The better man lost the election

There will be scores of books written and words piled up alongside the mounting American debt to fathom the results and consequences of the 2012 U.S. election.

In columns of such limited space as these, one can only suggestively wink at, as I once wrote, the complexity of subjects such as this requiring treatment at much greater length to do them justice.

On Tuesday evening, American voters balked on seeing their republic at a fork in the road — one path sloping towards greater dependency of individuals on the big government welfare state, and the other towards keeping secure the American ideals of individual freedom and responsibility — and voted to maintain the status quo of the past two years.

Republicans remain in control of the House, Democrats in control of the Senate, and the incumbent returns to the White House after an estimated cost of nearly $6 billion spent on the election.

This status quo reflects a bitterly divided America.

The 2012 election turnout was lower than that of 2008. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, 131 million Americans voted in 2008; the 2012 election turnout is estimated to be around 119 million.

In 2008, Obama’s share of the popular vote was shy of 69.5 million, or 52.9% of the total vote cast. Though his share of the 2012 popular vote was significantly less at 60.7 million or 50.4% of the total, it allowed him to squeeze a win.

In 2008, John McCain, the Republican nominee, received 59.9 million votes or 45.7% of the total.

Mitt Romney received 48% of the total vote in 2012, and though his share of 57.8 million votes fell below McCain’s, he received more electoral college votes.

The difference in numbers between an Obama win and a Romney loss was approximately the difference in numbers between those who voted for McCain in 2008 but did not vote for Romney. These nominally Republican voters staying home in the 2012 election, whether they were discouraged conservatives or unenthused independents, left the better man as a loser.

The fundamentals of the American economy — the figures for unemployment, people on food stamps, debt burden, depressed income, gas prices, the cost of Obamacare — were indicative of a failed Obama presidency.

But most of us anticipating a Romney presidency misread how greatly the American electorate has changed over the past three decades.

Open immigration since the mid-’60s has altered America’s demographic profile, as it has Europe’s and ours in Canada. During these decades, multiculturalism, with its attendant political correctness, have also greatly affected, in my view for the worse, the values of work, thrift, freedom and responsibility at the heart of America’s great republican adventure.

I have received my share of vitriolic mail — the occupational hazard of standing in the public square — and likely more will come.

It is a bracing experience to take such mail as bird droppings, to wash them away without any disquiet, and move on with the task at hand.

I also know keeping faith in democracy is not forgetting, as Churchill with irony and given his bittersweet experience in politics observed, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Bad egg about to roll out of White House

In less than two weeks, Americans will either elect a new president, or give the incumbent a second term.

In following the latest polls, one can observe that since the first debate on Oct. 3, support among likely voters across the country has shifted in favour of Mitt Romney.

The Gallup and Rasmussen polls have indicated Romney presently leads President Barack Obama nationally, and in the battleground states where the election will be decided, either Romney has pulled even with Obama or tending to take the lead. More importantly, Romney is ahead by double-digits over Obama among independent voters, and the gender gap in support of the incumbent has vanished.

Democrats are pretty much in a state of panic. The Obama administration and the campaign team for the president’s re-election appear to be a in a firefight of their own making and, likely for the first time, they are awakening to the realization that this election is theirs to lose.

What happened? The tide that brought the Republicans roaring back in the 2010 mid-term election to take control of the House in the U.S. Congress has not ebbed in American politics. This tide will likely take Romney into the White House.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, an increasing number of Americans began to slowly recognize that Obama was not the same individual they voted for in 2008. He appeared to be ideologically rigid, fiscally imprudent, bent upon spending as he recklessly added to the national debt already perilously high, and as a man of the left disdainful of his opponents.

The 2010 election was a referendum on the Obama administration’s inept handling of the economy. Yet Obama remained heedless of the Republican majority in the House, failed repeatedly to submit the annual budget or negotiate any compromise on spending. The economy continued to suffer, jobs vanished, unemployment figures remained unacceptably high, and the recovery has been anemic.

