Presidential Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage Give Obama False Advantage Over Romney

By John Giokaris

From its double standard on how the mainstream media has covered both campaigns, to the 2008-Democrat heavy polling models they use, to the lack of investigative reporting on the scandals associated with this administration, it has become blatantly evident that the mainstream media harbors a liberal bias, commits endless hypocrisies and will not hold this president up to the same standards it has for previous presidents.

Campaign Coverage

I find the messaging from both campaigns to be remarkably stunning. Despite both candidates being Harvard graduates and worth millions of dollars each, one is labeled as “out of touch” with mainstream America by the elitist New York news media, Hollywood celebrities and Washington insiders (as if they have any idea what’s “in touch” with mainstream America) while the other is not as he hosts $40,000-a-plate fundraisers and hob nobs on talk shows with these same millionaire celebrities and media personalities.

Furthermore, while the Romney campaign has kept its messaging solely focused on Obama’s record as president, his policies and his results, the Obama campaign has launched into personal character attacks against Romney, accusing him of waging a war on women, of being a felon by not paying his taxes, and even murdering a steel worker’s wife.

For its part, the mainstream media has done a thorough job covering Romney’s past, including tracing his family’s history all the way back to their Mexican roots, his father having once been on public aid, and the personal lifestyles of Mitt, his wife Anne, and their five sons.

But where was the mainstream media on Obama’s family history and professional career? Did you know that his grandparents deliberately moved to Mercer Island, Washington so that they could enroll his mother into the only openly Marxist school in America? Did you know that communist radical Frank Marshall Davis was chosen by his grandfather to be his political mentor? Did you know that he hasn’t released any of his personal records from his collegetranscripts to the list of legal clients he represented when he was practicing law?

These aren’t rumors, these are facts. Did it really take an independent documentary by an academic scholar to reveal this to the general public?

If the media is going to question Romney’s past, political views and “lack of transparency” in the national spotlight, I feel it is only fair that they do the same for Obama. But nothing short of amiracle would ever make that happen.

Polling

The liberal mainstream media and blogosphere are desperately trying to write Romney’s funeral using polls that over-sample Democrats by as much a D+10, D+11 and D+13. In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. So was the 2010 midterm election: evenly split. The Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 and 2010 models than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support.

But as pollster John McLaughlin explains, “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR (Interactive Voice Response) polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are ‘not enthusiastic’ to vote or non voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30% range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. We’ll see a lot more of this.”

A certain pundit on this site (guess who?) provided a link to some web site claiming that a national average of 2012 election polls (without citing which ones specifically) shows Obama leading Romney in several key states when excluding Rasmussen polls, implying Rasmussen has a Republican bias. What they fail to mention is that a Fordham University study concluded that Rasmussen had been the most accurate pollster throughout the 2008 election (and that was Obama’s good year).

I could just as easily provide a link to another website that claims to unskew the polls’ oversampling of Democrats to show that Romney actually leads Obama (and they even list which specific ones). But whether you look at Rasmussen, which has been accused of leaning right,Gallup, which has been accused of leaning left, both are showing the same thing: this race is virtually tied.

Absence of Investigative Journalism

Perhaps the biggest evidence of all proving the mainstream media’s liberal bias is the fact that it has thus far failed to push any further into this administration’s scandals such as Fast and Furious or the Benghazi attack.

Back in college, I remember reading Bob Woodward’s and Carl Bernstein’s All the President’s Menin journalism class, chronicling The Washington Post’s journalistic efforts to uncover the Nixon administration’s scandal regarding the Watergate break-in. It was a scandal in which President Nixon and his cabinet were exercising “executive privilege” to prevent the release of internal documents as well as trying to pin the blame on lower level subordinates to feebly deflect criticism and responsibility of the break-in.

Déjà vu 2012, where President Obama stopped the federal investigation into Operation Fast and Furious dead in its tracks by exercising “executive privilege” to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from having to hand over internal Justice Department documents on the federal firearms sting operation that allowed weapons to reach Mexican drug cartels. Fourteen lower level subordinates at the Justice Department and ATF then get pinned for the blame and that’s where the administration is hoping it ends. Will there be any further reporting from the mainstream media on this? Or is Obama’s rendition of Al Green more important?

Or what about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya? Within a week’s time, we witnessed this administration claim that it was a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic American film that got out of hand and caught them off guard to a reluctant admission that this was a pre-planned, coordinated attack with possible assistance from al-Qaeda of which they were warned about.

Watergate was a campaign stunt. These are scandals where U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others have died. But where are today’s Woodwards and Bernsteins?

