Democrats Expose Themselves

I couldn’t sleep Wednesday night.

Normally I don’t go looking for fights, even though they often find me, but I was bored!

I decided to troll the leftwits at the Huffington Post forums.

Okay, that isn’t exactly true.  I was reading stories about the floor vote at the DNC convention to add the words “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the Democrat’s platform, and I wanted to see how the liberals were reacting to it.  It all started out as simple honest interest in how they viewed those events.  I didn’t plan to engage in any heckling, but, as I said, I was bored!

For me, the events of Wednesday’s floor vote sums up everything about the Democrats in one neat little package.  All you ever needed to know about them is encapsulated in one little video caught by C-Span:

1)      Racism is alive and well, and resides in the Democrat Party.

2)      Democrats will go to any lengths to deceive the public.

3)      The Godless do indeed make up a large contingent of the DNC.

4)      Anti-Semitism is rampant among liberals.

5)      Democrats use crass demagoguery to keep minority factions in line.

6)      Democrats will throw their own under the bus.

7)      Votes only count to Democrats if they like the results.

Racist Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (who thinks that he belongs to “the” race) was the perfect choice by the Democrats to represent them as their Convention Chairman.  He embodies the liberal notion of placing the color of one’s skin ahead of the content of their character, and, as if any further proof was needed, this event leaves no doubt that he is personally bereft of any such character.

This vote was a set up from the beginning.  It was a contrived effort to attack Mitt Romney for not being 100% in line with the Republican platform, which, in this case apparently calls for abortion to be restricted with no exceptions.  Romney would leave exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  Democrats spent a good part of last week trying to make some political hay out of that difference, but didn’t gain any traction.  Most everyone knows that a fresh political candidate has little control over their party platform.  Only incumbents, like Barack Obama, really have that power.

The Democrats concocted this political maneuver in order to try to slam Romney while portraying Barack Obama as a forceful leader.  They were deriding Romney for not having the “courage” to attack the Republican platform and force it to mirror his own views.  The original wording of the Democrats platform was written with the intent of setting the stage to allow for the “heroic” Obama to rush in and save the day by demanding that his own platform be changed to his will.

Unfortunately, for them, they let the cat out of the bag earlier in the week by letting it be known that Obama signed off on the original wording.

Also unfortunately, for them, the masquerade backfired in a spectacular and glorious fashion!

So, as Villaraigosa took the stage at the DNC, with his teleprompter already displaying the results of a vote he had not yet taken, he was met with something that he didn’t expect:

Resistance!

Everybody knows that happy little liberals are not allowed to disagree with the stated party line!  It doesn’t even matter how ridiculous the spin might be!  They’ll keep to it.  I guess they just weren’t prepared for the talking points to change, and Villaraigosa was DEFINITELY not prepared for the delegate’s reaction to those changes!

The delegate’s reaction to the notion of adding God back to the platform was very telling, as was the reaction that I saw among many liberals posting at The Huffington Post.  They railed at the notion of the “sky fairy” being mentioned in a political setting.  They revealed that they believe that anyone who believes in such “fairy tales” could not be rational or intelligent.

I pointed out to them that it was Obama himself that forced the wording changes.  So, either Obama believes in God, which, by their logic, would make him irrational, or Obama doesn’t believe in God, which makes his own platform a lie. 

By their own definition, Obama is either an idiotic lunatic, or a liar… or both.

They REALLY didn’t like to hear that much!  They weren’t able to refute the point, so many of my posts were deleted by the site moderators and deemed as “personal attacks”.  Apparently pointing out logical fallacies to a liberal equates to attacking them personally.

The Anti-Semitism among liberals and Democrats was evidenced by the people carrying “Arab-American Democrat” signs (like we really need more hyphenated “Americans”?) and shouting “NO!” to the notion of confirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  There is a huge contingent of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israel Democrats.  They may, in fact, make up the majority of that party.  Jewish people in America are finally starting to wake up to that reality, and more and more are “defecting” to the Republican Party every day.  I thought it very telling that the Democrats had to rush out to attempt damage control.