During the 2008 primary season, I wrote about candidate Obama as the Harold Hill of American politics. Harold Hill in the well-loved musical play The Music Man is a likeable flim-flam artist out to hustle the good simple folks of River City, Iowa, and they fall for him.

A significant number of Americans fell for candidate Obama in 2008, seduced by his charm and his slogans of hope and change.

But by 2010, as the mid-term election results showed, enough Americans realized their own responsibility in being misled. Then came the October surprise in September as Americans watched the Obama administration engage in lies and deceptions in informing them about the deaths of four Americans, including the ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists.

Thomas Sowell, the highly respected conservative economist and American of colour at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, wrote recently, “The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten.”

This sense of wrong surrounding the administration, and its failed attempt to depict Romney as a heartless plutocrat, not surprisingly might make Barack Hussein Obama a one-term president.

How Mitt Romney Won My Vote

Note: The author would like to thank the Psalmist, Switchfoot, and Samwise for inspiring this column.

Back in May of 1999, I made a decision to leave the Democratic Party. It was an easy decision. I had been a Democrat for 11 years. I voted for Dukakis when I was a committed leftist. But, later, when I became a pro-life conservative, there was no room for me in the party. So I became a Republican and also joined the NRA. I’ve been a straight shooter ever since. Excuse me if that last line sounded heterosexist. I’m a work in regress.

As a committed conservative – one who many people think should be committed – I place ideology above party loyalty. It is true that I will not vote for any Democrat under any circumstances, not even if they seek my vote for local dog catcher. The image of Florida Democrats interpreting “chads” is burned in my memory forever. Mike Adams clings to a grudge longer than Al Sharpton clings to a discredited rape victim. But that doesn’t mean I will always vote Republican. Each candidate has to work to earn my vote. That is especially true if I view him as a member of the establishment, rather than a product of a grass roots movement.

Mitt Romney is not nearly as conservative as I would like him to be. So I did not feel comfortable supporting him going into the Denver presidential debate. I’m sorry to talk about my feelings. I know I’m a member of the NRA but I still have feelings. Just ask Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. I send her Christmas cards every year – although I know she does not appreciate that they are home-made and feature pictures of the deer I kill during the holiday season.

Sorry to digress. Now, let’s get back to my feelings.

Some people will say that the Denver debate changed their vote from Obama to Romney. But I am not among them. My vote was changed from going-to-sit-this-one-out to Romney. But it did not take a 90-minute debate to do it. It only took one line. He didn’t have me at “hello.” He got me when he scolded a boyish eye-contact-avoiding president for over-spending. Specifically, he got me when he looked right at Obama and characterized the current spending problem as “immoral.”

It was a home run. And it cut right to the heart of the nature of our spending problem. It is more than just a spending problem. It is a moral problem. To fail to grasp the depth of the moral deficit that makes possible our fiscal deficit is to misjudge the American political landscape altogether. It is to misapprehend the nature of the American constitutional experiment altogether.

Our nation is rooted in a deep tradition of respect for property rights. It is a tradition that was well understood until the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Gratest Generation (mis-spelling intentional) – a generation that now controls our nation’s purse strings. That generation has turned its back on core principles expressed by our Founders. In the process, it has jeopardized the existence of the republic.

Our Founders knew that our rights had a necessary moral component – a necessary moral dimension. In saying they were given by our Creator, they implied as much. But they implied much more than that. The most obvious implication is that God-given rights may not be taken from us by man.

But that idea is lost on the current political class. And they need to rediscover it.

Our Founders would have been shocked to see a budget devised by promise-breakers who knowingly lie to future generations in order to attain the power necessary to fund their deception. The promise-breakers know the collapse is inevitable. But they expect to be gone before it actually happens. Much has been said about a generation that has killed millions of its own offspring. More must be said about the millions it has robbed in order to ensure perpetual comfort and to avoid financial sacrifice.

In Denver, Romney spoke harshly to the current leader of that generation. His words echoed over the mountain tops and traveled through the valley in the shadow of debt. They reminded some of us that the shadow proves the sunshine. And that means there is some good left in this world and that it is still worth fighting for.

