Public Schools Have Gone From Education To Indoctrination

The best asset a nation can have is the quality of its education system. Education is what keeps society moving forward, makes businesses stay competitive, allows new technology to emerge and makes it possible for people to achieve their dreams and goals. 

Education is the engine to America's success. It is what creates hard working scientists, creative musicians, caring doctors, innovative engineers and brave soldiers who keep America safe.  Education is about teaching people what they need to know.  Its also about helping people to think for themselves and how they can analyze, digest and act upon the information that they come across. Most importantly, education should be a neutral zone in which people can learn about a wide variety of ideas, theories, philosophies and beliefs.

Public education used to be one of America's best asset. However, many of these public schools have stopped educating and are now indoctrinating our students. One liberal blogger is starting to see the light on what conservatives have known all along about public education. He now sees that many of these schools are really indoctrination centers for liberal politics. Here's an excerpt from his blog:

For most of my life I was what you might call an apathetic leftie — I didn’t particularly care about politics, but I always voted Democratic and if the conversation came up I would inevitably concur with my friends’ inevitably “progressive” opinions. And that most definitely included education. It was one of the few things I always had a strong opinion about: education was A Good Thing under all circumstances and maximizing everyone’s education level was ultimately the solution to all problems: unemployment, intolerance, ignorance, public health — everything.

In my youthful brain I couldn’t even conceptualize anything other than “public education,” so that’s what I imagined I was in favor of: Making public school, from pre-school up through graduate school, accessible to everyone and of the highest standards. I was like, Duh, how can you have any other opinion?

But then 9/11 happened and like many once brain-dead liberals I awakened to a new reality. I didn’t particularly like this harsh new world, but I could see quite clearly that I had been drifting in a haze before, unaware of what was really going on. Mostly, as with most 9/11 Newborns, my new political awareness at first focused primarily on foreign policy and American Exceptionalism, but little by little, once this end was tugged, the fuzzy yarnball of my former political self unraveled entirely.

(Now it just lies in a jumbled heap on the floor.)

But as I walked around the rally in San Francisco, and later scanned the pictures taken by Ringo at the L.A. rally, I found myself thinking uncharitable thoughts about the protesting teachers: I hope your funding gets cut even more! Your demands are futile because the state is bankrupt anyway and there’s no more money to give; but even if the economy were to eventually recover, I would still want to see funding for public education slashed to a minimum.

Horrors! I was taken aback by my own thoughts. How could I be so cruel? What evil right-wing influence was making me think this way?

Even so, it’s hard to discuss the issue because the general adult public rarely gets a chance to actually perceive in person the kind of indoctrination that goes on daily in our classrooms. And without visual or experiential proof of the detractors’ claims, the indoctrinators always have plausible deniability: You wingnuts are hyperventilating over nothing! The only indoctrination going on is in your fevered dreams.

In fact, the left-leaning teachers’ unions often claim the opposite: that standardized testing forces them to teach rote learning as neutrally as possible, because school funding is now tied to each school’s overall test results.

And that’s what these May 13 rallies were all about: funding. Money money money, give us more money.

And then it hit me why I had such an adverse reaction to the whole thing:

The very act of them asking for money is what made me not want to give them money, because it revealed their political bias.

To read the rest of the article, go HERE. 

I strongly recommend reading the entire article because he discusses how he came to realize that the public education system no longer educates our students but indoctrinates them and what citizens, parents, leaders and politicians can do to destroy the iron grip that teacher's unions have on our public education system. It is also worth reading to see the pictures and videos posted on the blog.

Once you read the blog, you'll never look at public education the same way again. Even if you already believe that there is a liberal bias in public schools, it will open your eyes even wider.

I highly encourage you to share that article with others. The first step to improving our schools starts with educating the public about what our children learn in schools. Once the public becomes educated, then they will be more likely to support policies and programs that actually teaches our kids what they need to know to be successful in life. There are many wonderful alternatives to public education that give our children the kind of education they deserve and that is available to everyone such as school vouchers, private schools, online schools, home schooling and even private tutoring. 