There was even the claim that conservative Christians only care about Israel because, according to Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel, “The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ”.

Disgusting.

But what I thought was the funniest part about this whole ordeal was how the vote was rigged from the beginning, and I was delighted as I watched Villaraigosa throw his own party’s delegates under the bus!  The look on his face was just pure comedy gold!

Two-thirds of the delegates would have been required to accede to the changes for the vote to have passed, but there is no way that anyone residing within a realm with the slightest connection to reality could claim there was a 2/3 vote in favor of either side.

But the fix was in.

Thanks to video taken at the event, we know now that Villaraigosa’s teleprompter was already set up for him to read the results as being in favor of making the changes.  This demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Democrats only care about votes if those votes are going their way. 

If they will ignore the votes of their own delegates to fix an election at their own convention, how can that leave any doubt about what they would do in a general election?

This one event nearly sums up the entire case against the Democrats and liberals.

Letting the DNC Rewrite History

Former President Bill Clinton’s scheduled speech tonight at the DNC convention reminds me of just how often we, as conservatives, have allowed the Democrats and the liberal media (redundancy!) to dictate the narrative and rewrite history.

Seriously, I have been hoping for a long time to see this trend change, but even with social media taking a large chunk out of the dinosaur news networks, we are still allowing the liberals to get away with an insane amount of propaganda.

Maybe it is because I am old enough to remember how things were when they actually happened.  Our newest set of voters was still in diapers during Clinton’s last term.  The Democrats work to take full advantage of the naiveté of youth, which is why they target younger voters and deceive them.  What disturbs me most is that all too often conservatives go right along with the deception unwittingly.

But I fully remember Bill Clinton’s first election.  This is because I actually supported Clinton.  Don’t hate me!

It was a definite year of discovery for me.  It was the year that I discovered first-hand how blatantly deceptive the liberals can be.

I was young.  The 1992 election wasn’t my first, but it was close to it.  I was angry at George H. W. Bush for his myopic “family values” platform.  Ross Perot had some good sound bites, but I thought the guy was a bit of a lunatic (and it turns out that I was right).  Bill Clinton was the “cool” candidate, much like Barack Obama was portrayed in 2008.  Hell, he could play the saxophone!  He went on popular shows like Arsenio to prove it.  Even most conservatives will still say that Clinton is a likable guy on a personal level.

But, in reality, Bill Clinton was Barack Obama 1.0.

Clinton’s first campaign was very much like Obama’s.  The Democrats pilloried Bush for going back on his pledge to not raise any taxes, even though it was the Democrats in Congress that placed that poison pill into an unrelated bill that Bush felt he could not veto.  Clinton promised to lower taxes and bring us all together as a nation.  He gave us empty platitudes.

What we got instead was almost IDENTICAL to Obama’s first two years in office.

As soon as Clinton got in, he and his Democrat allies in Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country.  Then Bill and Hillary went to work to push a universal health care plan, dubbed “Hillarycare”.  The only difference was that they did not have a super-majority in Congress, like Obama.  The nation recoiled at Clinton’s actions.  They were so incredibly unpopular that Republicans swept the House and Senate races to gain control for the first time in 54 years.  The sweep was nearly identical to the one in 2010.

Citizens of the United States had developed a clear case of buyer’s remorse.

At that point, there were only two differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections, Clinton would never have come close to winning, either time.  He never managed a majority of the popular vote.  But Clinton did something else that Obama failed to do; after he got his clock cleaned in the mid-term elections, Bill Clinton decided to portray himself as a centrist.

Today, we have liberals like Barack Obama going around telling the country that his ideas are the same as Clinton’s, and that those ideas worked.  And he is allowed to get away with it.

Not even conservatives will call him on it.

But the truth is that the ideas that brought us prosperity in the 1990’s were not so popular with Clinton.  He fought against them tooth and nail, and went so far as to wage a war with the Gingrich-led Congress that would shut down the government.  If Clinton had gotten his way, and had retained control of the House or Senate, we likely would not have seen so much prosperity, even with the technological boom.  Clinton went kicking and screaming against ideas like welfare reform (vetoed three times), until he was forced into a political position where he had to sign such ideas into law.  He then turned around and portrayed ideas like welfare reform and a balanced budget as hallmarks of his administration, with the liberal media in full cooperation.