 

This Was Going to Be an Awesome Column about the Debate (But the Altitude Kicked My Butt)

Last week I sent Mitt a note encouraging him not to morph into a McCain-like wuss during the debate. I think he got my email because he Buford Pussered Obama. It was embarrassing. The president looked defeated–head down, busted.

The greatest joy I had the night of the debate didn’t come from watching the erudite Mormon verbally skin the evasive Marxist for 90 minutes. No, it came after the debate as I watched the talking heads over on MSLSD melt down like the bad witch on the Wizard of Oz.

Good Lord, man. Maddow, Matthews, Sharpton and Schultz cried like little girls. Did you dudes actually believe that Obama and your fairy tales could stand up under credible and heavy scrutiny? You did? Well, then … you’re more deluded than I thought.

The only—and I mean only—way you, your ilk and the president can foist your fables and philosophy on your fools is for them to be parlayed in an uncontested biosphere of bullcrap. However, get your leader in front of the truth and he’ll melt like Liza Minnelli during an Oprah interview. I must admit, though, that your caterwauling was good TV. Matter of fact I think Bravo should start a new reality show called Desperate Talk Show Blowhards of MSNBC. You guys could replace Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. It’s just a thought.

Y’know, I hate to sound like a Monday morning QB, but I knew Obama was in deep weeds when seven minutes into it Romney got, as one of my friends said, that sympathetic grin he used to get whenever Rick Perry spoke. Hot yellow Kool-Aid!

What you witnessed, MSNBC, was a successful Bain Capital exec talking to a sorry Staples store manager who has driven his store into the dirt. Nothing more … nothing less.

Another rather amusing post-debate kabuki show the Left put on was the ridiculous excuses for Obama’s feckless performance during that 90-minute flogging by Romney.

One of my favorites was Al Gore’s “the high altitude got to him”… Obama wasn’t acclimated and thus he was a wee bit discombobulated. First off, Obama’s used to being high; he spent his entire college years Rocky Mountain high. Please. Secondly, didn’t he give his yippee-ki-yay DNC speech back in ‘08 in Denver? I think he did. Google it and get back to me, Al.

Second on my list of favorite excuses regarding Obama’s clock getting cleaned came from Bob Woodward who surmised that Obama was abysmal that night because he received some heavy bad news prior to the debate that had him distracted and upset. This could be a legit reason. Maybe something in the Middle East had gone awry? Nah, that couldn’t be it because after the Benghazi massacre he was able to party with Jay-Z and Beyoncé and fly to Vegas with no problemo whatsoever.

If he was rattled by some disturbing intel before the debate, it was probably the realization that, as of that night, he’s actually been married to Michelle for 20 years. That revelation would fluster even the toughest of men.

Finally, as much as I was delighted in Romney running circles around Obama that night, the one thing that put me off the most was that I wanted Obama to debate using that black preacher voice he used in that infamous race-baiting/class warfare video from 2007, and yet … he didn’t do it.

And for that I am sad.

Check out our latest video, “Vendetta: Obama’s War on the Bible.”

 

Suddenly, liberal media’s line is “Debates Don’t Matter.”

 

 

 

I was only half kidding when I tweeted last night during the first presidential debate:

[https://twitter.com/JoelJohannesen/status/253697409161523200]

But lo and behold, today, this:

…And they were serious. Their opening paragraph is laughable, as just prior to the debates, the mainstream media was opining to anyone who would listen (all 46 Americans) that the debates were game-changers and dead serious and they matter more than anything on the face of the Earth, including  –  especially including  –  vetting Barack Obama.

As America argues about who won last night’s debate, it’s hard not to wonder: “Does this change anything?” Quite a few politicos and statisticians seems to be convinced of the same answer: “Not really.”

Oh dear. How embarrassing for them all. No wonder nobody takes the lamestream media seriously anymore.