Just as the solution to our energy problems is to diversify our sources of energy by allowing wind, water, nuclear, coal, solar and other energy sources to be produced in America, the solution to our current education crisis is to allow a diversity of avenues to education. It will reduce the monopoly that unions have on our schools, increase competition which will reduce the cost of education which make it affordable to everyone and actually get our kids educated. 

The famous phrase to fight bad speech with good speech. The only way to fight poor education is with good education. And the best way to do that is to educate your friends, family, teachers and political representatives about what's really going on in our public education system.

Half Of Likely Voters Think Mitt Romney Is Qualified To Be President

Positive polls for Mitt Romney keep coming in. Gallup recently released the results of a poll conducted among U.S. likely voters and found that nearly half of them think that Mitt Romney is qualified to be President:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters think that Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate in 2008, is qualified to be president. Twenty-five percent (25%) say he is not qualified, and another 25% are not sure.

The news gets even better for Mitt Romney when Republicans were asked who they thought among the current and potential 2012 candidates would be most qualified to be president: 

Among Republican voters, Romney leads as well, with 66% who feel he’s qualified to be president. Grouped together next in terms of whether GOP voters think they’re qualified are Gingrich (43%), Palin (42%) and Pawlenty (41%). 

Many Americans are tired of having a President who has been leading from behind on the economy.  Not only that, they're tired of having a president who has never been serious about reducing the deficit. President Obama has made multiple promises that the economy would be the main focus of his presidency and he has yet to make it a priority of his presidency.

We are now reaping the fruits of Obama's liberal economic policies and Americans are the ones who are feeling the brunt of it. With Moody threatening to reduce America's credit rating, unemployment at 9.1%, a national debt of $14 trillion, falling home prices, a steep slowdown in the manufacturing sector, and a downturn in the stock market resulting from a wave of weak economic news, America cannot afford to allow Obama to have a second term in office.

They reason why people are starting to warm up to Mitt Romney and think he is the most qualified Republican candidate is because they want a President who says he will make jobs and economy his priority and mean it. Not only that, they want a President who has actually done it. On the very day that Mitt Romney walked into the Massachusetts governor's office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion. When he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus. 

Mitt Romney is making jobs and the economy the number one issue that he cares deeply about in his 2012 campaign. It will remain his number one priority when he becomes the next President of the United States,

John Huntsman Skipping Iowa

Jon Huntsman says that he will not particpate in the Iowa primaries next year because he doesn't support ethanol subsidies:

"I'm not competing in Iowa for a reason. I don't believe in subsidies that prop up corn, soybeans" and ethanol, he said.

The ex-governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China said subsidies "distort the global marketplace" and lead to food inflation.

"We will be competing vigorously here, in South Carolina and Florida," Huntsman told a small gathering of Republicans at the North Conway Grand Hotel. "I probably won't be spending a lot of time in Iowa. I understand how the politics work there."

Iowa would have been a challenge for Huntsman, who is viewed with suspicion by some conservatives because of past support for policies relating to climate change, immigration and civil unions. Also, Huntsman, like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is a Mormon, and some of the evangelical voters who dominate the Iowa GOP caucuses were skeptical of Romney's 2008 bid in part because of his religious beliefs.

Huntsman demurred when asked whether his religion played a role in his decision to forgo Iowa. "I think it's more a function of our deployable troops and resources … and how those are best allocated and appropriated," he said during an interview.

To be honest, Jon Huntsman's excuse is lame.Avoiding a state just because some people in Iowa like federal subsidies is not a good enough excuse not to compete there.

Tim Pawlenty, who used to support ethanol subsidies, went to Iowa and began the first speech of his campaign talking about about his opposition to ethanol subsidies will participate in Iowa's primaries. Mitt Romney, who has consistently supported ethanol subsidies, will also be competing in Iowa as well. 

