You are here: Home / Archives for Doug Book

The Law Itself Says Virtually No One Has To Participate In ObamaCare!

November 21, 2012 by 31 Comments

Obamacare SC The Law itself says virtually no one has to participate in ObamaCare!

Twila Brase, president of the Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) and one of the most educated of Americans concerning the ins and outs of Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, believes the language of the law makes it clear that the overwhelming majority of people do not have to participate in ObamaCare unless they freely wish to do so. Brase writes:

Obamacare has more chinks in its armor than a turtle without a shell. As a result, state governors and legislators can inflict great damage. The following amazing chink was discussed by a Goldwater Institute attorney during a Tennessee-based webinar on Monday (at which I was a panelist). It’s only 10 lines long in the 950-page version of the law:

‘No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendment), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.’

I emailed Twila Brase and suggested that this language indicates that ONLY “health insurance issuers” may escape fines or penalties for not participating in Barack Obama’s signature healthcare takeover. Individuals and businesses who choose to not participate will face crushing fines and penalties obviously designed to FORCE their submission to the will of the left. Certainly, we have already heard of these punitive fines and penalties.

Ms. Brase was kind enough to respond, writing that “lawyers disagree” with my reading of this tiny portion of the law.

Is it possible that we are misreading the language and intent of the law? Does the above sentence actually mean to say that all “individuals, businesses, nonprofit entities and health insurance issuers” who offer group and individual health insurance coverage and refuse participation in ObamaCare will not be fined? That is, individuals who offer group or individual health insurance, businesses who offer group or individual health insurance, etc? Clearly, this would dramatically reduce the number of those who could refuse to obey the ObamaCare law and still avoid punishment.

One thing is certain–it’s difficult to imagine that a radical left at long last politically capable of literally controlling the life and death of 300 million American citizens could be guilty of stating that no one has to obey its commands! How could these power-hungry Marxists manufacture a 2700 page law, bribe and intimidate recalcitrant politicians into supporting it, and then commit such an extraordinary oversight?

Nearly 3 dozen lawsuits designed to take down ObamaCare are now working their way through federal courts. Maybe the question of who must really obey the law will eventually be answered. Until then, we can only hope that Twila Brase is absolutely correct and the creators of ObamaCare have made a monumental blunder.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

John Kasich Betrays Conservatives, Lies About “Blocking ObamaCare” In Ohio

November 21, 2012 by 20 Comments

428px Governor John Kasich John Kasich betrays conservatives, lies about “Blocking ObamaCare” in Ohio

Ohio’s Republican Governor John Kasich has reneged on his campaign pledge to “block ObamaCare” from being established in Ohio. And he has done it a way that would make Barack Obama proud—by lying through his teeth.

Contrary to Nancy Pelosi’s claims, passing ObamaCare has not enabled most Americans to know what’s in it. But one thing has become clear to those who have studied this signature, power-play legislation of the left— courageous Republican governors can kill it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can only infect the nation and the American people if states are willing either to set up state-based ObamaCare exchanges, or “partner” with the federal government, thereby allowing an exchange to be installed and operated by the Department of Health and Human Services. BUT, although the federal government can “…by law TRY to impose a HHS-run federal exchange” in states that refuse to provide assistance, Congress appropriated no money with which the government can build or operate it! And so far, the House has refused to provide that funding.

In short, if a state does not accommodate the HHS by setting up a state-based exchange or acceding to a partnership, there will be no ObamaCare in the state. And if enough states hold the line, the Marxist healthcare scheme will fail.

By November 16th, the original deadline for states to advise the feds of their intentions concerning ObamaCare exchanges, 15 states had informed HHS that they would do NOTHING to allow the implementation of an ObamaCare exchange, most even passing legislation against the plan entering their state at all.  Another 12 states remain “undecided”, and 18 have chosen to create state-based exchanges (that is, go “all-in” for Barack’s healthcare takeover and rationing plan.)

Six states have decided to “partner” with the federal government in a “state-federal partnership exchange.” John Kasich’s Ohio is one of the six, although Kasich’s own words and website seek to relate a very different story.