And when suddenly pretending the debates don’t matter, naturally, as if I had to tell you, the very predictable, liberal-obsessed Obamamania mainstream media is tripping all over themselves in their effort to avoid actually declaring Mitt Romney the clear winner in last night’s debate, despite debates not mattering anyway. See, they “don’t matter” so much that they can’t even bring themselves to declare Romney the winner. Had their man Barack Obama won, you bet they’d be doing exactly that: declaring Obama the “clear winner” using every font at their disposal including “Greek Columns,” and emphasizing how much “debates matter.”

Many are today reducing the impact of the Romney win as much as possible, using simplistic boxing match analogies to disguise the facts of life. Mitt Romney “came out swinging” is a media favorite in spite of its massive overuse.

    

For his part, former CBS reporter and now a more enlightened, and therefore conservative, reasonable, and thoughtful guy, best-selling author Bernard Goldberg went right with that in his excellent piece at his BernardGoldberg.com. Here’s a snippet:

“If the debate we just saw were a boxing match, Barack Obama would have been staggering all over the ring.  He was the fighter who hasn’t had a tough opponent in a long time, and he didn’t know how to handle the blows he was taking.  This was a unanimous decision for the challenger, Mitt Romney… “

Others in the media went with sporting analogies in lieu of actually declaring Romney the winner, claiming only that “some” or “Obama supporters” have “indicated” that “perhaps” Romney came out “slightly ahead” and that Obama didn’t “bring his A-game.” (Oh and “debates don’t matter anyway, wink!”).

    

The inestimable Charles Krauthammer was alone in making the factual “Romney won” declaration, while also using a detailed sports metaphor score:

 Here’s a snippet:

I thought Romney won and Romney won big, he won by two touchdowns. You know, when a challenger just steps up on the stage that already gives him stature. But when he performs the way Romney did, I think it really changes things. It doesn’t change the game, but it changes the momentum. …

… So I think he just didn’t hold his own, he showed himself to be the equal of the President. And in fact, if you counted it on points, the way you would of a fight, you’d say he won by far the majority of the rounds. …

Let’s be clear:  Romney won the debate. And debates matter. But as a trick moving forward, if you ever have any doubt about who won, and whether debates matter, if the media don’t say Romney won when he did, or they call it a “draw,” and they declare that “debates don’t matter,” it means Romney won, and debates matter.

On Taxes, Obama and Romney Obfuscate

Democrats are fond of saying that Republicans rely too heavily on tax cuts in their economic proposals. In reality, Mitt Romney’s tax plan is not only tepid and incomplete, but he has neglected to expose the true destructiveness of Democratic policies.

Absent an effective Republican rejoinder, President Barack Obama gleefully mocks GOP tax prescriptions, including in his address to the Democratic National Convention: “Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the mornin’,” the president quipped in that painfully pandering, g-droppin’ manner he sometimes deploys, to the admiration of Harry Reid.

Obama characterizes tax cuts as contrary to his concept of “citizenship” and detrimental to progress in fields from medicine to technology and beyond. It is emblematic of the modern Democratic party, and the Left in general, that a person can rise through its ranks, even to the office of president, while remaining ignorant of the demonstrable truth that lower tax rates often lead to economic growth and higher tax revenues.

A particularly nonsensical Democratic talking point is that lower taxes – “the Bush tax cuts,” in their misnomer – are “what got us into this mess in the first place.” But in the four years after 2003, when the second phase of Bush’s tax plan was enacted, tax revenues increased by over $700 billion. Romney’s refusal to point this out explains, in part, why he persistently trails in the polls.

And it is not as though the country’s tax burden is light. America has the highest corporate taxes in the world, while claiming a greater share of personal income than its largest trading partner, Canada – and Obama seeks to push these rates even higher.

Beyond the rates, the Byzantine nature of the US tax system, including its worldwide reporting requirements, creates an expensive and inhospitable economic environment and disadvantages Americans overseas. Romney has offered a vague plan to eliminate the double-taxation of international US businesses but, without specifics, even Joe Biden is comfortable disdaining it.