I also don't buy the fact that John Huntsman's religion is a good enough reason not to compete there either. Mitt Romney will be competing in Iowa even though he is of the same faith as John Huntsman. Although some people will not vote on account of a candidate's faith, it is not a sufficient reason to abandon a state. Many people thought Mitt Romney would not be campaiginig in that state for that same reason but he's going to compete there despite what people think of his religion. 

I think the real reason why John Huntsman is avoiding Iowa like the plague is because he worked for the Obama administration. Some Iowans may not like Mitt Romney or John Huntsman's faith. Some people will be unhappy with his opposition to ethanol subsidies. Some people may not like RomneyCare. But there is one thing that all Iowans do not like and that is people who are associated with the Obama administration in anyway, shape or form. 

Jon Huntsman may be able to avoid Iowa, but he cannot avoid his ties with the Obama administration. No matter what state he campaigns in, he's going to find that there are alot of angry people out there. Angry enough to hand the Democrats a historic defeat in the midterm elections. They're are angry enough to take it out on anyone associated with Obama even if they were just an ambassador to China. 

Alec Baldwin Is Wrong About Why People Like Mitt Romney But Not Barak Obama

Alec Baldwin, a well known liberal actor, has raised some eyebrows by tweeting about Mitt Romney:

 

The Huffington Post gave Alec Baldwin an opportunity to fully express his views about Mitt Romney and stated that Mitt Romney is a candidate that Barak Obama should take more seriously in 2012:

But apropos of my Twitter-izing about Mitt Romney and the GOP field of candidates, let me add this addendum. I did not write that Romney is a Ken doll. He is anything but. And the sooner Democratic political operatives agree on that, the better for Obama. I referred to that iconic retail figure to highlight those types that are lean of frame and square jawed, like Romney, who seem to hold the public's attention more easily. Something starkly visual that either aids a candidacy or rarely hurts it. Especially where the candidate is a male. Comments about Sarah Palin's beauty were punted around in the political media, but it was a double-edged sword that cost as much as it benefited. Especially with other women, oddly enough.

Romney is a serious challenge to Obama. He is wealthy, so he can pay for his own helicopter to his kid's ballgame. He lacks any of the abjectly feral, political hit man quality of, say, Gingrich. He is a decent speaker, and will only improve if his GOP handlers are as Pygmalionesque as they have proven in the past.

More importantly, Obama is still someone that many Americans have chosen to withhold their deepest feelings of admiration and affection for, in spite of the fact that he got bin Laden's scalp, contributed to saving the US auto industry (at least for now), and coughed up his birth certificate to silence all of that Swift-boating, election-nullifying trash out there. He appears to be a very bright, sober, hard-working, deeply caring man. A husband and father.

Obama is lean of frame and square of jaw and loves his country, too. Obama and Romney even share some opinions on matters of urgent domestic policy. Yet, in some people's eyes, Obama lacks something.

I wonder what that could be?

Alec Baldwin seems to imply from his tweet and his subsequent Huffington Post article that that that American public like good looking, family oriented, and patriotic men but who can hold the public's attention easily but that that some Americans have an unwarranted fear and loathe of Obama because he doesn't have a Plymouth Rock last name like Mitt's.  

Mr. Baldwin, that "something" that Obama lacks that Mitt Romney has is economic leadership. President Obama has never taken the economy or our nation's debt seriously. If President Obama took the economy more seriously, then Alec Baldwin wouldn't have to chastise Obama's political operatives for not taking Mitt Romney seriously as a possible challenger in the general election in 2012. 

In contrast, Mitt Romney has taken the economy seriously. His performance in Massachusetts reveals that the state's financial mess was his top concern as governor. When Mitt entered into office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion. However, he was able to balance the state budget for each year of his administration and got the state out of debt by implementing a mixture of aggressive reduction in the size and cost of government along with bold strategies to spur economic growth. By 2005, Mitt Romney had a budget surplus of $1 billion. When he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus. 

