While we here at Hard Astarboard certainly don’t make a point of reading the Grey Whore Lady (except occasionally to see what Kommunist Media Central is up to, from time to time), this front pager over there did catch my eye earlier, enough to inspire a second post just because it’s rare to see the truth printed in that rag when it doesn’t propagandize in their favor.

Once teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and irrelevance, the Republican National Committee has raised more than $110 million over the past 15 months and retired more than half its debt, accumulating large cash reserves that could give Mitt Romney a critical boost later this spring as he intensifies his campaign against President Obama.

With the divisive and drawn-out Republican primary season moving toward a close, the committee reported more money in the bank at the start of last month than the Democratic National Committee, which raised about $137 million during the same period but also spent far more.

So much for Democrats bragging that their party has been raising so much more money than the Republicans!

Article here.

From the Washington Times:

A lawmaker from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said Thursday that there would be “no referendum at all” on the country’s peace treaty with Israel, hours after the Islamist group’s presidential candidate made his unexpected bid official.

Come again?

Asked whether a Brotherhood-led government would put the 1979 Camp David Accords to a referendum, as many of the group’s leaders have promised, Mr. Dardery said no.

“No referendum at all concerning international obligations,” he said. “All our international agreements are respected by the Freedom and Justice Party, including Camp David.”

These are the same people who said they would not run a candidate to take over Mubarak’s former job as president of Egypt. If I’m not mistaken, that’s exactly what they’re doing now.

Of course, our gullible politicians, along with every Islamist’s friend Barack Hussein Obama, (and the missus) will choose to believe that this parent organization of Hamas is sincere, not simply trying to gain friends in the U.S. Government and support from Washington for its candidacy.

No matter how often Islam’s miscreants prove to us that it’s okay, in their belief system, to lie to infidels, we continue to act as though they are credible people.

Yes, that’s the ONLY way to describe ANYONE who would vote to reelect Saddam Barack, that’s it, Barack Hussein Obama after the comments he made regarding the Supreme Court, in the event that they overturn Commu- ObamaCare.

For example.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

From the Washington Times:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted President Obama on Thursday, telling him to “back off” from comments earlier this week where he appeared to question the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the possibility that it could overturn his health care law.

“The president crossed a dangerous line this week,” the Kentucky Republican said to the Lexington Rotary Club, “and anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the court must be defended.”

On Monday, Mr. Obama suggested it would be “activist” and an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the nine “unelected” justices to overturn the law, prompting outcries from leading Republicans and many legal scholars that he was trying to intimidate the court.

Ann Coulter puts things in even clearer perspective, as always.

The reason tea partiers carried signs saying “Read the Constitution!” was that we were hoping people would read the Constitution.

SNIP!

…and the former law professor, Barack Obama, alleging that a “good example” of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, “a group of people”) overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

I don’t know how a court could overturn a law that hasn’t been “passed.” Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a law, it would be a bill. If it hasn’t even been “constituted,” it wouldn’t be anything at all.

Of course the courts can overturn laws — constituted and passed alike! If anything, the Supreme Court isn’t striking down enough laws.

SNIP!

On Monday, President Obama shocked even his fellow liberals when he claimed that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (Which Obamacare wasn’t.)

He added: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

I guess now we know why Obama won’t release his college and law school transcripts!

It was so embarrassing that Obama attempted a clarification on Tuesday, but only made things worse. He said: “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care,” since the ’30s.

Except in 1995. And then again in 2000. (Do we know for a fact that this guy went to Columbia and Harvard Law?)

LOL!

This guy is shaping up to be a dictator wannabe.

It seems to me that anyone who would even consider voting to keep O in the White House for another four years is anything BUT patriotic, at least where the United States of America is concerned.

If they were, they would see some value in observing the Constitution, not in using it for a door mat as Mr. Obama certainly has for the last 38 months.

Perhaps they ARE patriotic, but just to some communist country or other, certainly not to America!

That’s right, one such bird donates her ill gotten gains to the campaign of the other.

A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama’s re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.

The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama’s re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she’s accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state — a charge her husband denies.

Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of “bundlers,” the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.

I’d like to say I’m completely amazed, shocked, even, but I’m not. Not even a little, because it seems that where President Obama’s concerned, such connections are par for the course.

As we made rather plain here awhile back, Hard Astarboard’s candidate for this year’s presidential election was, before he was “Axelrodded” out of the running, Herman Cain.

As much as it pains me to say this, we are once again placed between the proverbial rock and a hard place in which we’re faced with having to support another professional politician in order to stave off a win by a worse professional politician.

Unfortunately, the American political system is fresh out of genuine statesmen, since every time one comes along he’s pushed aside so that the political operators can run the country by partisan political proxy without anything like true patriotism, adherence to the will of the founding fathers or respect for the letter of the Constitution to stand in their way, and as a result we’re confronted by a “lesser of two evils” choice instead of a “best man (or woman) for the job” choice.