“OHIO WILL NOT RUN AN OBAMACARE HEALTH EXCHANGE,” boasts the governor on his state website. This seeming rebuke of ObamaCare is actually a mere parsing of words, one that would make Bill Clinton proud. For that Ohio will NOT “run” an ObamaCare exchange simply means that Kasich refuses to set up a state-based model.

But his true intentions are exposed in an email sent to selected businesses in the state by Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols. In it Nichols writes: “…[Kasich] informed HHS that Ohio will retain regulatory control over health insurance plans offered through a federally-operated exchange as well as retain the authority to determine who is eligible for Medicaid benefits. The Administration will submit additional details to the federal government prior to HHS’s February 14 deadline.” (4)

That February date reveals Kasich’s dissembling as it “…refers to the date HHS has given states to provide a blueprint for a hybrid state-federal exchange partnership.” States that are truly refusing ObamaCare have no deadline and need provide no blueprint!

With his language and bluster, Kasich hopes to convince Ohio conservatives and Tea Party activists that he remains committed to preventing ObamaCare taking over the healthcare industry in Ohio. Yet at the same time, his spokesman attempts to reassure Ohio business leaders that the state will “retain regulatory control over health insurance plans offered through a federally-operated exchange.”

There should BE no exchange at all, Mr. Kasich, federally-operated or otherwise. The law clearly states that the federal government—that is the HHS—has total control over all healthcare issues in any state in which an exchange is located, federally-operated or otherwise.  Kasich is either grossly misinformed or kidding himself if he believes Ohio will maintain any authority. And worst of all, he is selling-out Ohio residents, betraying their freedom to the most corrupt president in the nation’s history in a dishonest attempt to play both ends against the middle.

For those who wonder why conservative voters stay home on Election Day, John Kasich’s behavior provides a classic answer.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

Why Was David Petraeus Investigated At All?

November 20, 2012 by 8 Comments

General David Petraeus SC Why was David Petraeus investigated at all?

What caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation to play the role of voyeur in the affair between David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell? We have been told that FBI agent Fred Humphries—the instigator of the original investigation into “threatening emails” sent by Broadwell to Jill Kelley–was concerned that secret documents might have been passed to or stolen by Broadwell. Yet the FBI made it clear that a breach of national security was NOT at issue in their investigation. “By late October, the FBI had concluded there was no national security breach and was only pursuing a criminal investigation of the harassing emails and whether Petraeus had played any role in them.”

And DID Petraeus play any role in the harassing emails? Well, he certainly didn’t write them, send them, or recommend they be sent. So he clearly played no role. That leads back to the question: Why did the FBI decide to concentrate on David Petraeus and this particular sexual affair, one of who knows how many going on among big-name federal employees?

In the beginning, the Bureau had a tough time deciding whether any laws had even been broken! One source “who worked at the highest levels of national intelligence” told a reporter that “…the emails that Paula Broadwell sent to Tampa Bay socialite Jill Kelley actually weren’t threatening–just catty.” “Kind of cat-fight stuff,” continued the source.  They contained language in the manner of: “Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base … You need to take it down a notch.”

So from the start,“…the FBI had a serious debate about whether they should pursue the case at all” and apparently only did so because Jill Kelley was a family friend of Agent Fred Humphries! After all, had Broadwell threatened Kelley with physical harm or death, the emails would have immediately been published in order to legitimize the FBI investigation to the public and further discredit David Petraeus and his mistress. It’s just the way Barack Obama works.

On October 26th a CIA spokesman made the following statement concerning the lack of assistance  provided to those killed in Beghazi: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”  It was a statement that obviously had to be cleared by Director David Petraeus.

Testifying before Congress in September, the General repeated the Administration’s line about a video being responsible for the uprising that led to the deaths in Benghazi, even though he knew it to be nonsense. But he would NOT assume responsibility for the craven betrayal of those men to the hands of Muslim terrorists.