The truth is, Mr. Baldwin, is that people don't like Presidents whose policies do not promote economic growth. Its that simple. 

People didn't like Jimmy Carter despite the fact that his last name was about as American as apple pie. He was about as American as you can get. But the American people didn't like him because he did a poor job in handling the economy. As a result, they didn't elect him to a second term.

The American people made George H.W. Bush a single term president for the same reason. Despite his prestigious last name and overwhelming support from the American people during the first Gulf War, he lost to Bill Clinton because of his poor handling of the economy. Bill Clinton hammered George Bush on the economy and famously quipped, "Its the economy, stupid." 

Once again, the American people don't care about who the politician is or his last name. However, they do care deeply about the politician's economic performance. George Bush pushed Saddam Back out of Kuwait and back into Iraq. Barak Obama got Bin Laden's scalp. But it will be the economy that will make these men one term presidents.

Lets look at why people don't like Barak Obama, Mr. Baldwin. With Moody threatening to reduce America's credit rating, unemployment at 9.1%, a national debt of $14 trillion, falling home prices, a steep slowdown in the manufacturing sector, and a downturn in the stock market resulting from a wave of weak economic news, its not surprising to find out that unemployment as the number one concern with the economy following as the number two concern for Americans.  

As a result, Alec Baldwin is 100% wrong in his observations about why people like Mitt Romney but they don't like Barak Obama. The reason why people do not support Obama has nothing to do with how "American" a candidate's last name is. It has everything to do with the economy. 

But its too late now for Obama to turn the economy around. The 2012 elections are already starting to heat up. That is why people are starting to warm up to Mitt Romney. And that is why Barak Obama, like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, whill be a one term President.

When Will The Media Understand That Paul Ryan Is Not Running In 2012?

Despite the fact that the media keep asking Paul Ryan if he's going to run in this upcoming Presidential election, he's not running in 2012. He's been very clear on that since he gave a pretty firm Sherman statement on Meet The Press a few weeks ago. Recently, Paul Ryan sat down with David Brody and he slammed the door on any possibility of running in 2012 pretty hard: 

David Brody: “There are a lot of people who want you to run for president. Would you consider it? The key is the word consider?”

Congressman Paul Ryan: “I’m really not doing that. The reason is I really do believe I can make a big difference where I am right now. I helped start a budget fight. I helped start this budget conversation in America. I want to see it through and as chairman of the House Budget Committee I think I’m in a pretty good position to do that.”

David Brody: “But you’re leaving your options open?”

Congressman Paul Ryan: “I’m not really leaving m options open. I’m not trying to give you loose talk. If you’re running for president you’ve got to be running for president. You’ve got to be lining it all up. You’ve got to be going to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I’m not doing any of those things. I am fighting to clean up this budget mess in Washington. We’re in the middle of a budget fight and I really think that I can do more for my constituency and country right where I am.”

Paul Ryan has been pretty adamant on not running in 2012. Yet people ask him anyways as if he's going to change his answer. He has repeatedly stated that his focus is on his work in Senate and getting his budget reforms through Congress. How many times does the media need to ask this question before they understand that he's not running? 

Mitt Romney's 2012 Announcement Speech:"Obama Has Failed America"

Many of you were not able to watch Mitt Romney give his speech which was broadcasted live on the Internet. Below is the video and transcript of his speech in New Hampshire: 

Here's the transcript:

Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced his candidacy for President of the United States. Romney made his remarks at Doug and Stella Scamman’s farm. The following remarks were prepared for delivery:

Thank you for coming. And I want to thank Doug and Stella Scamman for hosting us on their beautiful farm.

