Romney's Lame-Man Cayman Explanation

"I send my money offshore so that foreign investors can invest in a foreign entity!"

Politicians always have some skeletons in the closet and when they start running for election, those skeletons seem to find the light of day one way or another, and that is when candidates either ignore those problems or try to explain them away.  Mitt Romney, the supposed Republican front-runner has had a series of gaffes since he started running four years ago and most recently was the revelation that Mitt Romney, the man who is supposedly for American businesses and the middle class, has kept his money in overseas tax shelters.  Romney was recently confronted about this from a voter at a town hall event in Maine on Friday and Romney did what Romney is horrible at doing - explaining himself.

The problem with Romney's explanation is that it makes absolutely zero sense.

"Do you think it's patriotic of you to stash away your money in the Cayman Islands?" a voter asked Romney.

Romney explained that he doesn't manage his millions - he has a blind trustee do that for him so that he "wanted to make sure [he] didn't have a conflict" when running for office. He also claimed that he didn't save money on his taxes by shipping his money offshore.

"I have not saved one dollar by having an investment somewhere outside this country," Romney responded. "The investment in an offshore account was to invest back here in the United States and the reason it was there they explained was so foreign investors could also invest in that entity. So I pay all the taxes I'm required to pay under the law, and by the way, not a dollar more. Thank you."

Romney's tax lawyer, Brad Malt, had some things to add.

"There have been reports that these investments are evading taxes," said in a conference call when the tax returns were made public. "Again that is flatly wrong...The blind trust's investment in the Cayman funds is taxed the same as if Governor Romney made the investments himself."

The comments from Romney's camp do not pass the smell test.

Romney claims he did not save any money on his taxes and that he paid what was required by law. This statement is technically true. Romney was able to navigate some loopholes so that he was able to pay some lower taxes.

Romney also makes the claim that he invested his money in some foreign accounts so that that money can be reinvested back in the United States, but in his explanation he also states that his investment was so that "foreign investors could also invest in that entity," meaning entities that are not American would invest in a non-American entity because Romney sent his American money elsewhere. And that is bringing investments to America how?

Basically Romney was caught being rich while he continually tries to masquerade as one of the middle class. He jokes about being unemployed, he talks about the struggles of the everyday man, but when the focus is turned on him and when voters ask for a serious answer, Romney can only give a lame excuse as an answer, and that is because he cannot simply come out and say that he has never given a hoot about the middle class - only his name and legacy as a hero for the wealthy (which he is one of).

Big Government's Nick Brown Believes GOP Full Of Moderates

I came across a post on Big Government today talking about how the Republican party is overrun with moderates.  While that is a silly notion - consider the obstructionist attitude and refusal to compromise - I noticed some interesting comments below the post that I found humorous because seem to confirm one of the author's theories - that "the party is represented by a majority of idiots."

Here is a prime example:


The video above was supported by many of the commenters on Big Government, but if you do a little research behind the video you find it is one ignorant mess.  The video makes the clames that there has been a "Democrat onslaught" on the constitution, particularly leading up to the 2008 election with Democratic members of congress frantically trying to pass laws altering what defines a "natural born citizen," thus allowing a non-American to become president.  This "onslaught" is supposedly proof that Barack Obama is an unconstitutional office holder.

What the video fails to mention is that Republicans also signed onto those very evil Democratic bills.  One in particular, H.J. Res 59 (108th Congress), had just as many Republican co-sponsors as Democratic ones (Darrel Issa, Ray LaHood, and Christopher Shays).

Now why did I use this example?

Big Government propagandist Nick R. Brown, who claims he has "no agenda," wrote that the principled voters are being betrayed by moderates in conservative clothing, but he fails to entertain the notion that maybe those principled conservatives are really a bunch of ignorant sheep, and Brown wants to be part of the leading class.  That is why that video above has over 800,000 hits and why so many of Brown's so-called principled followers believe in such tripe.

Let's go back to his assertion that moderates are overrunning the party and that Republicans of today are really neoconservative Democrats from the late 1970s.

Here is a definition from the far-right-leaning Wiki Conservapedia:

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives was to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

Does this sound like any Republican you know?  Consider every GOP presidential candidate (except Ron Paul) - even Newt Gingrich, who Conservapedia labels a neoconservative, sounds nothing like this definition.

Every candidate has attacked big government spending and has proposed a series of cuts, whether in the form of regulation, elimination of certain governmental departments, or the reversal of policies and appointments made under the current administration.  In addition, every candidate has proposed some form of tax cut and limit on government spending.

Every candidate has tried to infuse their Christianity in their campaign, whether it is to discuss their morality (Mitt Romney's lengthy marriage to one woman), attack same-sex marriage (despite having many failed marriages of their own), or profess a hatred for Roe v. Wade and abortion (using their ill child as a campaign staple and despite the fact that their wife had had an abortion).

Seemingly every candidate has attacked "activist judges," and if you consider the rulings used as examples, you will see a pattern - they would only want conservative judges in place, and if you are Newt Gingrich, arrest all others.

And while it gets a little more complicated when it comes to foreign intervention, just look at the sister site of Nick Brown's blog site - Big Peace - which is highly interventionist.  Brown has also served for non-profits like The Heritage Foundation, which strangely supports various interventionist attitudes - just look at their positions regarding Israel.  Is Nick Brown pretending to be a conservative like those he criticizes?

Basically, if you look at the definitions this conservative site gives to neocons and traditional conservatives, every candidate (and teabaggers and a vast majority of Republicans in congress) espouse a traditionally conservative ideology, and because of the rise of the Tea Party and their highly motivated voters, many moderates were pushed out of the party or voted out of office.

So what is Nick Brown's motives?  He claims he has no agenda but he spends a lengthy amount of time complaining about how "RINOs" have taken over the party and then fabricates a message that the political spectrum is continually shifting to the left.  Sounds to me like he has an agenda.

Ann Coulter Reveals Obamacare/Romneycare Hypocrisy

Mitt Romney supporter made a surprising admission Wednesday in support of the GOP candidate - that something is only a "mass triumph" of "free market principles" when it is undertaken by Republican.  When a Democrat does the same exact thing it becomes "socialism."

Ann Coulter wrote the following on her blog:

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time...

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats' piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.

Interesting.  So by that logic Coulter should be supporting Obamacare, right?