But those ideas did not originate from Clinton, he opposed them at the outset, and he only came to get on board when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

The boom in technology was enough to spur our economy to great heights, not because of Clinton’s policies, but despite them.  In fact, Clinton ignored several pitfalls that caused our economy to take a large downturn near the end of his administration.  Several companies were cooking the books.  Many of the prosperous internet corporations had no physical inventory of which to speak.  When the bubbles burst, Clinton didn’t care.  He was on his way out.

The media blamed George W. Bush for Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, and the like, but those crimes were all committed under Clinton’s watch.  Apart from that, Clinton’s administration had more high level corrupt scandals than even Obama’s.  They made Nixon look like a choir boy.  But the dinosaur media covered for him, and portrayed him as an enigmatic superstar.

And we let them.

And now we are letting them tell everyone how successful Clinton was as a President.

Why..?

Because we allowed them to create that narrative and let it become ingrained as common knowledge.

We even went along with it to a degree, and we’re paying the price now.  Obama is able to fool much of the populace with this narrative.

We’ve got to stop letting this happen.

Dissecting Michelle Obama

I started this article with every intention of going through Michelle Obama’s entire speech at the DNC convention.  That  didn’t work out as planned.  I got about a quarter of the way through her speech before I just could not bear even to look at the text of it anymore.  It is beyond absurd.  I will go through the rest of it at a later date, if my scheduling allows.  

But even just this first portion is incredible!!!

“Over the past few years as first lady, I have had the extraordinary privilege of travelling all across this country.”

WE KNOW!  You’ve travelled all over this country and several other countries…  ALL ON OUR DIME.

She goes on from here to talk about wounded warriors and heroes that make sacrifices for other people, often risking their lives.  I would have no quarrel with that part of it, except that it is obvious empty rhetoric and pandering to a group that does not support this president because they know full well how much (or little) he has supported them.

“Serving as your first lady is an honor and a privilege.  But, back when we first came together four years ago, I still had some concerns about this journey we’d begun.”

Wait…  Serving..?  How exactly is she serving us?  By telling us what we should feed our children?  By vacationing and partying at the taxpayer’s expense?  And yes, Michelle, we are all fully aware that you had some “concerns” about the “journey we’d begun”.  We know that you first became proud of America only after your husband was elected.  We have doubts about just how proud you are of America, even today.

“While I believe it if we dig deeply in my husband’s vision for this country, and I was certain he would make an extraordinary president, like any mother, I was worried about what it would mean for our girls if he got that chance.  How would we keep them grounded under the glare of the national spotlight?  How would they feel being uprooted from their school, their friends and the only home they’d ever known?”

“See our life before moving to Washington was filled with simple joys.  Saturdays at soccer games, Sundays at grandma’s house, and a date night for Barack and me with either dinner or a movie because as an exhausted mom, I couldn’t stay awake for both.”

(LAUGHTER)

One should EXPECT laughter after hearing this joke!  Hell, I don’t even know where to begin!  Obviously Michelle learned something about writing an auto-biography from her husband.  Her narrative here is just as fake as anything that Barack wrote (assuming he actually wrote it) in Dreams of My Father.  Where are the fact checkers now?  Michelle Obama was NOT a soccer mom!!!  Not even REMOTELY a soccer mom!  But here she claims to have been pulled from that care-free life to serve as First Lady..?

This is the type of lying that liberals are known for, and the media will allow it to pass unchecked because they support the liberal agenda.

“And the truth is, I loved the life we had built for our girls. And I deeply love the man I built that life with and I did not want that to change if he became president.”

(APPLAUSE)

“I loved Barack just the way he was.  You see, even back then, when Barack was a Senator and presidential candidate, to me, he was still the guy who picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by in a hole in the passenger side door.”

(LAUGHTER)

This should read “incredulous laughter”.  Does anyone believe that Senator Barack Obama was driving around in a car that was rusted out?  Anyone..?  Liberals, do you really buy this crap?  