You know, everyone here today can tell a different story. We have different backgrounds and we wake up in the morning and go to different jobs … or, look for different jobs. We go to different churches or maybe don't go to church so much. I bet some of you have families who go back 200 years or more in New Hampshire. And there must be some who just snuck in across the border, from Massachusetts. I hear the taxes are better over here. 

But here we are on a beautiful June day coming together to begin a process that we often, quite naturally, take for granted. But it is really one of the great achievements in the history of the world. For all of our country’s wealth and influence, those are not the source of our greatness. The true strength of America is self-rule, and a government that answers to a free and independent people.

We live in the most powerful nation that ever existed.  And it all goes back to a few men and women who had the courage to stand - and even die - for their belief in liberty and equality.  Because of their vision, the United States of America is not ruled by a monarchy or controlled by an aristocracy. Though sometimes folks in Washington might act otherwise, we don't have a House of Lords with inherited power. And as the Red Sox like to remind the New York Yankees, there are no dynasties in America.

Who rules this great nation?

You do. Every four years you decide who will give that State of the Union address, who will set the course of the country, who will be Commander in Chief.

What's true right here in this New Hampshire farm has always been true in America. Though each of us is different, though each of us will choose to walk a different path in life, we are united by one great, overwhelming passion: We love America. We believe in America.

Today we are united not only by our faith in America. We are united also by our concern for America.

This country we love is in peril. And that, my friends, is why we are here today.

A few years ago, Americans did something that was, actually, very much the sort of thing Americans like to do: We gave someone new a chance to lead; someone we hadn't known for very long, who didn't have much of a record but promised to lead us to a better place.

At the time, we didn't know what sort of a President he would make. It was a moment of crisis for our economy, and when Barack Obama came to office, we wished him well and hoped for the best.

Now, in the third year of his four-year term, we have more than promises and slogans to go by. 

Barack Obama has failed America.

When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse. And he made it last longer.

Three years later, over 16 million Americans are out of work or have just quit looking. Millions more are underemployed.

Three years later, unemployment is still above 8%, a figure he said his stimulus would keep from happening.

Three years later, foreclosures are still at record levels.

Three years later the prices of homes continue to fall.

Three years later, our national debt has grown nearly as large as our entire economy.

Families are buried under higher prices for food and higher prices for gasoline.

It breaks my heart to see what’s happening in this country.

These failing hopes make up President Obama’s own misery index. It’s never been higher. And what’s his answer? He says this: “I’m just getting started.”

No, Mr. President, you’ve had your chance. We, the people on this farm, and citizens across the country are the ones who are just getting started. 

I visited with a family, Kathy and Dave Tyler, who live in a suburb north of Las Vegas, Nevada. You probably know families just like them. They're in their early forties, a couple who had worked hard, sacrificed to buy a home in a good neighborhood, the sort of place they wanted their daughter Allie to grow up. But now that neighborhood is being crushed by this Obama economy. First their neighbors started losing their jobs...and then their homes. And all around them now are abandoned houses... and abandoned dreams.

When the Tylers wake up in the morning and get Allie off to school and then go to work and do everything they can to make it to the end of the month and hold their lives together, it doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat, Independent or...Libertarian. They're just Americans. An American family.

And across the richest, greatest country on earth, there are millions of American families like the Tylers. Folks who grew up believing that if they played by the rules, worked hard, that they would have the chance to build a good life, with steady work and always that possibility to work a little harder and get ahead.

And in that America, you don't wonder if your children will have a better life. You know they will. You know it the same way we know that tomorrow morning the sun is going to come up in the East right over this field.

That confidence in a better tomorrow defines us as Americans.

When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, they surely had many questions and doubts about the life before them, but one thing they knew without a doubt is that they were coming to a place where anything was possible—that in America, their children would have a better life.

I believe in that America. I know you believe in that America. It is an America of freedom and opportunity. A nation where innovation and hard work propel the most powerful economy in the world. A land that is secured by the greatest military the world has ever seen, and by friends and allies across the globe. 

