Skip to comments.Mitt! Please Read and Memorize
Posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: The latest Gallup numbers are in. Obama is down. This is the election poll, Gallup. It's Obama 47, Romney 46. It was 48-45. It was three; now it is two. And 47%, Romney said 47%, whatever he said, he said about 47%. So does Gallup. Gallup says Obama's got 47%, it's exactly what Romney said. But in the middle of all of this, I don't care where you look in the media, this last seven days was supposed to have finished Romney off, wasn't it? And yet Romney's up a point; Obama's down a point. The real world is that this past week has been an utter disaster for Barack Obama, and so is this election going to be.
I went back in the past. I think this Romney statement really is like saying the sky's blue. It's nothing that really shocks anybody. It's just that what it represents is an opportunity to the media and what it represents is an opportunity for the Obama campaign, but it's really no great... I mean, we've said it. A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.
"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy.
CNNMoney.com, February 7, 2012: "Government Assistance Expands -- More than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance." By the way, speaking of food stamps, who the hell's out there singing their praises? Who the hell is out there advertising for 'em? Who the hell is encouraging more people to get on them? I ask you the question. I'll answer it. "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!" and the Democrat Party. You know it and I know it. You've seen the ads, billboards, magazine ads. Not newspaper 'cause there aren't any of those anymore, newspaper ads. I got the story. It's devastating. You won't believe what's happening to newspaper advertising. Folks, it's a wonder there's a newspaper being printed today. I kid you not.
Who's out there advocating food stamps? Who is it that's advocating that you go out and find your benefits? That's Barack Hussein Obama. Is anybody out there advocating that you go make something of yourself? Is anybody advocating that you take control of your life, pursue excellence, follow your dreams, be ambitious, be the best you can be? If there is a candidate in this race that thinks that, believes that, and puts it into play, it is Mitt Romney. It's not Barack Obama. The 47% that we're talking about, that Gallup now confirms -- dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut -- are there in large part because of Democrat Party policies, because of the Barack Obama presidency, and there's no skirting it, there's no getting around it.
It's not because of George W. Bush. It's not because of George H. W. Bush. It's not because of Ronald Reagan. It's not because of the way we've always been doing it and we finally have to change it. It's because of the way we're doing it now. It's because of the policies of the Democrat Party as constituted today led by Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama. That's why. The number of people dependent on government is growing because they want that. They want more dependents. They want more need of government. They want more people thinking that government is where they get the fair shake.
They want more people believing that government is how they eat; that government is how they get a car; that government is how they get a cell phone, cell service, flat screen TV. They want people thinking it's government, and personally Barack Obama, who makes it possible. And we know from Barack Obama town hall meetings in Tampa shortly after he was immaculated, people showed up and did indeed ask for a new kitchen from Barack Obama. Some asked for a new car. Some asked for an entire house. Some thought today we're on the inside and that's what it means, that's what we get. Who is it that just gutted the work requirements of welfare reform? Was it Mitt Romney?
No, it was Barack Hussein Obama who just gutted the work requirements of welfare reform, which means what? Which means it used to be that in order to qualify for welfare you had to show that you were trying to find a job. No longer. That was considered to be unfair and punitive by Barack Obama. By the way, the welfare rolls were reduced and falling up until the Obama economy, because of welfare reform. Why would you strip the work requirements out of welfare? Why would you do that? What's wrong with work? Work is a good thing. Work is where people take their self-worth. Work is where people evaluate themselves, identify themselves, take their identity. Why would you want to talk down about work? Why would you dissuade people from the idea that work is good? Why would you want to tell people it's not possible, the jobs aren't there. This is a new norm. Why?
Who in the world wants to run a country where the new norm is one where there are no jobs? Who said unemployment creates jobs? Who said every dollar of unemployment adds $1.73 economic growth? Who said that? It was Nancy Pelosi. Who is she? Democrat Party. She used to be Speaker of the House, now the leader of the Democrats in the House. Who said food stamps create jobs? Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Party, Harry Reid. Really? Welfare creates jobs? See, we, meaning conservatives, we want better than this, for everybody. We want for everybody the opportunity to be the best they can be, the best they want to be. You talk about real love and compassion, that's us.
We're the ones that just don't accept this version of humanity, that people are incompetent, that they're inept, that they're not capable. That's the liberal view of people. You can't do it on your own. You need Pelosi or Reid or "Blabbermouth" Schultz or Obama. You need those people helping you. You need 'em looking out for you. You need 'em giving you your health care 'cause you're too dumb, stupid, incompetent, incapable to do it on your own. Mitt Romney doesn't think any of that. Paul Ryan doesn't think any of that. They have faith in people, believe in people, love people, want the best for everybody. I'm telling you, it's a golden opportunity that what Romney said to these donors has been made public. Work is how you become independent -- it's what the Republican Party wants. That's what the Democrat Party fears.
We want you independent of government. We don't want people depending on government. That's never gonna get anybody anything. That's not prosperity. That's existence, at best, subsistence, the norm. Nancy Pelosi's a millionaire. How did she become a millionaire, aside from marrying it? Do you think she did it on food stamps? John Kerry's a millionaire. How did he do it? He married it. Do you think John Kerry's a millionaire 'cause of food stamps or welfare or any of the other programs they want you to be on?
Who really has the best intentions for the poor? I would submit to you it's Mitt Romney. Any Republican, any conservative looks at people in poverty and says, "It's not necessary, not in this country." There are ways out of it. Not ways of sustaining it and calling that compassion. We don't define compassion by adding up the number of people who get food stamps. We define compassion by how many people no longer need any of that stuff. Not Barack Obama. Not Joe Biden. Not Harry Reid. Not Nancy Pelosi. And not the media. The more dependent you are, the more ignorant you must be, and that's how they want you.
President Obama likes to say that he believes in the American people, he believes in the American worker. But it is just the opposite. He doesnt think that we can make it with out his handouts and hand holding. That we need federal, state and local government to shield us from life. What he believes is that we are so small that for us life is a problem from which we need to be protected rather than a challenge and a joy to be embraced.
The Obama agenda is to turn the magnificent independent American middle class into a dependent welfare class in order to buy votes and power. What he knows is that if we accept his vision of us as needy, helpless and unable to cope with life, we will shrink to become that as a result of being dependent. What he believes is that we are too stupid and weak to resist our own destruction.
The only people who matter are the voters. Romney should speak to US and.. SCREW THE OBAMA-MEDIA AND THEIR 'SET-UPS' AND AMBUSHES!
When I mention the number of people dependent on government around my benchmark libs, they simply deny that it’s true.
I ask them how they know it’s not true and they won’t answer. They don’t want to admit the failure of their ideology.
Mitt is not the only candidate
video of burning U.S. Embassies and of the beaten, violated corpses of American diplomats being dragged through the streets- belongs to the other candidate.
Every answer Romney gives should include: Mr. Eastwood said it best: If he cant do the job, you must let him go.
I was just noticing the grammatical parallels between
Eastwood’s (rather gentlemanly and commensensical) statement
and Johnny Cochran’s “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit”.In Obama’s case, the glove fits just fine, and he must go, for he is GUILTY.