There are two types of liberals; those that believe the lies, and those that happily repeat them, knowing they are lies.

“He was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he’d found in a dumpster.”

(APPLAUSE)

SAY WHAT?!?!?!

Senator Barack Obama was a dumpster diver?!

And PROUD OF IT?!

Michelle Obama just called the president a dumpster diver at the DNC convention, and not a single liberal media outlet even so much as cocked their head in wonder.  On the contrary, they APPLAUDED!  

This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone, folks!

The rabbit hole goes deeper from here.  Too deep for me to get into tonight, but in preview, I will say that Michelle claims that their lofty Ivy League educations were paid for with student loans, and further claims that they had to work very hard to pay them off.  Barack Obama went to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard on Pell Grants and Stafford Loans..?

I would love to see some proof of that!

And I would love to see even one alphabet network fact check her speech.

Honestly.

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.

Why the Democrats Can Win Elections

My first day back in college (today) was fairly instructive, if unintentionally so.

As an accounting major, I am taking a business class.  It’s pretty standard stuff.  Nothing too extreme.  Apart from a fairly decent narrative from my professor, I would have been bored to tears.

Until he said one thing that woke me up pretty quickly…

He began to expound on the two philosophies of wealth; infinite wealth and finite wealth.

Infinite wealth is the theory that wealth is created, and therefore in unlimited supply, whereas finite wealth theorizes that there is only so much wealth to be had, thus anyone with too much of it prevents others from attaining more.

At one point, he asked us to raise our hands if we believed that wealth is created.

A no-brainer, right?  Or so I thought.  Of course, I raised my hand.

When he asked about finite wealth, to my dismay, more than half of the class raised their hands, at which point the professor went on to briefly say that there is merit in both theories.

Did he really believe that, or was he simply “going along to get along”?

Either way, it made me uncomfortable, because there can be no merit whatsoever in the theory of finite wealth.

The notion that there is only one pie to be divided–and that those who have a bigger slice are taking away from others–ignores the person who baked the pie.

Hard work creates wealth.  Without it, there is no pie at all.  But Barack Obama and his supporters are legion, and they believe that the pie willed itself into existence.  Moreover, they believe that they deserve an equal slice of that pie, whether they helped to bake it, or not.

If I buy a house that is in poor condition, and work to clean it up and repair it, the house would be worth much more (theoretically) than what I originally payed for it.  In this way wealth and prosperity are created.

I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many people mindlessly buy into the notion of finite wealth first-hand really did open my eyes (wider) to the stark differences between conservatives like me and the liberals that we oppose on a daily basis.

And with people who are that thoughtless having the power to vote, it is no wonder that ideologues like Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats can pander to them enough to win elections.

Shot Down In Flames!

Oh, my, my, my!

SPANKED!

What a wonderful and glorious political week we have had!

Barack Obama and David Axelrod have invented a brand new game called “Hidin’ Biden”.

You have to love it.  After a week full of miscues that would have thrown the Obama campaign off message–if they actually had a message–Vice President Joe Biden got sent home to Delaware to stew for a while.  That would be funny enough, except that the White House released the announcement and actually titled it “Daily Guidance for the Vice President”.

Whoops!  Sounds like poor old Uncle Joe got spanked!

You just can not make that stuff up, and the Democrats are like the gift that keeps on giving this week..!

And, as it turns out, my musings from yesterday were not quite on target…

I speculated that John McCain may have made toxic the notion of replacing Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Certainly that is what the Obama campaign would like us all to believe.  It did make sense to me, because Obama can never admit to making a mistake, especially publicly, and liberals across the nation recoiled at the idea of “taking VP advice” from McCain.

But apparently Axelrod and company DID try to recruit Hillary to replace Biden, and she shot them down!

I guess that the thought of attaching her political fortunes to someone like Barack Obama didn’t give her the warm fuzzies.  I still think it would have been really bad for us if she had accepted Obama’s offer, and that it could have been her best chance at becoming president in 2016, but–assuming they won this year–who can blame her for balking at the prospect of having to run on Obama’s dismal record?

Two members of the Obama campaign shot down in flames!  Shall we go for three..?

The coup de gras for Obama’s political week came in the form of Jim Messina.  Obama’s campaign manager has made overtures to the Romney campaign that almost certainly resulted in explosive laughter throughout the Romney/Ryan campaign headquarters:

“Please Mr. Mitt, can’t we just have a few more of those tax returns to dig through?  We promise we won’t ever bug you again for more!  We’ll be nice!  We swear!”

THAT, my friends, is pretty pathetic!

They will do anything to keep from talking about the real issues in this election, and Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his Vice President has them freaking out and shedding hair (except for Axelrod; he already shed his).

If I were the one writing Romney’s press release to respond, it would look something like this:

“BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha!!!”

The Democrats are damned dangerous to this country, and Obama has been a complete disaster…

But never let it be said that they don’t provide us with comic relief!

Did McCain Make Hillary Toxic?

Lately I have had a sinking feeling in my gut.

Is he on his way out now?

Joe Biden has been running around the country making gaffes, which is fairly normal for him.  What isn’t normal is the number of gaffes made in a row, or the willingness of the media to cover them, however briefly.

Why does this matter..?

In politics, it is very hard to remove someone from a ticket without seeing a substantial backlash, unless there is a good and well-known reason for doing so.

To me, this all looks like a politically calculated set up.

The Obama campaign is stagnating.  They’re out of ideas, and have gone fully negative.  With no achievements to crow about, they have nothing positive with which to hang their hats upon.  Joe Biden doesn’t add anything for the Obama team this year.  In fact, he almost certainly represents a net loss for the campaign as a whole.  He keeps taking them off of their message.  He is seen as a buffoon everywhere except for the most liberal of circles.

He just isn’t good old “Uncle Joe” anymore.  He’s a liability.

Barack Obama does not like liabilities.

Enter Hillary Clinton.

Many pundits and politicians have made comments recently about the notion of replacing Biden with Clinton.  Seriously, I wish they would all shut the hell up!

I have nightmares about this scenario.

The Democrats would almost certainly win under this scenario.

After 4 years on the world stage, does Hillary still have presidential ambitions? Or has she set her sights elsewhere?

Like it, or not, Clinton’s positives are through the roof for a politician; higher than anyone currently in the race, regardless of the fact that she is one of the most corrupt figures in American political history.  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, I suppose.

If she still holds ambitions for the presidency, her best shot in 2016 would be from the catbird seat of Vice President.  Still, Clinton might be inclined to turn down such an offer, were one extended to her.  By all accounts, she just isn’t very fond of Barack Obama, and who could blame her after the tactics that Obama’s handler David Axelrod used against her in the last presidential primaries?

But her ambitions were enough to allow her to overcome those negative feelings and take the job as Secretary of State.  It isn’t a stretch to think that she would put her ambition for power ahead of everything else, given that she has done exactly that her entire life.

But will Obama even offer her the job?

Recently, I have been feeling it in the political winds that such a storm was brewing.

John McCain may have provided shelter from that storm.

During a recent interview on Fox News, McCain said that he would drop Biden and replace him with Hillary.  He also said that Hillary was not likely to go along with that plan, but I don’t trust that notion very much, and it isn’t really pertinent here.

What does matter is that the liberal blogosphere was completely apoplectic about the notion of taking advice from that rotten, evil bastard John McCain.

Ah, good old childish liberals.  So very predictable.

Was McCain being a Jedi Master of reverse psychology?  Probably not.  He was most likely just vocalizing what many of us were thinking.  Again, I wish some people would shut the hell up!  But in this case, I am actually glad he did it.  McCain, wittingly or not, has shored up support for Biden to remain on the Obama ticket.

And John, if this works, I forgive you for everything!

Obama Chokes on Chick-Fil-A

I absolutely love Chick-Fil-A.

My original affection for the fast food chain has little to do with the recent controversy centered around the topic of traditional marriage.  We don’t have many of them in my area, so it is a treat when I get to eat there.  The food is always great, and I’m a huge fan of waffle fries..!