President Obama sees a different America and has taken us in a different direction.

A few months into office, he travelled around the globe to apologize for America.

At a time of historic change and great opportunity in the Arab world, he is hesitant and uncertain. He hesitated to speak out for the dissidents in Iran, but his Administration boasts that he is “leading from behind” in Libya.

He speaks with firmness and clarity, however, when it comes to Israel. He seems firmly and clearly determined to undermine our longtime friend and ally. He’s treating Israel the same way so many European countries have: with suspicion, distrust and an assumption that Israel is at fault.

To his credit, the President ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. In Afghanistan, the surge was right, announcing a withdrawal date was wrong. The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars.

Here at home, the President seems to take his inspiration not from the small towns and villages of New Hampshire but from the capitals of Europe.

With the economy in crisis, his answer is to borrow money we can't afford and throw it at Washington bureaucrats and politicians. Just like Europe.

Instead of encouraging entrepreneurs and employers, he raises their taxes, piles on record-breaking mounds of regulation and bureaucracy and gives more power to union bosses.

Instead of recognizing the states rightful authority to solve problems, he seizes power from them and rams through a disastrous national health care plan.

This President's first answer to every problem is to take power from you, your local government and your state so that so-called “experts" in Washington can make those choices for you. And with each of these decisions, we lose more of our freedom.

You and I understand this. We look at our country, and we know in our hearts that things aren’t right, and they’re not getting better.

President Obama’s European answers are not the right solution to America’s challenges. 

In the campaign to come, the American ideals of economic freedom and opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense, and I intend to make it—because I have lived it.

Twenty-seven years ago, I left a steady job to join with some friends to start a business. Like many of you, it had been a dream of mine to try and build a business from the ground up. We started in a small office a couple of hours from here and over the years, we were able to grow from ten employees to hundreds.

My work led me to become deeply involved in helping other businesses, from innovative startups to large companies going through tough times. Sometimes I was successful and helped create jobs, other times I was not. I learned how America competes with companies in other countries, what works in the real world and what doesn't.

I left my business in 1999 to help put the Salt Lake City Olympics back on track. And when the Games were over, I came home to Massachusetts and served as governor.

I'd never held office before but I went at it like I ran businesses and the Olympics: ask tough questions and take on the toughest problems first, because they'll only get worse.

When I took office, I faced a nearly $3 billion budget hole. My legislature was over 85% Democrat. The expectation was that we'd have to raise taxes but I refused. I ordered a review of all state spending, made tough choices and balanced the budget without raising taxes. That sent a message that business as usual was over.

Over the next four years, we consolidated agencies, cut programs, sold state property and cut taxes nineteen times. The state was giving away over a billion dollars in free health care, much of it to people who could have paid something but were gaming the system. You won't be surprised that a lot of Democrats thought we should be giving away even more.

I took it on and hammered out a solution that took a bad situation and made it better. Not perfect but it was a state solution for a state problem. At the end of four years, it took over 800 vetoes but we balanced every budget, restored a $2 billion dollar rainy day fund and kept our schools first among all 50 states.

All of these experiences -- starting and running businesses for 25 years, turning around the Olympics, governing a state -- have helped shape who I am and how I lead.  Of course, if I ran through a list of all my mistakes, Ann would find it hilarious, and we'd be here all night. But I've learned a lot.

Turning around a crisis takes experienced leadership and bold action. For millions of Americans, the economy is in crisis today, and unless we change course, it will be in crisis for all of us tomorrow.

Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40% of our economy. We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy. I will cap federal spending at 20% or less of the GDP and finally, finally balance the budget.

My generation will pass the torch to the next generation, not a bill.

I will insist that Washington learns to respect the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment. We will return responsibility and authority to the states for dozens of government programs – and that begins with a complete repeal of Obamacare.

