the end of the assault, much of the building was burned out and trashed. Stevens was the first US ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.

Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to grasp what's going on either.

Until now, Libya’s struggles had largely faded from the national headlines. Americans were shocked by Wednesday’s news that heavily armed Libyans assaulted the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, setting fire to the buildings and killing four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Even Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton questioned: “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?

Even more attacks have broken out.

Since Tuesday's deadly assault in Libya -- and a protest the same day at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo -- demonstrations, both small and large, have been reported in Israel, Gaza, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Iran and among Muslims in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir. Security has been heightened at U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide.

While some protesters say they have not seen any of the online film, they were incensed by reports of its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.

These things alone make a few things apparent. For starters; Obama's foreign policy skills are severely lacking/non-existent. The Obama administration's policy of "peace through weakness" has caused the world to become much more unstable. And somehow Hillary Clinton is amazed that fundamentalist Muslims aren't beholden to Infidels (the U.S. in this case) for helping to oust Qaddafi.

It gets even worse; Obama was praising the Arab Spring uprising and Libya on the same day that the U.S. ambassador to Libya was killed.

Obama won't meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he has a meeting planned next week with Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi.

Want more? Just keep watching this administration.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The owner of Chick-fil-A says that he supports marriage between two people of the opposite sex.

...Dan Cathy, president of the popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A, has done just that, saying on a radio show that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Following backlash after those remarks, Cathy then told the Baptist Press in an article posted July 16 that he is “guilty as charged” and is very “supportive of the family ? the biblical definition of the family unit.”

What is the response of the gay community? Boycott Chick-fil-A. Boycotts are only effective if there is a large enough number of individuals who take part. Statistically gays represent a very small minority of the population. Forget the numbers you've heard on the news. Forget the number of people who show up for gay rallies and marches. Look at the map.

Whenever gay marriage is put up to a vote; it fails the vast majority of the time. Most people are solemn in their beliefs and don't broadcast them. But when it comes time to vote, they vote their beliefs.

What was the reaction to the boycott threat? Huge numbers of people went to Chick-fil-A yesterday to show support for traditional marriage and Mr. Cathy.

At Chick-fil-A locations across the country, people voted with their wallets today, coming out to express support for the fast-food chain after CEO Dan Cathy said in an interview that he is a firm backer of traditional marriage.

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day ? as it is being called was the idea of former Arkansas governor and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee. But as protests against Chick-fil-A swelled across the country, dozens of groups and prominent individuals joined in support of the company.

Among the groups is Project 21, a black conservative activist organization. One of its members, Demetrios Minor, said critics of Dan Cathy have taken his statements completely out of context. “I think liberals are missing a vital point in their blind hatred of Chick-fil-A,” Minor said in a statement sent to Fox News. “Being against gay marriage is not being anti-gay.”

What is the latest response from the gay community? Stage a kiss-in at Chick-fil-A restaurants.

On Friday, supporters of same-sex marriage will have their say. They plan a “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country ? encouraging gays and lesbians to share a public display of affection at the home of the chicken sandwich.

The "kiss-in" is proof that a boycott by such a small minority is ineffective. This was on display yesterday when Chick-fil-A, while bombarded with supporters, had a record sales day.

People can do what they want, but I think this is going to hurt the gay community more than help it. The gay movement has been one of force since the beginning. I liken it to a wild-eyed stalker. Obsessing until eventually they try to force their will on someone else with utter disregard for that person's wishes. They do these things from a removed, self-absorbed viewpoint; you have to like it because I do!

The gay movement is trying to force people to except their views by showing disrespect and being intolerant of others' opinions. Somehow I don't think this will go over well. This might even prompt people who would have otherwise stayed out of the debate altogether to enter it on the side of Chick-fil-A.

Why not just leave the word marriage alone?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I noticed something the other day. I found it interesting that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can tax as a social control method (not just for the purpose of revenue). I was wondering where I've seen this before; then I remembered, It's China's One-Child Policy!

The policy is enforced at the provincial level through fines that are imposed based on the income of the family and other factors.

Population and Family Planning Commissions exist at every level of government to raise awareness about the issue and carry out registration and inspection work. Despite this policy, there are still many citizens that continue to have more than one child.

China's One-Child Policy is enforced through fines? Remember the individual mandate was a fine/penalty not a tax; said Obama. The supreme court determined that the individual mandate is a tax. Either way, it's designed to steer individuals toward an outcome that will prop up a particular piece of social policy PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

What's the difference between the penalty found in the "One-Child Policy" and the "Individual Mandate?" If you can tax individuals for not purchasing something, you can tax individuals for anything else. If the US government can tax for purposes other than revenue, why not tax to ensure any particular social outcome? The Supreme Court's ruling on the PPACA is very disturbing, because it sets a very dangerous precedent. That's not to say that there will be a one child limit in the US, but the legal mechanism for such legislation is now in place. That should be enough to open people's eyes.

I thought The United States of America was supposed to be the land of the free; or are those days ever increasingly behind us? Limited economic freedom is limited freedom.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Remember when Obama said, "Just words, just speeches..." Well that's an interesting way to look at things.

Obama is now saying more words, making more speeches. People are not paying close enough attention to exactly what he is saying.

Remember the health care debate? Obama, on many occasions, mentioned that Obamacare would help 46.3 million Americans who don't currently have health insurance. Then on September 9, 2009 Obama addressed Congress. That is where he said that Obamacare would help more than 30 million American citizens who don't have coverage. I don't think that many people caught onto the fact that he mentioned two separate numbers. but those numbers are from a US Census report. Check page 28 under Nativity, you will find the subheading "Not a citizen" and a value of 9.7 million.

Paying close attention there is another Language Lie in Obama's Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver: "The American Promise" During this address Obama said, "But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." Again Obama has pulled a fast one. Most people are not aware of this fact, but the US Government has not passed a budget in what is now:

Because of this; Obama has not gone line by line through the federal budget --because there hasn't been one.

Then we come around to health care; there was mention of a "public option" government health insurance which would lead to socialized medicine (private insurance would not be able to compete, government monopoly...) Because socialized medicine polls negatively, they went with "single payer option". They aren't going to call their socialized medicine plan by any name that correctly identifies it. It speaks volumes when people have go this far to avoid the truth under the guise of helping people.

It is an art to lie to people and make them feel comfortable about it. You have to state things with such specificity as to never be pinned down by the truth. These are just two examples. Pay close attention to what Obama actually says and I bet you'll find quite a few more Language Lies hidden in the details.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!