Herman Cain probably did not make a sex tape with Kim Kardashian in a Pizza Hut restroom

Published July 17, 2012 | By Iowadawg

I laughed my butt off when I read this! Some nut is suing Herman Cain. Wonder when this nut got out of the hospital?

Herman Cain probably did not make a sex tape with Kim Kardashian in the restroom of a Pizza Hut.

But a far-fetched lawsuit filed on June 29 alleges that the plaintiff, “Jonathan Kimberly,” witnessed the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and reality TV maven making a sex tape in a Pizza Hut restroom in Shreveport, La.

Kimberly is seeking a restraining order because he claims that Cain, who was at the Pizza Hut to “taste test his arch rival,” pelted him with breadsticks, and the reality star hit him in the face with a pan pizza “straight out of the [o]ven.”

The plaintiff also claims that Kourtney, the eldest Kardashian, is pregnant with Cain’s child and that Cain gives the reality TV family unlimited gift certificates to Godfather’s Pizza, as well as $9,999 per month — a creative allusion to Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan — and is therefore violating campaign finance laws.

In perhaps the most incredible sentence ever written in a legal document, Kimberly claims that he needs a “restranging” order because “Herman Cain told me he is going to bury me alive in Tombstone Pizza”.

A spokeswoman for Cain told The Daily Caller that he had not formally been served with papers, and therefore could not comment on the case.

The legal blog Lowering the Bar first uncovered the lawsuit and made the connection that “Jonathan Kimberly” is probably Jonathan Lee Riches, a former inmate at Federal Medical Center in Kentucky.

###

New Statesman – A fine romance.

21-Pound Lobster Caught Off Cape Cod Beach « CBS Boston.

Zuckerberg’s Loan Gives New Meaning to the 1% – Bloomberg.

Navy’s new gender-neutral carriers won’t have urinals – This Just In – CNN.com Blogs.

UPDATE: Elderly Woman Murdered In Her Fair Oaks Home Identified « CBS Sacramento.

Worst drought since 1950s in continental U.S. – Capital Weather Gang – The Washington Post.

Man with world’s largest willy in security scare at airport | The Sun |News.

Hero saves girl who fell from third-floor window | The Sun |News.

###

Obama’s Bain Capital attack is inane and low, as much politics is, including how the Republican stalwarts have been treating the Paul supporters, presumably under Romney’s watch. Still, I hate to see capitalism be smeared in the process. Romney could argue the plusses of venture capital firms and their willingness to risk large amounts of capital where banks won’t and can’t. Venture capital firms have pioneered many financial and management control innovations in order to bring financing to firms that would otherwise be unable to get capital. This industry should not be smeared.

While Obama was busy figuring out how to seize wealth and developing a philosophy that those who create wealth by innovations really do not (!) create wealth, venture capital firms have been quietly working in the background to nurture those kinds of middle-sized and smaller-sized companies that produce the most job growth in America.

If they could not take calculated risks on some companies or were prevented from doing so by people like Obama who allege that such capital should be kept in America, this would chill the whole industry and undermine it. Obama is not only an ignoramus on free market economics, given his head he’d be a thoroughly destructive force against markets.
— Michael S. Rozeff

###

This is probably the truth! He could be the only man in congress who actually reads all the bills before he votes on them.

Ron Paul if you do not recognize him…..

###

It’s Not Fair!

From Ed Lasky at American Thinker:

President Obama is right. There is a lot of unfairness in America. And he is the source of much of it.

Last time I heard so much talk about fairness — as in the plaintive “that’s not fair” — was when my children were toddlers. But Obama seems to think that the word will have some spellbinding effect when wielded against the wealthy Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama has ditched the “hope and change” slogan of his 2008 campaign and is now peddling “fairness” as his mantra. He promises he will make life “fair” for Americans. He launched his strategy when he called up the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt in Kansas back in December. It is redolent, too, of the come from behind victory of Harry Truman who preached a “Fair Deal” for Americans.

Obama followed it up by trying to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act — a law supposedly designed to help women sue business for gender-based wage discrimination. Even the Washington Post thought it was deeply flawed, and it was struck down in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But it has played into the “fairness” and “Republican War on Women” campaign talking points.

Before that there was talk of resurrecting the “Fairness Doctrine” to kill off talk radio.

Then the Buffett Rule was supposed to ensure the “rich” paid their fair share of taxes and that too was a “fairness fiction” that nevertheless played a supporting role in President Obama’s Class War (the only war he supports other than the war against the GOP — in his mind, a redundancy).

