This freaky-deaky story I spotted on the Drudge Report over the weekend and kind of ignored it.
I was mad at Drudge for once again linking to conspiracy nut Alex Jones and a story on the Bilderburgers.
I am sorry I did not take in the story more then as now it appears that the man dubbed the Causeway Cannibal may have been high on a new potent form of LSD known on the streets as "Bath Salts".
This seems to be a disturbing trend that has been under the radar for a time now.
In this story from the local Miami CBS 4 station, the head of the police union, Armando Aguilar said that this is not new and that there have been 3 or 4 similar cases recently. Mr. Aguilar compared the high from "Bath Salts" similar to heavy-duty cocaine use. And if you read on in the link, all those cases involve people that end up using their jaws as weapons.
Strikes me as how dogs, especially trained police dogs, do the same thing.
Well, here is the worst part about "Bath Salts".
It is perfectly legal.
According to this link, it is legal because of the name, "Bath Salts". And it is packaged as such. And they are even smart enough to put on the label, "Not fit for human consumption".
Nothing truer ever written.
According to All Treatment, "Bath Salts" are actually a mixture of LSD, medical name lysergic acid diethylamide, and "Magic Mushrooms", also medically known as Psilocybin mushrooms.
And delivery of this mixture of LSD and Magic Mushrooms can be smoked, snorted or swallowed.
Beautiful.
Just when there seems to not be enough out there to get any one high, some one cooks up a new and extremely dangerous way to get high.
And it has deadly consequences.
Now, I know that pro-drug legalizers will say that if drugs were legalized and the government were involved in the regulation and taxing of drugs, this probably would not happen.
Really?!
Hey, has anyone heard of Moonshine?
Well, if not, it is some damn strong stuff. It is whiskey that makes Wild Turkey seem like a shot of tap water in comparison.
"Good" 'shine comes in at 150 proof or 75% alcohol.
But it is what is used to make it that is dangerous.
And yes, it has been and is illegal.
And no, it did not start during prohibition, but gained a lot of popularity during that era.
And yet, not just in the United States but all over the world, different forms of 'shine are made.
Why is that? I mean alcohol is legal in the United States, right? Very regulated, right? And minors can not buy it, right?
Well, I will answer this way.
Yes, yes, and HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Oh boy! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Let me just write that your humble blogger was not immune to the Devil's urine and while in high school, was able to find any given place that sold to minors, under 21, no questions asked. It may have helped that by the time I was 17 years-old I had a full-growth beard. But when one place is caught, one can always find another.
The point of this is that legalizing drugs does not stop this weird kind of thing from happening. Because for some inexplicable reason, we humans are always looking for the next, great high.
Even if it means one strips nekid and starts eating another man's face off. Kind of a real life zombie, doncha think?
And synthetic, man-made drugs are the worst kind of drugs. Because it is made in such a way that the high is so, well a high, that one never wants to come down.
Kind of like a crystal meth fiend.
And if one thinks that meth is no big deal, go over the Portland Oregonian and this photo montage of meth fiends.
The fact of the matter is that this dangerous new drug, a synthetic one, is a danger and potential menace to us all.
And while I strongly believe in giving first time offenders a chance to get clean and be good for society, once one gets beyond a second offense on this stuff, "Bath Salts", then it hard time and some kind of rehab are a given. Third time, sorry, you are in for a looong time. And I would be willing to move out the very lowest-level of drug offenses to make room for these people.
We can not have cannibalism on the streets because of the power of a drug that is, well that bad.
There can be not other explanation for the Causeway Cannibal's behavior other than drugs.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Willard Mitt Romney Is Now The Republican Presidental Nominee For 2012
Tonight, the battle for the White House is officially on as Willard Mitt Romney clinched the Republican presidential nod for 2012 with his win in the Texas primary today.
With about 35% of the votes counted, Mr. Romney has 71% of the vote and has won the 155 delegates up for grabs.
Having entered the evening at 1,066 delegates according to CNN, with the win Mr. Romney now has 1,221 delegates and that puts him well over the 1,144 for the Republican nomination.
And that is the good news.
The race is now over.
The last serious candidate standing, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, officially threw his support of Mr. Romney in this Facebook post.
With that the remaining primaries are but to put icing on the cake for Mr. Romney.
Say what you will but Mr. Romney in the end ran a stellar campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
The more conservative candidates would not or could not coalesce support behind their candidacies. Like Mr. Romney in 2008 vs. Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, it was only when it became clear is when Mr. Santorum began to pick up and get traction among conservatives. But it was too little too late.
By dispatching his opponents one by one, Mr. Romney became a stronger candidates. While there seemed to be endless debates that included very lesser known candidates, Mr. Romney got stronger as the field winnowed down. And that is what we want in our standard-bearer to go up against the formidable Dear Leader, President Obama.
And in recent campaign appearances, Mr. Romney has focused on the Dear Leader, President Obama's mishandling of the economy and foreign affairs.
Now, Mr. Romney will be focusing on who his running mate should be for the fall campaign.
His decision is going to be an important one because it will be his first serious decision as the party nominee.
We all know that then Democrat candidate Sen. Messiah Barack blew it big time when he asked the Democrat party to nominate then Sen. Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden as his vice-president. Yet the masses were told to be afraid, be very afraid of one Sarah Palin. Yet I have sleepless nights wondering if, God forbid, Vice-President Brain Surgeon Biden were to become the commander-in-chief. Yup. I'd take Mrs. Palin any day over the current occupant of the vice-presidency.
So, now it is all between Mr. Romney and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And it is game on!
With about 35% of the votes counted, Mr. Romney has 71% of the vote and has won the 155 delegates up for grabs.
Having entered the evening at 1,066 delegates according to CNN, with the win Mr. Romney now has 1,221 delegates and that puts him well over the 1,144 for the Republican nomination.
And that is the good news.
The race is now over.
The last serious candidate standing, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, officially threw his support of Mr. Romney in this Facebook post.
With that the remaining primaries are but to put icing on the cake for Mr. Romney.
Say what you will but Mr. Romney in the end ran a stellar campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
The more conservative candidates would not or could not coalesce support behind their candidacies. Like Mr. Romney in 2008 vs. Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, it was only when it became clear is when Mr. Santorum began to pick up and get traction among conservatives. But it was too little too late.
By dispatching his opponents one by one, Mr. Romney became a stronger candidates. While there seemed to be endless debates that included very lesser known candidates, Mr. Romney got stronger as the field winnowed down. And that is what we want in our standard-bearer to go up against the formidable Dear Leader, President Obama.
And in recent campaign appearances, Mr. Romney has focused on the Dear Leader, President Obama's mishandling of the economy and foreign affairs.
Now, Mr. Romney will be focusing on who his running mate should be for the fall campaign.
His decision is going to be an important one because it will be his first serious decision as the party nominee.
We all know that then Democrat candidate Sen. Messiah Barack blew it big time when he asked the Democrat party to nominate then Sen. Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden as his vice-president. Yet the masses were told to be afraid, be very afraid of one Sarah Palin. Yet I have sleepless nights wondering if, God forbid, Vice-President Brain Surgeon Biden were to become the commander-in-chief. Yup. I'd take Mrs. Palin any day over the current occupant of the vice-presidency.
So, now it is all between Mr. Romney and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And it is game on!
Monday, May 28, 2012
Happy Memorial Day And Remember Those Who Died For Us
On this day, we remember those that served in the United States armed force that died in the field of battle.
It is not just another day to take in a sale at a some shopping emporium. Or to have a barbecue. Or to take in a baseball game. Not that any are bad things to do.
But this is the day set aside by congress to remember those who served and died for the cause of freedom.
A good history of the holiday can be found here.
Whether you go to a National cemetery or remember those that have died in your hearts, here is a prayer from the last real Book of Common Prayer 1928:
Almighty God, we remember this day before thee thy faithful servant (N.), and we pray thee that, having opened to him/her the gates of larger life, thou wilt receive him/her more and more into thy joyful service; that he/her may win, with thee and thy servants everywhere, the eternal victory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Thank you to all who have served this Great Land and who have made the ultimate sacrifice for us to live.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Does Anyone Still Really Watch Sunday Morning "News" Programs?
I mean really. Does anyone really still watch NBC's Meet The Depressed? CBS' Face The Nation? ABC's This Week with host of The Week? Fox News Sunday? Whatever is on CNN?
Honestly, I gave up on watching any of these programs about two years ago.
Once in a while, I will watch the panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, but not with any regularity.
One of the problems with these shows is the utter predictability of them. From the hosts right down to the guests.
I mean, that is the real reason the comments by the Newark, New Jersey mayor, Cory Booker, regarding the Dear Leader, President Obama and his non-stop assault on Bain Capital made news.
Because Mayor Booker is Black and strong supporter of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And he dared to criticise the oh great Dear Leader, President Obama.
But like a house of cards, Mayor Booker backed down from his correct, righteous comments and said he was taken out of context.
So, with the help of Real Clear Politics, this is a video clip of what Mayor Booker said. And here it is in quotes:
“Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.”
OK, so Mayor Booker was being pretty equal on this one. But how dare he attack the strategery of Team Dear Leader. And he eventually made a walk-back I am certain after someone, if not the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself made a call.
That he said it on a so-called news/public affairs program is what is news to me.
Thanks to the internets and conservative talk radio, I learned about it and did not have to endure the host of Meet The Depressed, David Gregory, and his poofy-haired pomposity.
But the problem with the Sunday gab-fests is that it is all Washington insiderese. The hosts are Washington insiders with no one more Mr. Inside than former President Clinton aide George Stephanopolus. The guests are almost all insiders. The panelists tend to be all insiders and part of the broadcasting Axis of Evil of New York City and Washington.
Let me riddle you this.
When do any of these shows take a road trip? And don't answer every four years to Iowa and New Hampshire. When they do, all that they do is bitch, complain, moan and whine about why these two states should start the process of party presidential nominations. I am talking about getting out and about with the regular folks. Maybe once in a while stray to fly-over country. Like Chicago? Maybe oh I do not know, what about Fargo, North Dakota? Why the economy is booming there. Is that not a worthwhile story?
Another thing is to get panelists outside of the broadcast Axis of Evil. You know, maybe have someone on a panel that is part of talk radio? Both left and right? There are a lot of great hosts out there that would be worth having on a panel. What about reporters from second-tier markets?
And the hosts themselves. Dudes, lighten up a bit. We take what you want to discuss seriously. But you do not need to take yourselves so damn seriously.
The last and important thing is there any way we west of the Mississippi River can ever see these programs live? You know, in real time? Sometimes when we get to see them, whatever may make news is already out there and why do we need to watch? We can always just go over to Real Clear Politics and read the transcripts out here on the Left Coast.
I used to think it was of importance to watch as much of these Sunday morning public affairs programs, but no more. They need to get with a new program. They need to catch up into the 21st century. Until they do, I am not going to waste time and and DVR space on these shows.
Honestly, I gave up on watching any of these programs about two years ago.
Once in a while, I will watch the panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, but not with any regularity.
One of the problems with these shows is the utter predictability of them. From the hosts right down to the guests.
I mean, that is the real reason the comments by the Newark, New Jersey mayor, Cory Booker, regarding the Dear Leader, President Obama and his non-stop assault on Bain Capital made news.
Because Mayor Booker is Black and strong supporter of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And he dared to criticise the oh great Dear Leader, President Obama.
But like a house of cards, Mayor Booker backed down from his correct, righteous comments and said he was taken out of context.
So, with the help of Real Clear Politics, this is a video clip of what Mayor Booker said. And here it is in quotes:
“Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.”
OK, so Mayor Booker was being pretty equal on this one. But how dare he attack the strategery of Team Dear Leader. And he eventually made a walk-back I am certain after someone, if not the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself made a call.