From my first day in office my number one job will be to see that America once again is number one in job creation. You know, if you want to create jobs, it helps to have had a job. I will make business taxes competitive with other nations, modernize regulations and bureaucracy and finally promote America’s trade interests. It’s time for a president who cares more about America’s workers than he does about America’s union bosses. 

Over the last thirty years, I can't tell you how many times I've heard a situation is hopeless. But I've never been very good at listening to those people and I've always enjoyed proving them wrong.

It's one of the lessons I learned from my Dad.

My father never graduated from college. He apprenticed, as a lath and plaster carpenter, and he was darn good at it. He learned how to put a handful of nails in his mouth and spit them out, point forward. On their honeymoon, he and Mom drove across the country. Dad sold aluminum paint along the way, to pay for gas and hotels.

There were a lot reasons my father could have given up or set his sights lower. But Dad always believed in America; and in that America, a lath and plaster man could work his way up to running a little car company called American Motors, and end up Governor of a state where he had once sold aluminum paint.

For my Dad, America was the land of opportunity, where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one’s dreams. Small business and entrepreneurs were encouraged, and respected, and a good worker could almost always find a good job.

The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and can-do propelled our standard of living and economy past every other nation on earth.

I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag. We stand for freedom and opportunity and hope.

These last two years have not been the best of times. But while we’ve lost a couple of years, we have not lost our way. The principles that made us a great nation and leader of the world have not lost their meaning. They never will.

We know we can bring this country back.

I'm Mitt Romney. I believe in America.

And I'm running for President of the United States.

Now that Mitt Romney is officially in for 2012, you can show your support for Mitt Romney by making a donation to his campaign or show your support for him using a cool new feature on Mitt Romney's facebook page. 

Lets join together and stand with Mitt: 

Mitt Romney Is In For 2012!!!

Today, Mitt Romney will be announcing that he will officially be a candidate for 2012. You can watch him give his speech live by visiting the Mitt Romney Central website.

Mitt Romney's speech will focus on how Obama's lack of leadership has failed America, especially when it comes to the the economy: 

"A few years ago, Americans did something that was, actually, very much the sort of thing Americans like to do: We gave someone new a chance to lead, someone we hadn't known for very long, who didn't have much of a record but promised to lead us to a better place," Romney says, describing the man he hopes to meet head-to-head in November 2012.

"At the time, we didn't know what sort of a president he would make. ... Now, in the third year of his four-year term, we have more than promises and slogans to go by. Barack Obama has failed America."

The economy will be the most important issue of the 2012 election. Right now, unemployment as the number one concern with the economy following as the number two concern for Americans. It will also be the number one reason why President Barak Obama will not be reelected: 

Ultimately, the 2012 presidential election will be decided by the state of the economy, and new data released this week makes grim reading for the White House. In fact you cannot watch a US financial news network at the moment, from Bloomberg to CNBC to Fox Business, without a great deal of pessimism about the dire condition of the world’s biggest economy. 66 percent of Americans now worry the federal government will run out of money in the face of towering public debts.

To say this has been an extremely bad week for the Obama administration on the economic front would be a serious understatement. As The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, home prices in the United States have sunk to their lowest levels since 2002, falling 4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011. At the same time, employment growth is stalling, with only 38,000 Americans added to the workforce in May, the smallest increase since September. This compares with 179,000 jobs added in April. There has also been a steep slowdown in the manufacturing sector, and a downturn in the stock market on the back of weak economic news.

Mitt Romney's plan to defeat Barak Obama is pretty simple. Mitt Romney has been consistently reminding Americans of President Obama's poor performance on the economy. 

The truth is that Mitt Romney has been on the offensive with Obama when it comes to the issue of the economy. In fact, he's been doing ever since Obama walked into the White House. In October of 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an article explaining that Obama's plan to pass a second stimulus package was the wrong way to fix the economy. In December of 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed explaining to Obama the basics of job creation and attacking him for his Orwellian use of "jobs saved or created." On August 18, 2010, Romney wrote another opinion piece in which he advised Obama that the only way to grow jobs is to reduce the size of government. The former Massachusetts Governor's article was praised for his ability to lay down specifics about fixing our country's economy rather than issuing general statements as politicians tend to do in offering solutions. He also disagreed in an article with both Republicans and Obama over the passage of taxes in December of 2010. 