“It’s called a territorial tax,” the vice president scoffed to the DNC, with apparent confusion. This evinces an unfortunate American myopia, whereby something that is commonplace in the rest of the world is held up and marveled at like a glowing rock that fell from space. It is particularly galling in this case because the “territorial tax” Biden considers so otherworldly was, in fact, a key recommendation of Obama’s own Jobs Council.

This same blinkered perception applies to the tax burden on US citizens living abroad. A record number of Americans renounced their citizenship last year and, if Obama is re-elected and enacts his massive tax hikes and expanded reporting requirements, the number of renunciations will increase. Invariably, such news brings howls of “good riddance” from “These-Colors-Don’t-Run” nincompoops who do not understand that their erstwhile compatriots are not dodging their taxes, but escaping anomalous, extra-territorial demands placed on them by the IRS. As a consequence of this institutional stance that US citizens remain government property, wherever they reside in the world, Americans living abroad enjoy less financial freedom than ex-pats of the People’s Republic of China.

The solution is simple: American individuals and businesses should be required to file and pay taxes only in their country of residence – just like the citizens of almost every other nation on Earth. For all his economic acumen, Romney has not made this straightforward proposal.

But perhaps most troubling is Romney’s inability to translate Obama’s tax policy as it pertains to jobs.

Two-thirds of American companies are small businesses, known as Chapter-S corporations, and they pay taxes at the same rates as individuals. This is not widely understood by the general public, or by politicians – indeed, a senior Congressional Republican recently told me that half the House Budget Committee was unaware of this fact. Moreover, these small businesses create 70 percent of America’s new jobs.

So, when Obama talks of raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” or, equally absurdly, “those who can afford it,” he is saying he will raise taxes on small business. Whether he realizes this or not, one cannot know (and those who still suppose Obama’s brilliance precludes him making such rudimentary mistakes should consider the tax burden of the average Navy “corpse-man,” whether he is stationed overseas or in one of the 57 states). Either way, Obama’s plan cripples job-creation.

If Romney wants to win this election, he must clarify his tax proposals – while exposing Obama’s, as well.

 

Paul Ryan speaks conservative, in bold colors. We like him.

I’ve spoken highly of Paul Ryan for ages. It’s easy. He speaks his message of good conservative values in strong, bold colors. He’s smart. He knows his stuff. So obviously we like Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s VP pick.

Paul Ryan has always been one of my favorites as a choice for Romney’s or anybody’s VP pick. I hope he uses his experience to groom himself for a presidential run.

Nobody knows the budget better than Paul Ryan. Nobody. And as a team, Romney and Ryan are just the ticket with (finally) the much-needed clear, well-thought-out, freedom and capitalism-based answers and direction that Americans and the world need so badly today  from Washington. The choice of Ryan means that this ticket is all about fixing America and relieving it from its Obama-nurtured and increasingly dismal progressive morass, and rid the world of the Obama regime’s lack of leadership on the economy, and America’s wrong direction. Finally.

Today the Left is apoplectic. It is literally the end of the world for them. Don’t take my word for it. Simply listen to them as they, with red faces and clenched fists, rail against this Ryan pick, and pretend it’s (a) the end of the world (and of course their talking point is “it’s the end of Medicare as we know it”), and (b) it spells the end of Romney’s chances of winning. (No, they cannot address that logical contradiction. No, don’t worry, the media will not ask them to.)

Therefore, the dour liberal/progressives/socialists/fascists of the left will make every attempt to strike him down, as they tried but failed to do did to Sarah Palin. They will attack his character, and naturally also his good family, as they did Palin’s. They will make up BS stories, they will repeat them over and over no matter the factual argument we and honest  reporters confront them with. They will mischaracterize him at every turn. They will lie, They will dishonestly take what’s he’s said out of context. They will create false memes based on nothing but ether and false rumor (hi Senator Harry Reid, you liar!) and on pure innuendo. And the liberal-lefts’ entertainment division led by Jon Stewart and Bill Maher will mock, cajole, and demean him in the most dishonest, uncivil, disgusting or even filthy, and generally unintellectual manner imaginable (but by golly, they’re comedians, and they’re leftists, so it’s A-OK, Jack!).

