Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Posts tagged ‘support’

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.

Advertisements

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.

Who’s Really Full of Hate?

What a successful Chick-Fil-A Day!  It really was impressive! 

Unfortunately, as I explained in my article yesterday, I personally did not partake in the excitement.  But the lines at Chick-Fil-A outlets all over the country as conservatives, Christians, and many people who just felt strongly about free speech, came out to support the rights of businesses everywhere to hold their own opinions freely were very heartwarming.

Sounds like the opposite of hate to me.

See, in my world, which, as opposed to the world of liberals, has the ground below me and the sky above, hate is displayed by going after those people who disagree with your worldview, getting in their face, and screaming at them.

Unfortunately for Chick-Fil-A, they are very likely to see a lot of that hate today.  Ironically, that hate will be fomented at the behest of the very people who claim so often to oppose it.

I highly doubt that the liberals will stop at kissing, or whatever they plan to do, but even that is not a message of love and inclusion.  It is a desperate attempt to cause conflict and hope that it escalates so they can justify their narrative.

But why wait until today..?

If they honestly wanted a peaceful protest, they could easily have done so Wednesday.

I believe they hope that now that supporters of Chick-Fil-A have had their say, that they will be able to go in and do many things that most people will never see.  They certainly won’t record the most heinous of their actions, and wouldn’t publish any of it publicly on the internet, if they did.

Sounds like the opposite of peace to me.  In fact, it sounds really hateful.  But liberals never see the irony in someone foaming at the mouth and screaming about how hateful someone else may supposedly be.

If they were truly interested in love, instead of hate, they could certainly find a business that openly supports gay marriage and have a day of appreciation for them.  That, of course, is assuming that the liberals have any interest in getting anything more than water, like this guy.

They could be supporting a business that voices support for them, and instead they choose to try to tear down a business where the owners disagree with the way they think the world should be.

That, my friends, is very telling.  Our first instinct was to go out and build up the people we support, not tear down the people who disagree with us.  Their first instinct is always to destroy.

So, who is really full of hate, here..?

 

UPDATE:  So, this brilliant Mensa candidate pretty much confirms everything that I have just said here…   Warning:  Strong language, weird language, and some stuff that I’m not even sure IS language…

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: