Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


That 47% and Obama’s Flag

Now that the brouhaha has settled down a bit, it’s time to have a calmer discussion of the “47%” and who was really up in arms about being the 47% that Mitt Romney spoke about. Because honestly, most people were not nuts about his comments, edited as they were.

According to a poll that CNBC took online, one that was informal and unscientific, 76% of random people agree with Romney. Let’s also keep in mind that this isn’t a Fox News poll that the left can dismiss as “right wing”: CNBC is firmly in the mainstream media. What is good about this poll is two pronged. First, it shows that many Americans are not shocked at all about what Romney said, and what that actually means; and 2) it opened up a debate on a subject that needed to be discussed.

Let me start by saying that I find the left a bit hypocritical about this whole thing. When the Acorn video from Baltimore was leaked, the left ferociously went after the secret recorders instead of being shocked at the content of the tape. I found the content appalling, but apparently child prostitution, fraud and tax evasion weren’t even close to being as evil as secretly taping someone to catch them.

So exactly what changed? Former President Carter’s grandson (who was the idiot who put him on the guest list?) taping a so-called “gotcha” video made him a hero. I thought secret taping was evil incarnate?

I also find it interesting that the tape was conveniently missing 2 minutes. The camera “conveniently” turned itself off during an important part of the discussion. I wonder why?

That said, Romney made a statement that the 47% of people dependent on government probably wouldn’t vote for him. It’s kind of common sense people. Why would they?

I will acknowledge two things about the 47%. First, I realize that a small percentage of them are seniors who have spent their lives working and contributing, and are not not paying Federal taxes because they are in a different tax bracket. They are fairly in this place and I have no problem with them.

Another very small percentage are the “rich” that are screamed about so loudly who pay no income tax because their money isn’t earned, but is instead from investments and so forth. I don’t have a problem with them either, mostly because many of them own companies that provide thousands of jobs to the 53%.

That leaves a large portion who have spent a time on welfare, unemployment or other federal aid, some for their entire lives, for generations. For those newly on these rolls because of the bad economy, I sympathize and hope they can find work and leave the rolls of federal programs; a place that many of them don’t want to be. But a very large portion of them, the ones that Romney was talking about, are not. I have a problem with this. Programs that provide help to the poor should be a hand up, not a hand out. But the way they are administered, they don’t encourage people to leave their rolls.

In response, the Obama camp released a new fundraising scheme, one that makes me wonder about the 47% again. This symbol was a new flag … Old Glory without the field of stars, but an Obama logo in its place.

I wonder how the 47% feels about the desecration of our national symbol – the flag, or if they even realize how disturbing it is. I’m imagining had the Romney/Ryan campaign put out a “flag” with the double R symbol in place of the star field, the media would be quick to condemn them! (For the record, so would I.)

Obama’s explanation was that it showed that he wants to unite everyone. I found it disturbing that he would so quickly change our national symbol to represent HIM, not the American people as it did before.

I agree with a statement that I read, that the corruption of the symbolism of the 13 stripes for each of the original colonies and the replacement of the 50 stars to represent the 50 states, with the Obama logo is an insult to the integrity of the office of the President and to those who have fought and died to uphold the meaning of the banner. It is an insult. It doesn’t matter whose idea it was, what matters is that a sitting President ok’d and got behind this desecration.

I find the imagery to be offensive and it speaks to what I see as a twisted, egomaniacal mentality of the President himself. If this is not the case, he should rightly condemn the change. He didn’t and actually defended the use of it. It is completely unacceptable and we should demand that the image be removed from the campaign immediately. Obama isn’t who or what should unify us, our flag and constitution should.

The Romney statement was blown out of proportion, and more accurately aligns with what a majority of the American people think. What I find more disturbing is that more people weren’t bothered by the flag issue. That speaks volumes about who got behind putting it out and how blasé much of the population of our country has become. It’s a sad commentary.

Image courtesy of: 110328_POTUS_Libya_NDU_041 (direct link; National Defense University

Suzanne Olden

Suzanne Reisig Olden is a Catholic Christian, Conservative, married mother of two, who loves God, family and country in that order. She lives northwest of Baltimore, in Carroll County, Maryland. She graduated from Villa Julie College/Stevenson University with a BS in Paralegal Studies and works as a paralegal for a franchise company, specializing in franchise law and intellectual property. Originally from Baltimore, and after many moves, she came home to raise her son and daughter, now high school and college aged, in her home state. Suzanne also writes for The Firebreathing Conservative website ( and hopes you'll come visit there as well for even more discussion of conservative issues.