Yes, I am a life-long fast food junkie, and since Chick-Fil-A is rarely available to me, it has always been elevated a little higher than the other chains I frequent.

This recent controversy just elevates them higher in my eyes.  They handled the entire situation wonderfully, with grace.  By all accounts (including my own) people who went to support them during the height of all of the drama had a very pleasant experience.  The planned boycott and protests against them fizzled.  Angry activists were greeted with the same warm kindness and service standards set for those who came in support.

Now, according to Scott Rasmussen, 61% of people hold a favorable opinion of Chick-Fil-A.

That’s bad for Barack Obama.

Obama’s former Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel was clearly on the wrong side of this debate when he sought to deny the right of Chick-Fil-A to operate in “his” city.  It’s no stretch at all to see that Obama and Emanuel have very similar ideologies, or to think that Obama would have held the same position in Emanuel’s place.

Now, I am not naive enough to think that all of those people who see Chick-Fil-A in a positive light are opposed to homosexual marriage, but it is likely that most of them are.  Given Obama’s recent flip-flop of his past flip-flop-flippity-flopping on the issue, this does not bode well for him.  Because Obama has changed his position so many times, he loses a good deal of credibility.  Moreover, his switch in position came at a time when the LGBT community was threatening to withhold campaign donations from him; a very crass and cynical political move.  Nevermind that Obama isn’t proposing any actual policy change, or the fact that he was only paying lip-service to the LGBT community.

The real problem for Obama is that same-sex marriage has lost every time the people are allowed to vote on the issue, despite polling that would have indicated otherwise.

The Obama campaign is reading its own polls, and they’re believing them.

If we were to take polling at face value, along with exit polling, we would have had Presidents Al Gore and John Kerry, and there would have been no overwhelming Republican sweep of congress in 2010.  Most pollsters today care less about accuracy and more about propaganda.  The polls are crafted as a means to sway opinion rather than to gauge it.  They stack the deck by over-sampling Democrats, and by polling all registered voters instead of restricting themselves to those who are likely to vote.  Sometimes they don’t even bother to try to keep things that accurate;  they poll anyone, registered to vote, or not.

The fact that Obama “came out” in support of same-sex marriage indicates two things;  he was desperate for campaign cash, and his handlers are buying into their own polling.  That’s dangerous ground upon which to tread.

That so many people approve of Chick-Fil-A in the wake of what the media so desperately hoped would be a giant scandal can only be a bad thing for Obama.

Reid Takes a Bullet Full of Crazy for Obama and DNC

It has been an interesting week in the world of Politics.

Again, I could do with seeing less of this guy.

“Dirty” Harry Reid, the Senate Leader from Nevada, has come out to accuse presidential contender Mitt Romney of failing to file tax returns for ten years.  Oh, the joy he brings to a political pundit and strategist like me!

Reid makes these accusations based upon an obviously solid “source”…  himself!

Nevermind that the IRS, currently under control of the Obama administration, has never found fault with Romney.  Nevermind that Romney has released more tax returns than Reid (who has released exactly zero).  I delight in the irony of such an accusation coming from someone who lives in the Ritz Carlton, has dubious connections to organized crime in Nevada, and got very rich shortly after becoming a Senator, even though a Senator’s salary really isn’t all that high.

Senate Leader Whackadoodle just keeps on giving.

But Harry Reid doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him.  Obviously, he couldn’t care less what conservatives think, but he doesn’t care what other liberals think, or what the media thinks, either…  at least not right now.

That is because Harry Reid got re-elected in 2010 and he has another four years before he has to care what anyone thinks of him.  By then, everyone is sure to have forgotten this.

But even Reid himself is highly unlikely to believe his own story.  So, why make it all up?

As I pointed out in my article yesterday, the Obama campaign is desperate to dig up some dirt on the squeaky clean (for a politician, anyway) Mitt Romney.  Everything they have tried to use against Romney has fallen flat, and they’re out of ideas.  They need more dirt, so they have turned to Romney and they’re practically begging for his help.  But that rat bastard Romney just won’t budge!  How dare he..?