And not only did Petraeus refuse to take the fall for Obama’s cowardice and treachery in abandoning Chris Stevens and the others; he might well have known that it was indeed Obama who had both doomed these men AND subsequently removed language from original CIA talking points that deemed terrorists, not a video, responsible for their murders.

Clearly, this would cause Obama to view Petraeus as a very real danger, so he instructed the FBI to take him out. David Petraeus wasn’t forced to resign because of some ridiculous affair. Rather, he had become a disloyal threat in the eyes of Barack Hussein Obama. And the incessantly corrupt cannot risk the continued existence of “unreliable” people who know too much about their thuggish and criminal ways. It’s far too dangerous.

The national media wants us to believe that David Petraeus was discredited and forced out of his position over an affair, the sort of moral mischance that would not cost the average Democrat a sleepless night, much less a job. Sorry Barack, but we’re just not buying it.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Republican House Leader Covered Up For Obama Regime

November 16, 2012 by 25 Comments

Eric Cantor Official Portrait Republican House Leader covered up for Obama Regime

In late October, an FBI agent and whistleblower brought a story of possible Bureau corruption to Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. It was a story of Obama Regime operatives deliberately sacrificing the national security interests of the United States for the president’s political gain.

And what did the Republican house leader do with that information, which—10 days before the election–could have shown that Barack Obama placed his own political advantage above the security of the nation?  Why, naturally, he took the story to just one person–Obama appointee and FBI Director Robert Mueller, the very man who would have been responsible for the betrayal of those security interests in the first place!

On October 27th, Tampa FBI field agent Fred Humphries contacted US Representative David Reichert and told him that the FBI was dragging its feet in an investigation of possible national security leaks. Reichert directed Humphries to the far more politically powerful Eric Cantor who, along with staff members, met with Humphries.

The investigation had been prompted by Humphries when family friend Jill Kelley told the agent that she had received numerous emails she considered threatening. Humphries took the story to Tampa FBI office higher-ups, and the investigation led to Paula Broadwell, mistress of General David Petraeus.

Though the investigation had begun in late spring, little had transpired by October; and Humphries began to suspect that FBI officials were deliberately delaying and covering up in order to spare Barack Obama and the administration any political embarrassment. After all, Obama had put Petraeus in charge of the CIA, the most important, sensitive information gathering agency in the government. The sudden and public explosion of an FBI investigation, which included a sex scandal and possible national security leaks connected to the president’s man at the Agency, would not have helped the Obama campaign.

Most importantly, as a result of his actions, Petraeus had become a prime target for blackmail, given his status as CIA Director and former commanding general in the Middle East. Could he have been passing restricted material to Broadwell or others? Clearly, it was vitally important that the FBI find out!

After meeting with Humphries, Cantor and his staff decided they were “…unable to act on the information [Humphries] was giving them because they doubted his credibility.” Well, don’t United States congressmen have the ability to check on the “credibility” and background of an FBI agent? Cantor would have discovered that Humphries had single-handedly foiled a terror plot and was commended for his service to the nation and the American people. But the Congressman doubted his credibility. Funny, Cantor didn’t doubt the credibility of Obama Administration operative Robert Mueller.

And what did FBI Director Mueller do with the Humphries-supplied information he received from Eric Cantor on October 31st? He waited one full week until November 6th, Election Day, “…to [meet with] James Clapper, the director of national intelligence and David Petraeus’ immediate supervisor…” We have now learned that the House Judiciary Committee “…has written to Robert Mueller to ask why it took him a week to come forward with the information that Frederick Humphries had given him.” (Humphries through Eric Cantor, but Humphries nonetheless!)

So a Republican congressman and House leader had been given information that might have stopped the Obama campaign cold, causing massive embarrassment and difficulty for the man Cantor himself had accused of “instituting an imperial presidency,” mismanaging U.S. foreign policy and the war on terrorism, and “…covering up what really happened when four Americans were killed in Benghazi…”

But rather than act in the best interests of the American people by making Humphries’ story public, by going to Mueller, Cantor put the agent’s career in jeopardy and provided yet another target for the liberal media and the Obama Regime.