Most of all, they will continue to avoid talking about Obama’s failed presidency.

So we know we’re right over the target.

Good pick.

Progs – “Mitt Romney Is the Worst Human Ever, Ever, Ever”

Wow, I thought George W. Bush was the worst man ever to walk the earth. Now, according to the Leftists, it’s Mitt Romney? Geez, what are all the mannish looking lesbians going to do with all that anti-Bush schwag? Maybe they can recycle it into a tricycle and ride that three-wheeler down to Uglytown and offset the mega carbon footprint their BS on Mitt has transmitted to mother earth. Make sure your Dockers don’t get caught in the spokes, ladies!

This week, in a further attempt to hide Obama’s disastrous presidency and thereby afford BHO four more years to entrench us further in an economic maelstrom, an Obama Super PAC attempted to paint Romney as an evil rapscallion who gives old ladies cancer.

Hey, Stupor PAC, why stop there with giving granny the scourge? Why don’t you sell even more loopy crap to the vacillating voting morons who’re beginning to wake up from the Obama voodoo juice you seduced them with four years ago? You’ve got to shoot for the moon, you stump shooters. Tell the goobers who watched and believed your “hope and change” schlock some doozies so they’ll stay corralled within your anti-American crab trap.

Yes, if you’re going to keep your constituents from making the savvy leap from Barack’s Marxism into more of an American free market system you’ve gotta ramp up the rhetoric, or they could officially wake up and leave your loser for Mitt.

So, I suggest that if you’re going to paint Mitt as Iron Maiden’s mascot, Eddie the Head, you need to get more creative with your bollocks.

For instance, tell your beholden sheeple that …
· Romney hates cute kittens and ring-tailed lemurs.

· Romney makes dogs ride on top of airplanes. Screw the cars. Say airplanes. It’s more terrifying.

· Romney wants poor people to drink mud and breathe secondhand smoke.

· Romney enslaves orphans and makes them pull his sled during leopard seal hunts. Naked. In the dead of winter.

· Romney purposely runs over manatees when he’s boating in south Florida.

· Romney thinks you ought to keep more of the money you’ve made versus giving it to lazy government sponges.

· Romney has five sons. Who does that?

· Romney was the third man on the grassy knoll. Lee Romney Oswald.

· Romney hates apples, eggs and pie.

· Romney gave a kid spinal meningitis.

· Romney pulled the spine out of a puppy once.

· Romney’s granddad killed Abraham Lincoln.

· Romney has a third nipple.

· Romney and his wife were at OJ’s house the night Nicole and Ron Goldman were killed. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Some of you are asking, “What if people check to see if the aforementioned sputum is true and find out it is all bunkum like they did with the Super PAC’s super specious cancer advert?” Well, I wouldn’t allow that to deter you. You’ve got one of the dumbest and densest constituencies known to mankind at your beck and call. Take courage because a little bit of hocus-pocus goes a long way with your serfs, and your lies will be reinforced within the echo chamber which is the lamestream media, so … I’d let ‘em rip. Shoot from the hip. Blast the gobbledygook into the airwaves. Say whatever and do whatever it takes to retain your power because if people ever get on to you (and your ruse is discovered to be lies wrapped in mysteries and covered with Marxist sauce) then you are done. Therefore, stay busy, stay hopeful, and remember, as Adolf once said, that the big lie works better than the small ones.

For further help, check out my latest video: 17 Reasons Why Romney’s The Anti-Christ & Why You Shouldn’t Vote For Him?

Young Voters: Obama’s a Cool President, and You’re a Broke Clod Living with Mommy

Obama appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s show this past week and did a slow jam with Fallon and his house band—a brilliant move by the Entertainer-in-Chief. I thought it was both funny and smart.

From a comedy perspective, it was well-written and well-performed by Obama, Fallon and The Roots. In terms of cleverness, it was shrewd in that the young people who watch Jimmy’s show probably don’t—or won’t—follow the manifold ways BHO has hammered the U.S. through his policies, and the majority of them love to laugh.

Ignorance + a Funny Bone = Ripe Pickings for the President.