So far, the Democrats have tried everything they can think of to get Romney to help them, and none of it is getting enough traction in the press to force Romney’s hand.

Enter Harry Reid.

Obama and the DNC needed someone to escalate things into the realm of crazypants, and Reid fit the bill.  He’s perfect for the job.

The only thing Reid has to lose right now is his position as Majority Leader in the Senate, and he stands a much greater chance of holding on to that job if Obama gets re-elected.  As the Senate Majority Leader, the media is obligated to give him coverage, which spreads the lie almost as well as if Obama himself were to say it.  Reid can feel safe making the accusation from the Senate floor, because doing so gives him legal immunity from being taken to court for anything that he says, and Reid is bulletproof electorally.

Perfect!

Now DNC operatives and liberal pundits are free to distance themselves from Reid publicly, while rushing to the airwaves to claim that “Romney can clear all of this up by just releasing more tax returns”, which has been their goal all along.

While it is typical of the liberal mindset that the accused must prove himself innocent rather than the accuser proving guilt (at least when it comes to Republicans), that isn’t really something upon which anyone should focus.

The real thing of interest to a pundit like me is that the liberal sharks don’t smell any blood in the waters.  They really WANT to smell it, but they don’t…

They’re being denied their feeding frenzy, and it is making them slowly go insane (well, okay… more insane).

Expect them to get crazier as we get closer to November!

Someone pass the popcorn…

Obama and Holder Become High School Principals

A Friday story in the Daily Caller by Neil Munro brings home to me several points; not just about liberal ideology, but about Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s race-based agenda.

AG Eric Holder with President Barack Obama

President Obama signed an executive order called the “White House Initiative on Educational Excellence” this past Thursday that is going largely unnoticed (read ignored) by the so-called mainstream media.  The order sets up a government panel (we can fix anything with a government panel!) to promote, among other things, “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

Seems that our illustrious president and his attorney general believe that black children get into too much trouble in school.  That being so, they have decided that the problem isn’t that black children are more likely to act out or break the rules, but that the rules themselves are being unfairly applied.  Nevermind that they have zero evidence to back up that assumption.  It should be patently obvious to any good liberal that if black children are getting into trouble in school more often than children of other races, it must be because those charged with disciplining them are racist.

Now, I have long held the opinion that school discipline policies border on the edges of insanity.  Most schools have been stuck in their “zero-tolerance” mindset for so long that we see idiotic things happening, like students getting suspended for taking aspirin.  But it is far worse than that.  Schools often opt to suspend and expel students at far too high a rate for my tastes.  I believe these forms of punishment to be extremely counter-productive, not just for the student and the school, but for society at large, and that they should be used as the very last resort.  We do have a lot of real problems.

And now President Obama is going to provide us with even more…

The Daily Caller quotes the report as saying that “over a third of African-American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African-American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects.”

Far be it for me to point out that the vast majority of these children are trapped in inner-city schools, and that the liberals are their captors.  The teachers unions have a stranglehold on city schools even stronger than the hold they have in the suburbs.  They have fought against conservative attempts to allow children to leave failing schools at every turn, and yet can not fathom why the children aren’t doing so well.

From the DC:

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “we’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.”

“This is, quite simply, unacceptable. … These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed,” he said in his speech, given in Atlanta, Ga.

I find myself in complete agreement with Eric Holder on one thing.  Suspensions and expulsions are indeed destructive, even when ultimately necessary.  But the notion that blacks are somehow being unfairly targeted is ludicrous.

Their solution to the problem is even more destructive, and it leads one to wonder if it may actually be intended to be destructive.  After all, the more people who are dependent upon the government, the more people the government can control, and liberals actually believe that is a GOOD thing.

The president’s panel is set to force several school districts to hand out punishments in line with the racial makeup of the population, regardless of the racial makeup of those breaking the rules.  This means that white and asian students, who operate within the rules more often, are likely to be punished more harshly when compared to black students for the same offenses.

That, my friends, is Obama and Holder’s idea of “equality”.