But does Obama himself pass a “fairness test”?

Can the Romney campaign use political jujitsu against Barack Obama and remind Americans of just how unfair Barack Obama’s presidency has been for so many Americans?

Obama’s latest fairness gambit was his proposal to allow taxes to rise for high earners — for families, anyone earning more than $250,000 annually — while keeping the Bush tax cuts for those below that figure. The disparate treatment was justified in the interests of “fairness.” Of course, the net effectwould be harmful since so many job creators earn more than $250,000 per year. The fuel that drives job creation would be sucked into Washington, D.C., already among the economically healthiest areas of the nation. Is that fair to workers looking for jobs?

Obama signaled his desire to take money away from the “rich” very early in his career — even going back to his community organizing days. Most Americans only became aware of his agenda in 2008 when he touted that he wanted to “spread the wealth” but there was also a time before this when the self-declared master poker play showed his hand. He told Charles Gibson that he wanted to raise capital gain taxes even if government revenues would fall – all in the interest- again, that magical word”fairness.” Imagine — the biggest spending President in American history would rather take money away from people than increase the amount the government takes in every year.

However, Obama’s presidency fails the fairness test in many more ways.

Is it fair that one half of all Americans pay no federal income tax? They have an interest in extracting as much money from the government — that is, taxpayers — as they can. Coincidentally or not, that seems to be the same level of rock solid support for Obama.

Barack Obama has helped create this permanent dependency-not just by his anti-growth policies-but by subtly and stealthily changing the definition of the “poverty level” in ways that triggers, literally, a never-ending redistribution of income. Once this poverty level is met, a range of welfare benefits become available.

On top of that bureaucratic tactic, the administration recently (and quietly) invited – in a possibly illegal act — states to apply for waivers to the work requirement that was a centerpiece of welfare reform and was one of the most successful anti-poverty measures in American history.

Stanley Kurtz characterized Barack Obama as Senator Stealth, based on the secretive ways he fiddled with legislation when he served in the Illinois Senate — far from the public eye and media scrutiny. Now he has become President Stealth-and this from a man who promised the most transparent administration in history.

###

Now why can’t the news media actually say who made up this mob! And where are the police? Surely they could have got a few of these animals?

###

For a little bit, one does have to love Don Imus for the way he slices and dices this liberal nut woman!

###

Quoting Obama’s Own Words Makes You A “Racist” in the Mind of A Bigoted Liberal

From waznmentobe:

MSNBC’s The Last Word Monday, host Lawrence O’Donnell accused conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh of being racist for saying Barack Obama smoked weed and snorted coke.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Romney knows how to do this. He did it to Newt and he did it to Santorum. He knows full well how he has to do this. But I know what they think they’re up against. They got the first black president, independents…It’s easy to go after Newt or Romney, because they’re conservatives and everybody hates conservatives anyway…But we can’t go after poor old Barack that way, because he’s a minority.

O’DONNELL: And so Rush decided to teach Mitt how to go after a minority. Rush thinks Mitt should be hitting Barack Obama as a lazy, drug-taking beneficiary of affirmative action. Rush didn’t use the word “shiftless,” but Rush threw in every racist stereotype he could in his advice to Mitt. Read more: here

Left up the half-wit, political bigots from the Democrat (Socialist) Party, Republicans and Conservatives wouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to say nary a word nor utterance against the greatness and grandness of democrats. Most fortunately for Americas, Conservatives feel empowered by the lunatics of the Left. And we won’t ‘shut up’.

But this does show how Liberals run from facts, as if they were a pre-aborted fetus. Democrats live in constant fear people will know what they stand for and believe in (absolute power). Conservatives want you to know what they believe in – absolute personal liberty to go about your life buying 32 oz drinks.

Obama bragged in his little book (Dreams From My Father) about his drug use (he evidently was a real toker and got down with some good’stuff). We’re not suppose to even mention that, and must assume anyone who read his phony, ghost written book skipped over all thebad parts. But that is Obama’s history. In his own words – just as his association with convicted felons (Ayers, Rich, Dohrn, and a slew of others) and non-convicted felons like Clinton, and his communists mentor (Davis, Saul Alinksy) and commie friend, Van Jones. oops, the Democrats have forbidden us to speak of such or else we’re labeled “racist”, although I don’t see how repeating Obama’s own words, makes Conservatives racist?