Mitt Romney continued to hammer Obama on the economy in the editorial pages. Romney very critical of Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech pointing out that the President lacks any direction when it comes to fixing our country's economy. In March of 2011 by writing an an op-ed for USA Today pointing out that when it comes to the issue of unemployment, President Obama has been absent in dealing with this issue despite the fact that has made multiple promises that the economy would be the main focus of his presidency. In April 2011, Romney wrote two op-eds in the National Review Online and in the Orlando Sentinel, criticizing Obama for his lack of leadership when it comes to the issue of handling the economy. 

Not only has Mitt Romney been hammering Obama in the editorials of major newspapers, but he also shared his message in the speeches he gave. The former governor of Massachusetts went after Obama on the economy in last year's 2010 CPAC conference (which you can watch here). The following year, Mitt Romney gave a rousing speech at the 2011 CPAC  in which he focused on one important issue. In that speech, he directed all of his energies at attacking Barak Obama's failure to take command of the economy and halting job losses when it was clearly our nation's most pressing concern since the day he entered office.

Mitt Romney's speech at the 2011 CPAC conference highlights the most glaring problem about the Obama Presidency when it comes to the issue of our economy. Obama has been extremely focused on accomplishing other things except  dealing with the economy and job losses. As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, President Obama has never been serious about reducing the deficit even though Obama has made multiple promises that the economy would be the main focus of his presidency: 

He made a promise to tackle the economy during the early days of his presidency and yet went on to push ObamaCare through the legislature. He repeated that promise almost a year ago after Scott Brown was elected to represent Massachusetts but still kept fighting for ObamaCare. And he has recently made that promise in September of 2010 that he would focus exclusively on the economy.  Obama has always been good at making promises but has never been good at following through with them. He makes promises and then moves onto other "important" projects like Obamacare.

Another example of Obama's lack of leadership on reducing the deficit is that he created an 18 member strong bipartisan commission to address the deficit and they came up with some bold recommendations on how to reduce the nation's debt.  However, Obama completely rejected their proposals. Now Obama wants a brand new commission to take a look at ways to reduce the debt which is what the earlier commission did. What gives the American people confidence that President Obama will listen to this new deficit commission if he rejected the proposals of the earlier commission that he created?

Even when President Obama was a Senator, he didn't take the deficit seriously since he admits that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was for political reasons.

But even for the brief moments would Obama would work on the economy, his solutions have always been to spend more money. In his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama called for spending more money to reduce unemployment even while unemployment was excessively high. A month later, Obama kept pushing for Congress to spend money to lower unemployment. Most of us wasn't surprised when Obama unveiled the same old plan of spending more money to fix the economy in his 2011 State of the Union address.

With all the money that Obama has doled out to reduce spending, unemployment is still above 9% despite promising that unemployment would never rise above 8%.

Right now, I'm reading a book called The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes. Its a book that I highly recommend because its wonderful account how F.D.R. sought to fix the economy by spending large amounts of money and establishing numerous government programs. Despite the growth of government and the wild spending, F.D.R could never get unemployment below 20% throughout the entire Great Depression. The chart below nicely shows that the unemployment rate remind high for almost the entire time F.D.R was president.

 

We cannot tolerate repeating history by letting unemployment remain stagnant for a long period of time like it did under the Great Depression. We are now on the verge of heading into a double dip recession or possibly  another major Depression. Although Mitt Romney isn't the first person to point out the correlation between big government and excessive spending and long term unemployment, he's the only candidate who has the greatest potential of being able to put Obama in the unemployment line in 2012.