What that leaves us with is this: Worst case (by far) scenario: Obama gets reelected.

Only solution: Elect someone else, that someone else being a conservative, a Republican or both (there is a difference, as we’ve learned in recent years).

As we also know by this time, Dems vote for Dems, Republicans vote for Republicans and therefore the people needed to actually swing an election one way or the other are thosein the middle who actually vote by candidate rather than party.

If the GOP doesn’t show itself as uniting behind one candidate, the party sends a not-so-message to those swing voters; We can’t agree on our candidate. The closer the primary votes are per candidate, the more undecided we will appear, and the swing voters, who will naturally see the Democrats united behind their incumbent, might well vote Democrat — OBAMA.

It appears that Mitt Romney is going to get the nomination, so rather than further splinter our perceived support, we would do better to show some solid support for Mitt.

In the current Politico, there’s an article on Ann Romney (the candidate’s wife of 40 years) and her role in his campaign.

Ann Romney’s unexpected rock star status has the political arena buzzing about how her husband’s campaign will leverage her popularity in an election in which Michelle Obama — one of the most admired first ladies in history — will have an outsized and substantive portfolio.

Indeed, this 62-year-old grandmother’s contribution to Mitt Romney’s campaign could amount to the most relevant role a wife has ever played in a presidential effort — softening the edges of a flawed and awkward candidate who struggles to connect with voters.

As Romney closes in on his party’s nomination, Obama campaign officials and strategists view Ann Romney as a wild card in the fall campaign — a skilled and articulate advocate whose full power has yet to be unleashed. If she’s armed with a passionate vision for a Romney White House, the opposition believes she could emerge as a compelling surrogate for her husband around the country.

She has, in fact, recently begun targeting women - a demographic Republicans desperately need - talking about the economy and jobs. “I wish Ann, my wife were here,” Mitt Romney told a crowd in Wisconsin Sunday, flagging her efforts. “She’s going across the country and talking with women. We have work to do, to make sure we take our message to the women of America.”

In short,

“She rounds him out,” said Thomas Rath, longtime Republican activist from New Hampshire and Romney adviser. “You live with a guy for 40 years, and you’re qualified to speak to what kind of man he is. And that’s a message that appeals to men as well as women.”

Anyway, read the entire article.

So we have a conservative candidate who would make a better president than Obama, a former governor, which means he’s actually been the CEO of a state rather than merely a member of a large voting body, a state in which he had to preside over a mostly Democrat political machine and still prevailed in his conservative ways, and we have a very strong woman who would make a great first lady.

Given what we have to work with, what more can we ask for?

Hard Astarboard, rather than sit this one out folack of the candidate to whm we were most committed, will go with Romney for President this time out and allow the possibility of an Obama reelection….

I am by no means an avid reader of TheOnion, but this morning I happened to be passing by one of those things one finds on NYC streets these days that contain a veritable mall of newspaper boxes, and The Onion was there behind one window.

The following article caught my eye and I read it, getting a good chuckle, despite its profound irreverance.

U.S. Military Desperate To Be Handed Just One Solid War It Can Knock Out Of The Park

ARLINGTON, VA—Reportedly fed up with complicated and protracted operations overseas, top Pentagon officials acknowledged this week they were desperate to be given just one straightforward, no-nonsense military engagement they could really knock out of the park.

“Given all these messy, ambiguous conflicts we’ve been fighting against enemies you can’t even put your finger on, what we could really use right now is a plain old war against a clear-cut bad guy employing conventional tactics and weaponry,” said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “No roadside bombs or plainclothes militants hiding out among innocent civilians—just a fair fight where two sides shoot at each other and someone wins. That’s it.”

“If Congress or our commander in chief could pull a few strings to make that happen, I swear we could totally nail a war like that, no question,” Dempsey added. “The sort of thing where you go in, blow up a number of actual tanks and jets, declare victory, plant a flag, and then exit—that’s all we’re asking for.”

Citing the country’s long history of winning wars against sovereign nations with actual standing armies, the Pentagon’s top brass repeatedly assured reporters they would “completely wipe the floor” with such an opponent if given the chance, and promised they would make America “very, very proud.”

Additionally, military leaders said that engaging in such a conflict “would be a huge confidence boost for [them] right now.”

“We’d be really grateful if the United States became embroiled in a war requiring us to bomb munitions factories, engage in aerial dogfights, or torpedo battleships,” said Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos, noting that when it comes to facing actual armies with actual naval and air weaponry, the U.S. is “great at that stuff.” “I guarantee it would be an absolute slam dunk for us.”

“Come on,” the four-star general added, “we really, really need this.”

LOL….

Here’s the entire “article”.

I feel their pain….