I say that little Larry is the “racist” and most likely “shiftless” being he’s a Liberal, believing all should be pretty much provided on demand.
And it should be noted that Mr Limbaugh never used the term “”affirmative action” – so I will.

Obama has ‘refused’ to release college transcripts. As much as he likes to brag on himself, there must be a reason. I suspect grades weren’t all that good, possibly he wrote down he was from his (as Michelle Obama said) ‘homeland’ of Kenya, to receive (more) special treatment . . . and that treatment included “affirmative action”?

Being 1/2 black, possibly from Kenya and an braggadocios drug user, Obama certainly qualifies for the liberal- promoted, ‘we- can’t- expect-that- you- achieve- on- your- own- merits, ‘affirmative action’. And this is why Democrats hate the facts. It messes up their story line.

###

Wow…did Matt do good or what?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

###

The Incredible Bain Jobs Machine

From Andy Kessler at the Wall Street Journal:

In a competitive economy, $5,000 computers become $500 tablets. Consumers get to spend the difference elsewhere in the economy.

Did Mitt Romney and Bain Capital help office-supply retailer Staples create 88,000 jobs? 43,000? 252? Actually, Staples probably destroyed 100,000 jobs while creating millions of new ones.

Since 1986, Staples has opened 2,000 stores, eliminating the jobs of distributors and brokers who charged nasty markups for paper and office supplies. But it enabled hundreds of thousands of small (and not so small) businesses to stock themselves cheaply and conveniently and expand their operations.

It’s the same story elsewhere. Apple employs just 47,000 people, and Google under 25,000. Like Staples, they have destroyed many old jobs, like making paper maps and pink “While You Were Out” notepads. But by lowering the cost of doing business they’ve enabled innumerable entrepreneurs to start new businesses and employ hundreds of thousands, even millions, of workers world-wide—all while capital gets redeployed more effectively.

This process happens during every business cycle and always, always creates jobs. Yet is ignored by policy mavens.

It is now four years after the wheels fell off our financial system. The government has tried every gimmick to revive the economy: fiscal stimulus, monetary easing, loan write-downs, foreclosure modifications—all duds. It seems like no one remembers how an economy creates jobs anymore. The right answer, in fact the only answer, for jobs and better living standards, is productivity.

Economists define productivity as output per worker hour. But ramping up the output of trolleys or 8-track tapes won’t increase living standards. It is not just technical efficiency that matters, it is also effectiveness—that is, producing what the economy really needs and consumers will pay for.

And so, in a broader sense, productivity is really about doing the right things the right way. Using modern construction equipment, we could build a pyramid on the National Mall in Washington with amazing efficiency, but it would not be effective.

So how does productivity result in more employment?

Three ways. First, some new technology comes along that allows something never before possible. Cash from an ATM, stock trading from an airplane’s aisle seat, ads next to Google search results.

The inventor or entrepreneur who uses the invention benefits from sales and wealth and hires people to produce the good or service. We don’t hear about this. Instead we hear about the layoffs of bank tellers, stockbrokers and media salesmen. So productivity becomes the boogeyman for job losses. And many economic cranks would prefer that we just hire back the tellers and toll collectors.

This is a big mistake because new, cheaper technology becomes a platform for others to create or expand businesses that never before made economic sense. Adobe software killed typesetters, but allowed millions cheaply to get into the publishing business. Millions of individuals and micro-size businesses now reach a national, not just local, retail market thanks to eBay. Amazon allows thousands upon thousands of new vendors to thrive and hire.

###

Is Obama Ripping Off the Mask?

From James Lewis at American Thinker:

American candidates for president have a predictable trajectory. They begin by telling the party troops that they are really coming from the honest-to-gosh right or left, and then they move steadily toward the great fuzzy middle, so that by election time they end up sounding like Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.
But Obama has been going off the standard script — most recently by attacking capitalism in radical terms. Namely, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Democratic senators are reportedly “horrified” by Obama’s behavior.
Last week, an Obama surrogate was accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon.
This is a new low in presidential hardball politics — at least since LBJ accused Barry Goldwater of wanting to explode nuclear weapons on little girls picking daisies.
Ben Shapiro of Breitbart reports the following Obama transcript:

Is any of this (use of tax havens) actually illegal?
It appears not, but it’s impossible to know for sure because Romney refuses to release enough information to let people make their own judgments.