Is it then any wonder that a new Gallup poll shows American distrust in the mainstream media is now at an all-time high?

You’ll probably be even less shocked then to find that a majority of Democrats (58%) trust the mainstream media “to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” while only 31% of independents and 26% of Republicans trust the mainstream media to do the same.

Romney clearly has his work cut out for him. Too bad he doesn’t send a thrill up their leg the way Obama does.

See more of John Giokaris at Policymic here...... 

http://johngiokaris.policymic.com/

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT* THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING

By Lou Pritchett

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me..

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse
to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector..

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and
irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by

 creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as "partnering."
Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years; made corporate history.

Obama's America (2016) Love Him / Hate Him / Now You Know Him

Written and Directed by Dinesh D' Souza and John Sullivan
Produced by Gerald R. Molen
Producers Ann Balog and Doug Sain
Executive Producers - Dinesh D'Souza, John Sullivan and Christopher Williams

For more information visit
www.2016themovie.com
www.dineshdsouza.com

The Doctor and the Illusionist

By Rafael Elias

When I am sick, I can go to the doctor.

When I want to be entertained, I can go to the circus to watch an illusionist, a clown, or a singer.

A doctor is a person that after a serious and detailed analysis, gives you a diagnosis and guides you through the process of healing and well being. We place our trust on our doctor because we know that he has the knowledge and the experience to tackle our health issues and offer us sound and effective solutions. We know about his talents and are confident that he will use them to the best of his ability to help us get well. We feel safe in the able hands of a doctor.

An illusionist is an entertainer whose livelihood is based on make-believe. He presents us with amazing magic tricks that challenge reality and make us see the world in a fantastic yet unrealistic way. He can deliver wonderful and highly entertaining performances, but deep inside we know that it is all an illusion, that there really is no magic, that it is all a well-honed trick. We have fun during the performance of an illusionist.

Well, it just so happens that our great nation is ill.

The country is suffering from a tumor that keeps growing, relentlessly and faster than ever before. The United States is sick with $16 trillion in debt and living through difficult and painful times with more than 23 million human tragedies in each person that remains unemployed or is struggling to find a job. Our nation is ailing with one in six Americans living in poverty and a higher number of people added to the food stamps program than those looking for work. The country is ailing with the lowest work participation rate in fifty years and the longest bout of unemployment since the Great Depression.

The disease has been getting worse over time. The bug of above-8% unemployment has been infecting our nation for more than 43 months despite the bad medicine and the snake oil that someone promised us would cure the illness. Despite a $5 trillion potion added to the national debt, almost four people are leaving the workforce for each person finding a job.

When these illnesses started, a majority in the country chose to stay away from the doctor believing that a few magic tricks would make us all feel better and with that we would recover.

Today our wonderful nation is sicker than ever. The illusionist’s mismanagement of our ailments has made the disease worse, stronger, and it is spreading. While four years ago the country was in the hospital, the illusionist now has it in intensive care. We needed a doctor then, but we need a doctor even more now.

The state of the nation is dire, make no mistake about it.

The debt keeps growing to levels when soon it will become unmanageable, especially with the “fiscal cliff” just a few months away and further ratings downgrades looming. The richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known is now home to 23 million people worrying about what to do to cover their next rent payment, their electricity bill, or to buy the most essential groceries. 47 million Americans are living and suffering the contradiction of being poor in the wealthiest of nations. Many of them are children for whom chance and opportunity seems more distant every day.

We have the illusionist showing us the same old antics with the same old sidekicks and the same old punch lines. The illusionist is still giving us a show with smoke and mirrors and selling us a world of make-believe, just as he did four years ago. The illusionist is keeping us distracted because he knows that if we stand up and leave to visit the doctor, he will lose his show and will not have the spotlight anymore. The illusionist is thinking about himself and still believes that he can seduce us with a flashier trick or a brighter smile.

But the nation is very ill.

We need to stand up and leave the circus.

We need to go to the doctor. The doctor that has already assessed the situation and that has a diagnosis and a truly effective treatment.

We need his experience and his knowledge to make us feel better, get better, to heal and to recover.

It is clear that Mitt Romney is the doctor and Barack Obama is the illusionist.

We need Mitt Romney to preside over the country’s recovery by implementing policies that will create those sorely needed jobs, that will put us on a path to a balanced budget, that will make North America energy independent, and that will have enough regulations to guarantee the orderly development of business but not so many that will tie up the hands of the job providers.