It seems Republican cowardice and stupidity grow with each passing year.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

We Will Soon Know The REAL Character Of General David Petraeus

November 14, 2012 by 16 Comments

DCIA David Petraeus We will soon know the REAL character of General David Petraeus

The reason for General David Petraeus’ sudden, forced resignation is as plain as the rear-end on a goat. Barack Obama wanted to discredit Petraeus, prejudice the American public against him, and effectively intimidate the general into silence lest he spill the beans to Congress about the Regime’s criminal activities of providing arms, fighters, and support to Syrian terror groups from the Chris Stevens-managed Benghazi mission.

Of course, Obama also didn’t want anyone “in-the-know” testifying about his treacherous betrayal of Stevens and 3 other Americans as he deliberately offered them up to al Qaeda killers. A dead Regime operative can never testify against his boss about gun-running to terrorists, can he Mr. President?

Stevens’ base of operations in Benghazi was NOT a consulate; it was a mission which “…served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East…” And “among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

Of course, such goings on at the Benghazi mission would have caused no small amount of political “embarrassment” for Barack Obama had they become widely known. For “U.S. officials [had] stated the White House [was] providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels,” not arms. And lest the American public forget, “…Congress [had] appropriated money, at the behest of Obama, for humanitarian aid, not weapons” and certainly not for al Qaeda linked, Islamic jihadist fighters “…recruited by Saudi Arabia…”

Obama knew of Petraeus’ indiscretions with Paula Broadwell months before the election. But had the president “outed” the general before Election Day, it might have raised questions about Obama’s dealings in Benghazi to which even the Obama-owned media might have had to request answers as the new media would certainly have run with the story.

So when a CIA spokesman clearly heaped blame for the mission deaths on the president by saying, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate,” Obama could do nothing but bide his time and depend upon the liberal media to bury the story of his having betrayed Stevens and the Benghazi dead (which of course it did.)

But with the election finally over, Obama swiftly introduced the General to countless others he has placed beneath the Regime bus. And now the question becomes:  What kind of man is David Petraeus? He knows it was Obama’s decision alone to betray 4 Americans to their death. He knows assistance could have been provided, the terrorists killed or dispersed, and the mission staff rescued. And as CIA director,  Petraeus must also have known what was going on at the mission: that is, of the weaponry being secretly provided to al Qaeda-connected fighters in direct opposition to the wishes and understanding of Congress.

But will Petraeus testify to all of this (and more), or will he quietly sneak away like so many cowards who have graced the ranks of the Obama Regime? Obama has already worked to destroy the General’s credibility and reputation. And Petraeus has undoubtedly been threatened with consequences far more chilling than a revelation of marital infidelity should he testify before Congress about the president’s criminal dealings.

Therefore, like so many American soldiers before him, David Petraeus must choose between acting with valour or cowardice against his country’s enemies.

We’ll soon discover whether the General chooses to honor or disgrace both his uniform and himself.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Maybe Voters Didn’t Know Their Lives Really Did Depend On The Outcome

November 9, 2012 by 15 Comments

Obama NDAA SC Maybe voters didn’t know their lives really did depend on the outcome

Many have called the 2012 election the most important in their lifetime. But in citing the economy, unemployment, foreign affairs, gas prices, healthcare, and the burgeoning corruption of the American judiciary, political pundits may have universally ignored the real threat to the American public and the reason it was imperative to remove the Obama Regime from power.

It happened back in March. Republican representative Tom Graves of Georgia asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether the Administration’s “…policy of extra-judicial killings of American citizens abroad could also apply in the United States.”  Incredibly, Mueller responded “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

Graves then made it a bit easier, asking whether “…from a historical perspective the federal government has the ability to kill a United States citizen on United States soil, or just overseas.”  “I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice, said Mueller.”

What was this all about?

On New Year’s Eve, Barack Hussein Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In language passed overwhelmingly by Congress, the Act provides the president the immutable power to, on his own authority, order the death of anyone he considers an “enemy combatant” (that is, a terror threat to the United States.) It is a command to kill that cannot be questioned or overridden.