So, from a propaganda angle, I believe Barack nailed a three-pointer; couch the lie between music and comedy, and boom … it won’t even touch the net! If they don’t wake up, Obama will get the same kids who bought a plate of economic crap from him in ‘08 asking for seconds in 2012 just because he’s hip.

Isn’t the definition of “insanity” voting for the same inept president and expecting a different result? Anyway …

This means that if Romney is going to win the youth vote, given their adoration of pop culture and their ignorance of the fact that he can actually help them make money, his handlers had better bring him to hipster speed if he wants to capture this young demo’s ferret-like attention span.

Herewith are a few ideas I’ve sketched down for Mitt to get hip for the voting kiddos:

1. Have Mitt hang out with Snoop Dogg for one month so Calvin can teach him the way of the Dogg. Snoop could help make Mitt’s vocabulary cool, West Coast style. I suggest Snoop stay with him until Romney automatically refers to himself as The Mizzile Romnizzie and his campaign slogan changes from “Believe in America” to “Obama Iz You High? Becuz You’ve Jack Things Up, Dawg.”2. Have Mitt work on his wardrobe—especially his accessories. I’m thinking he should start rocking a huge Flavor Flav-sized Moroni medallion and just own his Mormonism. Matter of fact, he should have someone dress up in head-to-toe gold like Moroni and blow a trumpet to introduce him before he speaks. Mitt should also get an attitude about his faith so that when some snarky MSNBC host maligns it he says something to the effect of, “You wanna talk smack about my religion? I hope your life insurance is paid up, punk, because I’m about to dot your eyes, home slice.” Kids love attitude. Everything smells, so attitude sells. #winning

3. Have Mitt join Ted Nugent and me for a massive skeet shoot where we switch the clay pigeons with Celine Dion CDs and have Hooters girls work the skeet towers. At the end of the shoot Mitt, Ted and I could blow up a huge Ahmadinejad mannequin with Barrett .50cals while AC/DC plays “Thunderstruck” to the 20,000 patriots in attendance.

4. Have Mitt openly take two Patrón tequila shots before each presidential debate. In addition, he should wear gold over-sized Ray-Ban Clubmasters during the contest while chewing on a cigar and belly laughing like the Joker every time Obama lies.

My thoughts behind this strategy for Mitt getting hip is that if he rivals Barack in the cool quotient then the deciding factor come November for this spry voting block might be Obama’s abysmal economic record and how he has woefully failed to deliver what he sold college kids on three-and-a-half years ago.

Yep, it might start to dawn on them that, sure, Obama is cool, he can sing a mean Al Green, and it’d be awesome to have a beer with him … but unfortunately, they can’t because:

• They’re broke.
• There are no jobs.
• They can’t drive to the pub because gas is so expensive.
• They are living in mommy’s basement.
• And their lives suck worse than Rosie O’Donnell extracting the jam out of a jelly doughnut.

This realization, in turn, might turn them off from putting the premium on cool and convince them to start examining which candidate has a better record, betwixt the twain, to stabilize our economy, stop the massive bleeding, and create jobs, wealth and opportunity. At the end of the day, a prosperous America is truly cool, and being a broke-ass college scrub, well … that sucks.

Speaking of cool, watch my latest video about Justin Bieber’s haircut here.

Romney Doing the Job the Republican Establishment Won’t Do

The actual Republican Establishment –- political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits — are exhorting Mitt Romney to flip-flop on his very non-Establishment position on illegal immigration.

Both as governor of Massachusetts and as a presidential candidate, Romney has supported a fence on the border, E-Verify to ensure that employees are legal and allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens. He is the rare Republican who recognizes that in-state tuition, driver’s licenses and amnesty are magnets for more illegal immigration.

These positions are totally at odds with Establishment Republicans who pander to the business lobby by supporting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration, and then accuse Americans opposed to a slave labor class in America of racism. If this continues, America will become California and no Republican will ever be elected president again. Big business doesn’t care and Establishment Republicans are too stupid to notice.