Writes Shapiro:

… Last time I checked, … there is a presumption of innocence[.] But Obama needs no evidence. He just needs innuendo.

“And when did you stop beating your wife?” to quote the old legal joke. But this is not a joke.
If Breitbart is right, the Obama campaign is actually raising money in China — quite possibly from non-U.S. citizens, since its controls are lax. Not a legal move, even if it’s ignored by the Federal Election Commission.
The Obama campaign may be committing felonies while accusing others of being felons. Hardball politics isn’t new, but crazy hardball tends to be self-defeating. It reflects rage and desperation rather than cold calculations. Obama now seems to be playing crazy ball.
In 2008, Obama ran as a messianic figure, come to bring peace and love to earth. But in 2012 he is tearing off the mask bequeathed by Saul Alinsky and his other radical left mentors.
I think there might be two reasons. First, Obama really is an ideological radical — there’s no honest doubt about it anymore, given his expressed anti-capitalist and anti-constitutionalist views, his solid phalanx of radical associates throughout life, and his repeated assault on everyday Americans. And while Obama is the most convincing liar since Bill Clinton, he has essentially given up on hiding his radicalism.
That is hugely important.
A second reason why Obama seems to be wandering off script is his genuine rage and anger toward those who dissent from his radical orthodoxy. Early in his administration, Obama gave one of those televised White House seminars on the economy. Congressman Paul Ryan was there, and instead of listening obediently, the way Republicans are supposed to, he presented a clear and articulate argument against federal overspending. Obama was caught unprepared, and right there on live TV, he suddenly looked enraged. That used-car salesman smile was gone. For a moment, we could see the man behind the Carteresque grin. He didn’t look kind and compassionate.
You can bet that Vladimir Putin and Hu Jin Tao played and replayed that clip over and over again to see the real Obama. All the novice KGB thugs are being trained on this one.
(Look at this photo of Obama’s soulmate, Elizabeth Warren, and you can see the identical rage.)
The Daily Kos loves this collectivist Obama stuff. But the Kosovars are already in his back pocket. Why is Obama echoing the mad-dog left three and a half months before November?
One reason could be money. The Great O is far behind his money-raising record from 2007 and 2008. But in 2008, Obama kept his real feelings for the private delight of behind-the-scene fund-raisers.
Right now Obama’s denial of business achievements is on the White House website (above). Americans who don’t hate business (70-80 percent) are not comfortable with those words. If the people in the Romney campaign are smart, they’ll run that one over and over toward November. Add a few occupistas running wild in business districts around the country, and they will add Obama’s smiling endorsement of those idealistic kids, just to hammer the point home. Obama is his own worst enemy.
In emotional terms, Obama and Warren are “leaking” their real feelings while trying to cover them up. Popular narcissists can be devastatingly nice and charming, until they run into opposition. Then their real feelings leak out.
In his heart of hearts, President O is always enraged at the American people — those bitter clingers — but this time it’s personal. Gone is the smiling messiah, and in his place we see a persecutory personality, a real witch-hunter who may lose the election but won’t pass up a chance to scourge this country with the whip of righteousness, to tell us what he really thinks. Under the smiling mask, Obama is Rev. Jerry Wright.

###

disappearinginthefade:

A map of Mafia-connected homicides in the Greater New York City area in the last ten years, 2002-2012.

In many cases the motives of the killings are shrouded in secrecy, but each marker represents a victim who was murdered by someone connected to a Family of La Cosa Nostra (Gambino, Colombo, Genovese, Lucchese, Bonanno, DeCavalcante), a victim who was a member of a Family, or a victim strongly suspected to have been killed due to their association with the mob. There are twenty-nine victims on this map, but there may very well be dozens more victims of Mafia violence, due to the inherent hidden and covert nature of organized crime and the New York City underworld. If you think this is cool, you should see the rest of my final project for my Violence In America class.

###

Obama and our government have hurt me, not helped me, every step of the way

From Wayne Allyn Root at Fox News:

I was President Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. Almost every one of my classmates were openly socialist or Marxist, with many of these leftist radicals calling for an end to capitalism and “bringing down the system” by destroying the U.S. economy with entitlements, debt, and crisis.

That’s why I have predicted in thousands of media interviews from the first days of Obama’s presidency that Obama is a radical, with a deep-seated hatred of business owners, a desire to demonize us and destroy America’s faith in capitalism, and a plan to bring down the system by overwhelming our economy with debt and crisis — just as we all learned and discussed at Columbia in our college days.