We need Mitt Romney to cure the country’s weakening stance in the international arena; a resolute leader that our allies will trust and respect and who will stand up to our foes unequivocally and asserting America’s exceptionalism.

We need Mitt Romney to restore the American ideals and values; the American pride, and the American leading role in the world. AnAmerica with a prosperous society that guarantees equal opportunity and trusts its people to achieve results as their freedoms and liberties allow each person.

The time for smoke and mirrors is gone; we cannot let a “feel-good” moment cloud our view and make us lose sight of the true malady that is infecting the nation and advancing like a malignant tumor.

It is time to acknowledge that we need, that our country needs a doctor, a specialist, a person that knows and really can solve this very serious illness.

We need Mitt Romney.

Because at the end of the day, we can always find an entertainer on Letterman or on The View.

But we just cannot afford to let our country get any sicker. We need a cure, a serious treatment. And President Mitt Romney is the person that can deliver it.

There is nothing wrong with liking an illusionist.

But right now we need a doctor.

See more of Rafael Elias at Political Analysis & Economic Studies (PAnEcS) here ...................................

http://www.political-analysis.com/welcome.html

Obama vs Romney Polls: When You Crunch the Numbers, Romney is Actually Doing Very Well

By Jesse Merkel

Two things typically happen after the major parties conventions come to an end. People that normally do not pay attention for most of the year start to pay attention to the news and polls more, and voter enthusiasm jumps up as a result. The major polls that are appearing on the daily newscasts, in the newspapers and on the Internet have become incredibly important. While meant to accurately reflect the views of the nation, these polls today have unfortunately turned into a weapon.

Many major organizations have skewed their polls as of late. They do this a couple of subtle ways that most people will not notice unless they bother to do a little digging. By over-sampling Democrat voters and under-sampling both Republicans and Independents, the poll organizations have been able to make it appear as though President Barack Obama has a decisive lead over former Governor Mitt Romney. 

Aside from over-sampling, they also base their samples on previous voter turnout. Typically this is done with the last major voting year, which would have been 2010. Unfortunately for all of us, most polling agencies are basing their samples off of the 2008 turnout model. In 2008, the Republican vote was depressed, while Democrats came out in record numbers. In 2010, the Republicans returned in force, resulting in one of the most dramatic turnovers in history.

Considering that the GOP has maintained relatively high voter enthusiasm, there is no reason to believe that their numbers will be as low as in 2008. In fact, according to Rasmussen, Republican Party affiliation is at an eight year high, while Democratic Party affiliation is over four points behind. While Democrats have been registering more people over the past month, it is highly unlikely they will be able to overtake the GOP's lead. 

So why should we believe that Democrats will come out in such superior numbers?

Obama vs Romney Polls When You
Crunch the Numbers Romney is Actually
 Doing Very Well

Conventional wisdom says that Obama should be trailing Mitt Romney in the polls, and the fact that he doesn’t appear to be doing so means that Romney must just be that weak of a candidate. Thankfully, some people have "unskewed" the polls, showing what looks to be a much different race than what we’ve all been fed by the mainsteam media.

A look at the Unskewed polls shows us a spread of Mitt Romney being nearly 8 full points ahead of President Obama. While conservatives will naturally want to jump for joy, they should first remember the wise words made famous by President Reagan: Trust, but verify.

Rasmussen shows the current party affiliation as 37.6% Republicans, 33.3% Democrats and 29.2% Independents. However, the sample from the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows an over-sampling of Democrats by 8%! Instead of the plus four margin that the GOP should be enjoying to accurately reflect the current voter rolls, the Democrats are instead being reflected by a plus four margin. With the data unskewed and the appropriate number of independents reflected, Mitt Romney would actually lead by a near 7-point margin.

One sample is an outlier. Two or more? That's something else.

A recent New York Times/CBS poll came out showing 49% for Obama and 46% for Romney. Again, the data was wildly skewed in favor of Democrats. Unskewed data shows Romney with a lead again, 51% to 44%. The sample for that poll broke down with 44% Democrats, 39% Republicans and 18% Independents. 

Polls have constantly shown Romney leading with Independent voters by double digits. Massive over-sampling of Democrats and under-sampling of Republicans and Independents was used again to make it appear that Obama is doing much better than he normally would be.

Each polls that the website shows leads to an Examiner article that breaks down the data. Each article links to the polls and the raw data. After looking though the data, it becomes obvious that the analyst was spot on. The links are there for everyone to see. Click on the stats if you have questions and add up the percentages for yourselves. When one takes into account the high levels of party loyalty, the truth becomes apparent. Again, trust, but verify. 