Obama alone has the power to assign guilt and mete out the punishment of death. The Constitutional rights of Due Process no longer exist. And as Director Mueller made so patently clear, even the FBI doesn’t know if this death sentence may apply to American citizens both abroad and on US soil.

Language permitting the murder of American citizens by the federal government was added to the NDAA in 2010. There were few complaints either in the House or the Senate as politicians feared accusations of being soft on terrorism far more than they regretted their outright assassination of the Constitution. And now, 300 million people face the possibility of being targeted for death by their own government.

Would voters have behaved differently had they known their lives might depend on the outcome? Probably not. Those living on government (i.e. taxpayer) largesse would hardly have cared. Empty-headed females responsible for putting every liberal from Carter to Obama in the White House would have undoubtedly voted in exactly the same way as well, unable as they are to differentiate between stark reality and the fantasy world of Oprah Winfrey.

And would the election of Mitt Romney have changed anything? No. New England liberals are hardly known for their spirited commitment to Constitutional rights. After all, Mitt was the proud engineer of an “assault weapons” ban in Massachusetts, wasn’t he?!

For nearly 30 years, presidential elections have featured everything but a conservative candidate. As a result, more and more Americans have stayed home on Election Day, allowing liberal Republicans and Marxist Democrats to wreak havoc on their nation and their Constitution.

Sooner or later, the lives of citizens WILL be forfeit to a corrupt political class that no longer recognizes or cares about the constitutional rights of their constituents. What’s that about blood watering the tree of liberty? Could be that’s the only thing that will awaken the American public to the loss of their nation.

Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

2012 Election–the Death Or Re-birth Of The United States

November 6, 2012 by 4 Comments

American Flags SC 2012 Election–the death or re birth of the United States

The result of this presidential election will let the American public know whether their nation is dying or being reborn.

As “Coach” Collins wrote on CiR this morning, the November 5th Rasmussen Party Affiliation poll reveals that by a 5.8 % margin, more voters consider themselves Republican than Democrat. It is by far the largest advantage Republicans have ever enjoyed. Indeed, it is more than 4 TIMES the +1.3% Republican margin of November 2010 when the GOP eviscerated Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

Looking back upon party affiliation polling numbers of the past, it is clear that Rasmussen is nothing if not accurate. Democrats boasted an advantage of 7.6% in November of 2008, the year in which Obama roundly defeated the hapless John McCain by approximately that exact number!

But perhaps of greater interest is the fact that Democrats also enjoyed the lead in October of 2010! In that month, the party of Karl Marx held a 2.9% lead over Republicans. Yet the sudden ascendancy of the GOP to the 1.3% lead in the following month made an obviously monumental difference.

This year, Republicans have held the advantage in every month, averaging a 2.5% edge that ballooned to 4.3% in August. Though some might call it a mark of enthusiasm for Party candidates, it is clear that the vast majority of voters who contribute to this number do so out of both fear and contempt—fear for the well-being of the United States and contempt for the individual most responsible for its deliberate destruction.

One thing is certain. IF all is as it should be at polling places across the country, Mitt Romney will win a landslide election. The party number polled by Rasmussen can lead to no other outcome.

If, however, Obama should win, we will be witnessing the demise of the United States. For his victory would mean that the massive and organized voter fraud of the radical left and the Democrat Party will have defeated a Republican tidal wave. And as experience has taught us that Republicans are either too cowardly or too indifferent to complain, each and every subsequent election would then follow the same pattern until eventually there would be no elected official honest or honorable enough to complain to!

Those who have called the election of 2012 the most important of our lifetime are understating the moment. It is, in fact, the most important in the lifetime of our country.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Photo credit: Roger Smith (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

“Republican” Governor Tilts Election In Obama’s Favor!

November 3, 2012 by 28 Comments

 

Chris Christie “Republican” governor tilts election in Obama’s favor!

“(Obama) has been incredibly supportive and helpful to our state and not once did he bring up the election,” said an adoring Chris Christie of the president’s clearly selfless tour of New Jersey after hurricane Sandy. Why of COURSE, governor, politics couldn’t have been further from the mind of an individual who has campaigned literally each and every day since his inauguration in January of 2009.