Well, it’s no longer a theory. Obama has decided to come clean with his plans for a second term. In a matter of 48 hours he gave us two hints so big you couldn’t miss his intentions.

First, Obama gave notice that every state could receive a “waiver” to opt out of demanding that welfare recipients must work to receive their benefits. This isn’t some radical right-wing conspiracy Obama is trying to wreck. This was a bipartisan law of the land intended to “end welfare as we know it” and passed under Democratic President Bill Clinton. It has worked mega-successfully (with nary a complaint) for almost two decades. Why would anyone, who isn’t a committed radical intent on exploding entitlements, debt and crisis, try to end this law?

Obama has showed his true colors. He’s not satisfied with 46 million Americans on food stamps, 11 million on Disability (5.5 million in just his first term), millions more on unemployment benefits, and tens of millions on other government handouts. He wants to make it even easier to get on welfare, without any requirement to work. Going to work might get in the way of your ability to vote on November 6.

Government has never helped me. But President Obama is right about one thing — government is always by our side. Unfortunately it ruins everything it touches.

This is precisely how you explode the numbers of Americans on welfare, all dependent on government for survival, and all loyal to the Democratic Party that protects their checks.

Then, 24 hours later, Obama said words that made me sick to my stomach and brought tears to my eyes. Words so vile they are an affront to every American business owner and a reminder of his true beliefs — a deep-seated hatred and resentment toward capitalist business owners. Obama said that we business owners owe our success to government. He actually said that if you’ve built a business, you don’t get the credit. It’s government who has been by your side. You need to give government the credit.

Obama believes government helped me every step of the way as a businessman? Really? Honest to God? With that kind of thinking, I think it’s now safe to say Obama has come out of the closet. Either he’s a Marxist hell bent on demonizing wealthy business owners and destroying capitalism, or perhaps he’s high on that drug he enjoyed so much in his youthful days.

Because the reality is that government has hurt me, every step of the way. Government has NEVER helped me. But Obama is right about one thing — government is always by our side. Unfortunately it ruins everything it touches.

###

A Letter to Young Voters

From Dennis Prager at NRO:

According to conventional wisdom, the older the person, the less young people are inclined to listen to him or her.

This is probably true for some of you. But I do not believe that it is true for most of you.

Most young people have tremendous respect for older people’s views. I saw this firsthand in my own life. I began lecturing publicly at the age of 21, and I give you my word that young people (and certainly older people) are far more respectful of my views today than when I was their age. All things being equal, it is very rare for a 25- or 35-year-old to command the respect that a 50- or 60-year-old commands.

So, I am not afraid that you will dismiss what I have to say here as the irrelevant thoughts of an older person.

But just in case you need an argument to take an older person’s thoughts seriously, ask any adults you respect whether they have more wisdom and insight into life now than they did ten years ago, let alone when they were your age. The answer will always be yes. (And any adult who has not gained wisdom over the course of a lifetime is not worth listening to.)

Which directly leads to my point: Did you ever wonder why people are far more likely to become conservative in their views and values as they get older?

When this rather devastating question is posed to liberals, leftists, progressives, Democrats — you choose the label or group — they answer that people get more selfish as they get older.

Progressives have to give this answer. There is no other response that enables them to avoid confronting the quite embarrassing fact that just about every adult, at every age of life, thinks he/she is wiser than when younger — and that as they accumulate wisdom they become more conservative.

So the liberal explanation — that people get more selfish as they get older — is not only insulting, it is nonsense.

People get worse as they get older?

If you were walking in a dark alley at midnight, which would you fear more — a group of teenagers or twentysomethings or a group of senior citizens?

Do older people or younger people give more of their time to charitable institutions?

Are our prisons filled with young people or old people?

The fact is that not only do people get more wise and more conservative as they get older, they get more kind and more generous, too.

But what about “idealism”? We are told that young people are more “idealistic” than old people.

Let me respond by asking: What does “idealistic” mean?

Presumably it means having ideals — a kinder, more peaceful world, etc. Well, who told you that as people get older they lose these ideals? This is so untrue as to constitute a lie. If anything, we older people yearn for a peaceful world even more than young people do. We are the ones who lost friends or relatives in some war. We are the ones who have lived a lifetime of seeing and reading about human suffering. And we, not you, have children and grandchildren whom we ache to see alive and healthy.