The ultimate question is, why skew the data for President Obama? The answer to that is simple.

Polls can be used as a weapon. The result is a De facto means of voter suppression. Those that may be hoping for a Romney victory may see poll after poll with President Obama supposedly in the lead, and believe that it’s not worth voting. Even if it were to peel off 1% or 2%, it could end up having an effect on the election. If you don't believe so, ask Al Gore if a scant few votes can make a difference. 

This is not the result of some grand liberal media conspiracy. Rather, it is a time honored technique that liberal-leaning groups have used for years. This is nothing new. 

Two Gallup polls that came on Thursday should have the Obama administration worried. Even though the numbers were slightly lopsided and they were polling registered voters instead of likely voters, the polls showed bad news for President Obama. One poll showed Obama and Romneytied at 47% each, while the other showed Obamas approval rating back down to 46%.

In an age when it seems like every news company and organization has an agenda, it always helps to read between the proverbial lines. When you look through the samples that each poll puts out there, the truth becomes clear.Obama does not have an unsurpassable lead, and Romney is not a weak candidate. 

See more of Jesse Merkel in Policymic here................

 http://jessemerkel.policymic.com/

Muslim Brotherhood

http://WhyMrPresidentWhy.com/

Romney: The Man of Near Infinite Empathy and Compassion

 By Cris Pace

Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.–Ann Romney

So the continuing attacks on Romney are just getting more and more egregious.

In the last few days I’ve seen Romney called a fanatic and shameful for actually saying America should be defended and respected…and I’m apparently a fanatic for defending this belief as well. But then again apparently any defense of Romney is my “salivating” over him without using any intelligent thought. (This while the left ignores all of Obama’s flaws and slobbers over him.)

But apparently to some of those who support government any defense of the free market or American Exceptionalism is fanaticism and a call for genocide. Back here in reality it’s a defense of virtue, facts, and what works.

So just to annoy them, and I would recommend all my readers do the same in their personal lives (just for fun), let’s point out the numerous qualities that make Romney the kind of person I want to vote for.

Now I prefer intelligence and common sense in my candidates, but there seems to be a large call for a candidate with empathy. Now everyone but a sociopath* has empathy but some exude and act on it better than others***. Mitt Romney is apparently not one of these people who exudes a “I feel your pain” feeling on camera (I can however tell you from personal experience that he’s very charismatic and likable when you’re ten feet from him, but again that shouldn’t necessarily be a reason to vote for him). However, since liberals are hitting him as being a cold and vicious heathen for not exuding this empathetic claptrap on TV let’s look at his actual behavior to determine if this is a man who acts with charity and compassion to others.

This is the man who would give a struggling family $250,000 because he heard they needed help. 

This is the man who has saved a drowning family.

This is the man who shut down his company, possibly loosing thousands if not millions in the process, so that he could direct his company’s full attention on finding and saving the daughter of a friend

This is a man who gives millions in charity, giving more than what is tax deductible

A man who is so uninterested in money he gives up his salary as governor (about half a million over 4 years) and who took no salary for the work he did to save the Olympics.

A man who takes time to comfort the sick and needy, to care for those who feel they are in darkness and who need help.

And there are EVEN MORE STORIES HERE…
You know what, you can say a lot about Romney? You can say that, “Oh he has money, he can afford to be that generous”…true…but what about the people the left defends endlessly like tax evader Warren Buffett***. The fact is that he has earned his money and then does what few of us ever have the chance to do, and what few of those who have the chance ever actually do, use it to gain happiness by helping others. I guess you could claim that ALL these people are lying, but that would be fairly petty. You can claim that compassion and empathy and charity aren’t everything…I would agree, but do you really want to have an argument about intelligence and policy when your candidate is Obama?

But you can’t claim that Romney is not a man of extreme empathy, extreme compassion, and extreme charity.

Any attack on this man’s character is just silly.

*I could name some politicians, but I’ll be polite.
**I believe the word for exuding empathy is charlatan.
***If you bring up Romney’s tax returns, you’re an idiot. There is not a single iota of evidence to suggest Romney has cheated on his taxes or hid money. It is a fact on the other hand that Buffet and half the cabinet are avoiding paying their taxes.

See more of Cris Pace at The Conservative New Ager here..... 

 http://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/

Government Employees Died, Then Obama Lied

By Jared Allebest 

Conservative Samizdat

It is now evident that the Obama administration lied about what happened in Benghazi. They insisted that it was a spontaneous and unscripted riot prompted by an obscure anti-Muslim video. They stuck with that narrative despite the fact that evidence was building that it was a planned attack designed maximize embarrassment and destruction on a day that is sacred to many Americans. We now know that the attacks were planned by Al Qaeda.