Prior to Governor Christie’s slobbering display of man-live before an obviously delighted battalion of media cameras, Rasmussen had Mitt Romney leading in the national tracking poll. Now, however, it is tied 48-48. Romney has slipped in both Pennsylvania and Michigan. In Ohio, a 2 point Romney lead has evaporated, and the opponents are now tied at 49. And Obama’s job approval numbers have risen from 48 to 50.

Thanks very much, Governor, for helping Obama do what he could not do by himself—that is, look competent and involved. And all for a flock of media hacks who spent more time covering your public display of affection than the whole of the Benghazi betrayal.

Fortunately, there is a fair amount of good news as well. According to the Washington Post, “…13% of likely voters who voted for Obama in 2008 plan to vote for Romney this time.” National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg applies this info to 2008 election results and rightly decides that, in order to make up for such a loss, Democrats will have to hope that a large number of McCain voters will now support Obama! Goldberg sums up with “…I can’t see how [Obama] can possibly win the popular vote if this (WaPo) graphic is true. And it also makes me very suspicious of the national polls that show this race being within a point or two.” Jonah is not alone in being suspicious of some of the national polls.

Paul Ryan heads to Minnesota on Sunday for a campaign rally. And Mitt Romney will be in Pennsylvania at the same time. Breitbart rightly says, “You don’t waste a candidate’s time on a bluff in the final 48 hours,” so the Republican team must believe these 2 states to be very much in play. And more importantly, the GOP team must consider Florida, Iowa, and perhaps other states safe enough to abandon for trips to what was formerly unapproachable enemy territory!

Yesterday, longtime political analyst Michael Barone wrote “Romney beats Obama handily.” Barone bases this belief on a number of election “fundamentals.” Apart from the pathetic job Obama has done, “…both national and target state polls show that independents…break for Romney.” Also, Obama will NOT enjoy the 7 or 8 percent advantage in Democrat voter turnout that gave him the 2008 election. “That’s been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada.”

Barone gives the following states to Romney: Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, and PENNSYLVANIA! The final tally: Romney 315 Electoral votes, Obama 223. Barone concedes Romney could lose Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and yet still win the White House!

Here’s hoping Michael Barone is right on the money.

 

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

 

Photo credit: Bob Jagendorf (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Obama Caught Off Guard, Not Prepared To Cheat In Pennsylvania

November 2, 2012 by 18 Comments

Pennsylvania SC Obama caught off guard, not prepared to cheat in Pennsylvania

In this morning’s piece, Coach is Right suggested that Mitt Romney’s surge in Pennsylvania caught Barack Obama’s election team flat-footed. And it looks like Dick Morris agrees, although he puts his argument in a different way.

As Morris sees it, “team Obama was so focused on the swing states that they ignored the semi-swing states which could come into play.” Certainly, it never occurred to Obama that he might be required to allocate campaign resources to the very blue, very union-oriented state of Pennsylvania. After all, he had won the state by a 10 point margin, 54-44, in 2008. Clearly, it would be best to pay attention to REAL swing states like Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa.

So the millions of dollars worth of attack ads against Romney never appeared in Pennsylvania. And as a result, “the only Romney [Pennsylvania voters] saw… was the very presentable and attractive one who showed up in the debates.” They had not been introduced to the greedy capitalist caricature of team Obama’s ads.

When Romney’s fortunes began to turn after the first debate, his team began to put money into the Pennsylvania market. Paul Ryan campaigned in Pittsburgh. And Obama was caught unprepared.

According to the Pennsylvania based SPR polling, “Barack Obama’s performance in every [Pennsylvania] district had dropped significantly from 2008 — an average decline of seven points — and all three of the re-elect keys showed under 50% (head-to-head, favorability, job approval).” These results are from a just-concluded poll that will appear later today.