If you’re not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: “Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I’m paying?” Press “1″ to answer in English.

If the answer is “no,” illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.

Today, 70 percent of illegal immigrant households collect government benefits — as do 57 percent of all immigrant households — compared to 39 percent of native households.

Immigrant households with the highest rate of government assistance are from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent), based on the latest available data from 2009. Immigrant households least likely to be on any welfare program are from the United Kingdom (7 percent).

British immigrants aren’t picking the tomatoes Karl Rove doesn’t want his son to pick. (That’s how he justified Bush’s amnesty proposal.)

You can either pay a little more for tomatoes picked by Americans or you can pay a lot more in welfare to the illegal immigrants who will pick them as well as to generations of their descendants.

Yes, many illegal immigrants work hard, but it’s not our responsibility if their employers don’t pay them a living wage. This is known as an “externality,” which we hear a lot about in the case of greedy businesses polluting the land, but not when it’s greedy businesses making the rest of us support their underpaid employees.

Romney is one of the few Republicans to recognize that there is no need to “round up” illegal aliens (in the lingo of amnesty supporters) to get them to go home. Illegal aliens will leave the same way they arrived. They decided to walk across the border to get jobs — and welfare, apparently — and they’ll walk back across the border as soon as the jobs and welfare dry up.

Obama has a similar plan, but instead of using E-Verify to stop illegal aliens from taking American jobs, he did it by destroying the entire job market. Hmmmm, drug-war ravaged Ciudad Juarez, or Obama’s America … I’ll take Juarez! Under the booming economy President Romney is going to produce, we’re going to need a really high fence.

It didn’t take a government administrator “rounding up” foreigners and putting them on buses to get 20 million illegal aliens here, and it won’t take a government program “rounding them up” to get them home.

While Romney’s views on immigration are wildly popular with Americans, they are extremely unpopular with the Republican Establishment sucking up to business interests — Bush, Rove, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Gingrich, Giuliani, Krauthammer, Kristol, Gillespie, etc, etc.

(Maybe it’s the Establishment that’s been calling Romney “Establishment.”)

So now the elites are demanding that Romney “moderate” his position on immigration. To justify their underpaying the maid, they claim support for illegal immigration is crucial to victory! Obama’s ahead among Hispanics! How are you going to get the Hispanic vote? You’ve got to take Rubio as VP! And could somebody remind Esperanza to pick up little Chauncey from his play-date at 4:00 p.m.?

The truth is, a tough stance on illegal immigration can only help Romney, not only with the vast majority of Americans, but with any Latino voters who would ever possibly consider voting Republican in the first place.

As Romney said in one of the early debates, Republicans appeal to Latinos “by telling them what they know in their heart, which is they or their ancestors did not come here for a handout. If they came here for a handout, they’d be voting for Democrats. They came here for opportunity and freedom. And that’s what we represent.”

Romney crushed pro-amnesty Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary, winning a huge majority of that state’s substantial Hispanic population. And Gingrich promised Hispanics their own moon base!

Before the primary, Gingrich played up his support for amnesty, while accusing Romney of wanting to “round up” illegal alien grandmothers. The one thing every Florida primary voter knew was that Romney said he’d veto the Dream Act, giving citizenship to illegal alien children.

And then Romney won the primary with an even larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than Florida at large. Romney beat Gingrich statewide, 46 percent to 32. But among Latino voters, Romney routed Gingrich, 54 percent to 29 percent.

It’s not just Florida. In 2006, Arizona Hispanics supported four anti-illegal immigration propositions by 40 to 50 percent — which is a lot more than voted for pro-amnesty Republican presidential candidates John McCain or George W. Bush.

Among the propositions supported by Hispanics in larger numbers than they typically vote Republican was one making English the official language of Arizona (49 percent). As governor of Massachusetts, Romney pushed English-immersion programs. That’s my kind of Hispandering!

These are our Latinos — the ones, as Romney said, who came here for opportunity and freedom. Any race-mongering, welfare-collecting, ethnic-identity rabble-rousers are voting for the Democrat.