Sounded very familiar…

Check out this image showing the breakdown of lobbyist money to the various Republican candidates.

It appears Lobbyist have determine who is buyable and who isn’t:

Check this one out:

The establishment GOP is going to do anything it can to prevent Ron Paul from being the nominee.  This is on top of the media trying for months to ignore him.  His support is building and he’s at or near the front of the polls in Iowa for the first poll.

It’s so ridiculous that there were rumors manufactured that if he wins, it would be due to hackers playing with the voting machines. Because it just couldn’t be that he actually got the votes.

The Governor of Iowa said a few days ago that if Ron Paul wins, that his win should be ignored and that the 2nd place winner is the real winner. This is the most arrogant thing I’ve heard yet! This is Obama-level arrogance!

In fact, they said that a Paul win:

“would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses,”

So, the end of the world will happen if people vote for Ron Paul more than the rest. How arrogant. They may as well say “You are not allowed to vote for anyone you want, only for who WE want you to vote for.” If this doesn’t show that the elections are controlled on both sides, then nothing does. Those in control only allow candidates they can control (to one degree or another) to run and a true outside they couldn’t control isn’t going to be allowed. So much for democracy.

It also turns out that if Ron Paul wins the nomination, it may still lead to a brokered convention and he may not end up being the candidate due to some rule changes.

New Republican primary rules are going to make it basically impossible for any candidate to wrap up the Republican nomination very early in 2012. In fact, the new Republican primary rules make a “brokered convention” much more likely and they also make it much more likely that the Republican establishment will attempt to steal the nomination away from a candidate that they do not like.

So, he’d have to win an overwhelming majority of delegates in order to really grab hold of the nomination. I daresay that there will be an outcry for a 3rd party run if he wins most of the votes and still is tossed out for someone like Romney. It will be obvious at that point that the will of the people won’t matter and it will be obvious that the elitists will be in control.

A recent USAToday article basically says that even though Ron Paul is in the lead, he really isn’t because only those Republicans that Matter can say who is in the lead, regardless of votes.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul can raise millions of dollars in a single day, has a solid organization of passionate supporters and recently has been moving up in the polls, yet few mainstream Republicans are willing to give him the “front-runner” title so many of his rivals in the GOP presidential field have held.

It’s becoming obvious that the people are recognizing the illusion of free elections we have had in this country.

This blog is titled “What would Ronald Reagan Say”. Ronald Reagan was another one that the establishment didn’t want. The Romney of that day was George H W Bush. Reagan beat him out with the help of the voters. Today, the only republican that actually wants to change things and truly reduce the size of government is Ron Paul. The rest are under the control (to one degree or another) by the power elites. That’s why Ron Paul is considered a danger. All the more reason to vote for him.

The DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, claims in this video that unemployment is NOT up under Obama:

So, now for an injection of real facts.

According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, even as slanted as their own recent numbers have been, show that over 1.5 million jobs are not gone since Obama flubbed his Oath at the Inauguration.

Employment in January 2009:  142.1 million  (link to source)

Employment in November 2011: 140.5 million (link to source) - NOTE: this link is to the current report, which was November 2011 when this blog entry was written. After this month, this link may change

Do the math, 142.1 - 140.5 = 1.5 million more people unemployed under Obama.

There has been a hilarious liberal story running around recently that Obama has created more jobs in 3 years than Bush did in 10 (for the record, he was only in office 8 years, but don’t confuse liberals with facts).

Let’s use the same source to find out, shall we?

Employment in January 2001: 135.05 million (link to source)

Again, from above, Employment by January 2009 was 142.1 million.

Again, the math:

142.1 - 130.05 = 7.05 million people went back to work under Bush.

So, Bush creates 7.05 million and Obama destroys 1.5 million.

The BLS was reporting an unemployment rate of about 9% this month. If the universe of jobs were at the levels seen during the last year of Bush, the unemployment rate would be more like 12% and that’s just the U-3 levels. U-6 would be over 20%. Keep in mind that the Great Depression saw rates of unemployment up to 25%, and the average worker was out of work only 6 months. Under Obama, they run through nearly 2 years of unemployment checks and then are still unemployed.

So, How wonderful is Obama?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?