Dick Morris believes that Obama was caught unprepared in Pennsylvania, and so does Coach is Right, although in a different way. From Ohio have come stories of voting machines registering a vote for Obama, even though voters had “pushed the button” for Romney. And Somalis have been driven to polling places and, unable to speak English, are told by interpreters how to vote and presumably for whom.

The point is that voter fraud takes time and planning. It doesn’t happen overnight. But the Obama campaign had not made arrangements for voter fraud in Pennsylvania, just as it would not in New York or California. What would be the point?! And why take the chance—small as it may be—of getting caught in a state that is presumed to be in the bag?

So having been caught flat-footed by a sudden, late Romney surge, many of the tens of thousands–perhaps even hundreds of thousands–of Obama votes generated by illegals or the dead might not only be missing but sorely MISSED on Election Day.

We all know that Democrats practice voter fraud wherever and whenever they believe it necessary to maintain political power. In Ohio, such criminal activity has been and will be rampant right through Election Day and probably beyond, considering the potential provisional ballot disaster awaiting voters after the election.

Maybe the American people will be spared a bit of the Democrat Party’s standard election fare in Pennsylvania.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Photo credit: J. Stephen Conn (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Romney Just 15 Electoral Votes Shy Of The White House?

November 2, 2012 by 7 Comments

Mitt Romney with supporters 2 SC Romney just 15 electoral votes shy of the White House?

Take a look at the states and electoral vote totals won by John McCain in 2008 and the states Mitt Romney is likely to win in 2012. When these numbers are put together, they add up this way:

If Romney wins the states won by McCain in 2008, he will have 179 electoral votes (at current electoral vote value for the states).  Add to these the states currently leaning Romney and which Romney is in fact expected to win. They are Indiana 10; North Carolina 15; Virginia 13; Colorado 9; and Florida 29. With these additions, Romney’s total electoral vote grows to 255.

This would leave Romney needing just 15 more votes to win the White House. Winning Ohio (18)–which Romney now leads by 50-48 according to Rasmussen–would put him over the top. Should Ohio fall to the left’s active voter fraud, Romney’s road to 270 electoral votes will be more difficult.

The remaining toss-up states include: Pennsylvania 20; Nevada 6; Iowa 6; Wisconsin 10; Michigan 16; and New Hampshire with 4. Obviously, any combination totaling 15 would work.

Rasmussen has Romney and Obama tied in Wisconsin at 49. This is with a +2 REPUBLICAN sample, 39-37 with independents accounting for the remaining 24%. As Obama won this state by a 56-42 margin in 2008, Romney’s position is quite remarkable, perhaps indicative of the overall mistrust of Wisconsin voters for the president.

Rasmussen gives Romney a 1 point advantage in Iowa, 49-48, a state which Obama won 54-45 in 2008. Romney overcame a 2 point Obama lead at the beginning of October.

During the course of the year, Pennsylvania looked like a state in which Romney would have no chance of successfully competing, let alone winning. But now, Rasmussen has Romney down 5 after trailing by double-digits for months. In fact, Romney has made up 7 points in the past month.

Can Romney win in PA? As with the rest of the nation, it all depends upon turnout. Throughout the nation, Republicans hold a significant edge in enthusiasm. Fed up with a Marxist agenda and anti-American treachery, GOP voters are believed to be more likely to go to the polls than Democrats and in significant numbers! Also, as Pennsylvania was to be a shoe in for Obama, the left has not taken the time to plan and organize the itinerary of voter fraud necessary to guarantee victory. The Regime was taken off guard. This could make a big difference on Election Day, assuming New Black Panthers are unable to scramble “assets” throughout the state on short notice.

There is one other possibility. Given the gains Romney has made during the month of October, it’s possible he could fool most pollsters and voters alike by securing a near-landslide victory over Obama. If Republican turnout should exceed that of Democrats as some polls have suggested, and independent voters break big for Romney as many expect them to, a number of “secure” Democrat states could swing to the GOP. Romney might then win over 300 electoral votes as he removes from power the most corrupt president in the nation’s history.

Though Chris Matthews would be desolate, the nation would likely prosper for a generation.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Photo Credit : Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,