You didn't have to be an intelligence officer to discover that. If regular citizens with no access to intelligence agencies know that we were attacked and the President is telling the American people something else, its lying. Prior to this revelation by American intelligence agencies, Mark Steyn made the case for how the Obama was willfully turning a blind eye to the evidence of a terrorist attack: 

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

As the old saying goes, If you repeat a lie often enough, people will take it as truth." The Obama Administration was trying to get the American people to accept their lie as the truth despite the clear evidence that this was an attack on the U.S. Consulate because it would be a clear admission that Obama's foreign policy is a complete failure: 

"The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that AL-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. If they turn out to be uncoordinated actions by angry believers, then they are an expression of a frightening ignorance. A crazy individual US citizen has uploaded a movie onto the Internet which denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. The US government can not be held responsible for that. But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself."

"Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring."

Obama must be held accountable for his policy of leading from behind in world affairs and how it has been a utter failure. The fact that the Obama Administration has openly and brazenly lied to the American people cannot be tolerated either. The best way to hold him accountable is to give him the pink slip on November 6, 2012.

See more of Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here.....  

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Election 2012: Romney Believes in Creating Wealth, Obama Believes in Redistributing It

By John Giokaris

 This week, the two different paths that Americans must choose between in the 2012 election could not have been more starkly contrasted.

While the liberal mainstream media and blogosphere are fixated on leaked video ofRomney saying 47% of Americans will vote for Obama — and desperately trying to write Romney’s funeral using polls that oversample Democrats by as much a D+10, D+11 andD+13 — those who aren’t so easily distracted are noticing that economic matters are just getting worse.

A new report shows that American economic freedom, which has been on the decline since 2000, is steadily plummeting. The U.S. is losing its previous status as one of the freest economies in the world at an incredibly rapid rate. This is problematic for America's future, as economic freedom is associated with economic growth.

As Ben Powell of the Independent Institute writes,

“Economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Joshua Hall publish an economic freedom of the world report annually. Their latest report, released this week, shows that the United States, which was ranked the second freest economy in 2000, now ranks 18th. Economic freedom increased from 1980 to 2000 in the United States while it was generally ranked behind Hong Kong and Singapore as the third freest economy in the world. Today it ranks behind European welfare states like Finland and Denmark, and places traditionally more hostile to economic freedom like Qatar. The declines in freedom have occurred because the federal government has grown larger and more intrusive.”

A majority of Americans already believe government is doing too much, reaffirming the American Economic Freedom Index report’s findings.

Election 2012 Romney Believes
 in Creating Wealth Obama Believes
 in Redistributing It

On the heels of that report, new audio has surfaced in which then-Senator Barack Obama states, “I think the trick is how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.”

Appearing on Cavuto, Romney retaliated,

“I think a society based upon a government-centered nation, where government plays a larger and larger role and redistributes money will not build a stronger America or help people out of poverty. We believe in free people, free enterprise, not redistribution. We create growth, create wealth, not redistribute wealth.”

That is the fundamental question that Americans are faced with in this election: What is more important to me: economic recovery, growing wealth and creating jobs, or social justice, redistributing income and having government cut up whatever wealth is left?

The first choice is optimistic, envisioning a future where America’s best days are still ahead of us. It implies that free people and free enterprise can create jobs and wealth if they’re simply set free to do it.

The other choice depressingly accepts that America’s best days are in the past and economic stagnation is here to stay, so we need government to decide who gets what as we prepare for a generation of mediocrity.

The liberal mainstream media will play its role of protecting this administration and trying to distract the public from what’s happening around them with irrelevant side shows like whatRomney does with his money instead of what Obama does with yours, despite a Gallup poll finding that clear majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents saying Romney’s wealth makes no difference in their voting choice.

But no amount of distraction and attacks can substitute for the fundamental reality that all Americans are facing: a stagnant economy that’s failing to produce enough jobs and forcing more and more Americans to give up looking for work altogether and switch to welfare. We are at a tipping point where more Americans will be consuming tax dollars from the system (nearly half the entire population, at 48.5%) than paying into it.

Romney wants to make the pie bigger so that we have more jobs, more taxpayers, and more to go around. Obama simply wants to cut a shrinking pie further into smaller pieces.

Growth vs. redistribution. It’s your choice.

See more of John Giokaris at Policymic here............  http://johngiokaris.policymic.com/