- Your News
By RON HART
The Obama campaign unveiled its latest slogan, “Forward,” last week. As we know, in 2008 Obama campaigned to head the greatest country in the history of the planet, a country built on capitalism, limited government, and personal responsibility, by wanting to “Change” it. That should have been our wake-up call. He did try (and is still trying) to change and transform independent, self-reliant Americans into an entitlement-minded, government-dependent populace inflamed by envy and empty rhetoric.
Obviously, when you have the best country ever, you want to change it by electing a guy with only community organizing experience who has never managed anything and whose wealth comes from two books he wrote about himself before he had hardly done anything.
Mitt Romney should run on “Hope,” as in we “Hope” we don’t re-elect Obama so America can go “Forward.” Or even better, Obama’s campaign slogan should now be Forwarned instead of Forward!
The slogan “Forward” was used by socialist Nazis (Hitler was one of the first to offer universal health care). It has also been used in many other communist/socialist propaganda campaigns over the years – unbeknownst to the Obama PR machine, or maybe knownst. (Probably the latter, but it is telling, isn’t it?)
Some have noted the stark contrast between George Bush’s speech to the nation on Dec. 14, 2003 after Saddam Hussein’s capture and Obama’s self-aggrandizing, spike-the-football, “Ding, dong, bin Laden’s dead” speech on May 1, 2011. Nowhere in his speech did President Bush claim credit for the capture of the evil Hussein. Instead, he heaped praise upon the intelligence analysts and the brave fighting forces who accomplished that remarkable feat. He thanked them and congratulated them, not using the work “I, me or my” military.
Bill Clinton breathlessly opined in a recent campaign ad that it would have been bad for Obama if things had gone wrong in the bin Laden raid. I’m sure Navy SEAL Team Six appreciated that perspective. The Dems also implied, in the same breath they say Romney is too trigger happy, that he would not have approved bin Laden raids in Pakistan. First he would have, but more likely he would have LBO’ed the mess that was Pakistan, fired the previous management al Qaeda, and turned the country into a profitable one. By all accounts, the alQuada brand had long been tarnished, and bin Laden had been demoted. The reason? Most believe it could be traced to poor customer service.
In his next salvo at targeting Romney, I would not be surprised if they imply since bin Laden had four wives, was rich and did not drink, he was a Morman like Romney therefore he would have been spared.
Reports say bin Laden was living on past glory for a long time. He smoked weed, had four women living with him, took Viagra, colored his hair to appear younger and was constantly viewing films of himself on TV. Maybe it took so long to find him because he was laying low sitting in his first row Los Angeles Lakers basketball seats every game.
It is not like Obama would take political advantage of the killing of bin Laden to distract voters since he has an awful record on the economy. Obama would make this about himself, or to stoke liberal battle cries prior to the election. Obama would probably soon say say “his killing” of bin Laden was not about him, he did it for Trayvon.