Author: Papa Giorgio

History vs. Romney ~ Taking Drudge Report to Task

Published by Papa Giorgio

Take note I have posted smears from the Gingrich side that are also just as untrue. This from Gateway Pundit:

It should be clear by now that the elites in the Republican Party will do and say anything to destroy Newt Gingrich or anyone else who challenges the Romney machine. Drudge, Coulter, Britt Hume, the folks at National Review, Jen Rubin etc. are just a few of the prominent conservatives trying to not only persuade you that Romney is some sort of conservative, but that Newt Gingrich, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant, is some kind of squish.

Legal Insurrection today sets the record straight on the Gingrich record. Professor Jacobson dug up this video from 1995 where Nancy Reagan tells a conservative audience that,

You’ll have to decide for yourself how much of the latest Romney smear campaign you’re going to believe but as Jeffrey Lord writes, “Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan’s Young Lieutenants.“

The linked article of Jeffrey Lord in the Gateway post ends like this:

… This utterly dumb line of attack for Romney is as bad if not worse than Gingrich’s flirtation with attacking Bain Capital. It raises exactly all the questions of Romney’s vulnerabilities. Why, for example, did Romney deliberately play the wimp when it comes to defending Ronald Reagan in Massachusetts? At precisely the time in the fall of 1994, it should be noted, when Newt Gingrich was leading Chapter 2 in the Reagan Revolution? Is Romney really trying to draw attention to the fact that while Gingrich and hundreds of Republicans were on the verge of a historic landslide retaking the House by attaching themselves to the Reagan legacy… Romney ran from Reagan… and got clobbered?

If even those simple political basics can’t be learned, which in Romney’s case now include not just the broader inability to defend either Reagan or free markets but the quite specific inability to use the general principle of free markets and capitalism to defend himself over the inevitable “Mr. 1%” accusations — this should be a red flag for conservatives.

Who knows why Romney gets tongue tied? Or, as our friends at the Wall Street Journal note, “befuddled.”

This guy is not so befuddled:

Legal Insurrection has been the leader on dealing with this topic of bashing Newt with false ideas, and is even bringing the fight (and rightfully so) between “cousins” to the DrudgeReport with history and facts, LI has this:

…For several days Drudge has been running almost around-the-clock negative banners against Newt, hyping negatives and burying news which contradicts the Romney campaign narrative that Newt was anti-Reagan.

Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:

Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF

Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi

Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb

Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI

Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2

Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA

Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L

Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw

I’ll add to that Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, who wrote the historic Berlin Wall address in which President Reagan urged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”:

Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should “let Reagan be Reagan.”  If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it.  He was in Congress.  That was, in a sense, his job.  And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy.  Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.

Drudge has 30 million visits a day on his side.  We have history on our side.  Make it known.

Warren buffets Secretary makes $200,000 dollars or MORE! Rush Limbaugh Weighs In (plus: Ronald Reagan Acknowledging Lenny Skutnik-1982)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This nugget is from Forbes Magazine:

Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the president’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.

We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffett keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income.  So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.

Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffett is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes

`RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!` ~ Synagogue Bomber Anthony Graziano

Published by Papa Giorgio

This topic is one that deals with a larger one, which is, Ron Paul, by all understanding is an anti-Semite, and attracts those who think likewise. Now, Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican caveats that Ron Paul is NOT an anti-Semite while mentioning his old bosses hatred for everything Israel… but even the people Dr. Paul surrounds himself with is telling.

  • While most of the Ron Paul supporters are not anti-Semitic and are sincere, upstanding people in the community, almost all anti-Semites support Ron Paul…

…a distinction worth memorizing. Remember also that Ron Paul surrounds himself with anti-Semitic persons which isn’t guilt by association but rather guilt by proxy (a more damning understanding of the idea).

Continuing from the story found at LR about the Synagogue bomber:

…And a friend confirms he hated Jews:

some of Graziano’s friends… One, who did not want to be identified, told CBS 2 “for the past two months, he’s been talking about how much he hates Jews because they were going to take over the country. This kid is crazy. He’s insane.”

Obama Part of the 1% (In Income and In Charity Giving)

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Gateway Pundit:

Obama charitable contributions

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%