So, let’s put to rest the self-serving myth that young people have greater ideals than old people.

What the term “more idealistic” really means when applied to young people is that young people are more naïve, not more idealistic, than older people.

Examples are legion.

Here’s one: Young people believe that when the government gives more money and benefits to more people it helps them. This is naïve. As you get older and wiser you realize that when people are given anything without having to earn it (unless they are physically or mentally utterly incapable of earning anything), they become ungrateful and lazy. They also become less happy. Every study shows that people who earn money are far happier than people who win many millions of dollars in a lottery. Happiness is earned, not given.

Here’s another: Young people are far more likely to believe that world peace is achieved when nations lay down their arms and talk through their differences. But this has never been the case. Of course, good nations stay peaceful when they talk to other good nations. Bad nations — that is, nations ruled by evil men — are never dissuaded from making war by talk. They are dissuaded only by good nations having more arms than they do. That is why the Marine Corps has done so much more for world peace than the Peace Corps.

###

Thanks to Obamacare, Small Businesses Plan on Eliminating Jobs Before 2014

From Kyle Bonnell at Townhall:

Obamacare’s employer mandate has small businesses scrambling to reduce their workforce in anticipation of the law’s implementation in 2014. Under the employer mandate, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees have to provide coverage or pay a $2,000 penalty for every worker minus the first 30. Growing businesses have discovered that expanding their workforce beyond 50 fulltime workers is simply too burdensome. In order to survive, many of these companies will have to either scale back the hours of existing employees so that they are no longer classified as fulltime or let them go altogether. CNN reports on how a few businesses are grappling with their mandate:

Kari DePhillips, who co-owns the Content Factory, a public relations firm in Pittsburgh, was hoping she could just break up the company to sidestep the rule. Maybe one firm would do marketing while the other builds websites.

The small company is on pace to exceed the 50-worker threshold in the next few years. DePhillips doesn’t want to provide health care, and she definitely doesn’t want to pay the penalty, which would be $2,000 per full-time worker minus the first 30.

“A $40,000 fine to my company would be catastrophic,” she said.

A larger company mentioned in the same report is similarly burdened:

The other way business owners are planning to deal with the law is a devastating one. They plan to cut staff and switch full-time employees to part-time, which the law classifies as less than 30 hours per week.

That’s the reality for the 425 workers at David Barr’s nearly two dozen KFCs and Taco Bells across Alabama and Georgia. Barr has already done the math.

He currently provides health care for managerial staff only, and it costs him about $125,000 to cover the 30 who take it. Extending that to every full-timer would cost him another $545,782 a year.

Health reform’s creation of state insurance exchanges promises to bring down those costs, but Barr said any expenses even close to that will still outmatch his available cash.

“This business model isn’t meant to support those costs,” he said.

To minimize expenses, he’ll fire workers and cut hours to reduce the number of full-timers to 60. Then he’ll opt for the penalty instead of paying insurance. A $60,000 fine pales in comparison to the huge potential rise in health care costs.

Cashiers would be replaced by self-order kiosks, cooks with chicken breading machines. These options are too expensive now, he said, but they would make sense then.

###

This is via FNI:

Mitt Romney blasted back at President Obama’s comments on business creators, saying to a crowd that the president “attacked success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that.”

The presidential hopeful asked at the campaign stop in Pennsylvania, “Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that’s great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build their future?”

He furthered his point, saying, “The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn’t create Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford Motors … to say something like that is not just foolishness, it’s insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America and it’s wrong.”

Radio talk show host Mark Levin said of Romney’s firing back, “I like it, four more months of this and we should be okay.” What Romney’s tapping into, said Levin, is that as Americans “we’re not about welfare, and food stamps, and unemployment, and government health care … we’re about success. That is the American dream.”

Levin went on to say that President Obama “despises the capitalist system.” The radio host told Neil Cavuto that the president’s attacks on Bain Capital and other private enterprises aren’t because they are failures, but rather because they create jobs. “I didn’t know we were having a national debate over roads and bridges,” Levin said in response to the president’s comments.

There is a strategy that conservatives need to use in order to beat President Obama in the election, according to Levin. He said, “We conservatives have debated and fought left-wing radicals like Obama since high school and college and law school, we know how to fight them … and the way you fight Obama is to know who he is.”

You can watch the full speech here. Please remember friends…Romney was teleprompter free during this speech…unlike you know who.

###