That he said it on a so-called news/public affairs program is what is news to me.
Thanks to the internets and conservative talk radio, I learned about it and did not have to endure the host of Meet The Depressed, David Gregory, and his poofy-haired pomposity.
But the problem with the Sunday gab-fests is that it is all Washington insiderese. The hosts are Washington insiders with no one more Mr. Inside than former President Clinton aide George Stephanopolus. The guests are almost all insiders. The panelists tend to be all insiders and part of the broadcasting Axis of Evil of New York City and Washington.
Let me riddle you this.
When do any of these shows take a road trip? And don't answer every four years to Iowa and New Hampshire. When they do, all that they do is bitch, complain, moan and whine about why these two states should start the process of party presidential nominations. I am talking about getting out and about with the regular folks. Maybe once in a while stray to fly-over country. Like Chicago? Maybe oh I do not know, what about Fargo, North Dakota? Why the economy is booming there. Is that not a worthwhile story?
Another thing is to get panelists outside of the broadcast Axis of Evil. You know, maybe have someone on a panel that is part of talk radio? Both left and right? There are a lot of great hosts out there that would be worth having on a panel. What about reporters from second-tier markets?
And the hosts themselves. Dudes, lighten up a bit. We take what you want to discuss seriously. But you do not need to take yourselves so damn seriously.
The last and important thing is there any way we west of the Mississippi River can ever see these programs live? You know, in real time? Sometimes when we get to see them, whatever may make news is already out there and why do we need to watch? We can always just go over to Real Clear Politics and read the transcripts out here on the Left Coast.
I used to think it was of importance to watch as much of these Sunday morning public affairs programs, but no more. They need to get with a new program. They need to catch up into the 21st century. Until they do, I am not going to waste time and and DVR space on these shows.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Is The Los Angeles County District Attorney Giving Cover To New Dodger Ownership
By now, most of you have read or heard that there was another fan beating at Dodger Stadium last week involving a minor car fender bender and a four-on-one beating.
Well, the man did escape being beaten a-la Brian Stow, the unfortuante San Francisco Giants fan that was nearly beaten to death last opening day at Dodger Stadium.
Mr. Stow's beating occurred under the ownership of Frank McCourt.
The unidentified victim of the latest beating had his under the new Guggenheim Baseball Management group, being fronted by former Los Angeles Laker great Magic Johnson.
My friend Mr. An Unmarried Man, wrote about this in his own colorful manner.
So what is the difference?
Well, there was little if any security when Mr. Stow was beaten inches of his life.
When the unidentified man was beaten, in front of his wight-month pregnant girlfriend, police came upon the scene rather quickly before it escalated to Brian Stow number two.
One obvious difference is that the two suspects in Mr. Stow's beating are one Hispanic and one Black.
In the case of the unidentified fan, the four suspects are all Hispanic. And the one thing is that the man that does not want to be identified is also Hispanic if you watch this link and notice the Mexican accent.
But here is something interesting.
The Los Angeles county district attorney declined to file felony charges against the four men. The case is being dumped to the Los Angeles city attorney and will be reduced to misdemenor charges. If they even decide to file those charges.
Which leads to my overall question.
Is the real reason no charges being filed to protect the new Dodger ownership?
I do wonder.
When Mr. Stow was beaten, and rightfully so, it exposed some serious flaws in the management of Dodger Stadium.
And improvements have been made especially in regards to overall security.
But here is a situation that, while brought under relativly quick control, puts a dent on new ownership. Makes it appear to many that they do not have a handle on the situation in and around Dodger Stadium.
Well, they may not but this should not have to do with this ownership. After all, they are picking up the pieces that was the McCourt era. And it was not pretty.
Let me explain something about getting in and out of Dodger Stadium.
There is no more beautiful ball park in Major League baseball.
But because when Chavez Ravine, the site where the Crown Jewel of ball parks is, is a hill, well let's just say in a word it sucks for transportation.
Most stadiums are on flat land.
Not Dodger Stadium.
When you are driving around, it does not seem it because it is more or less gradual, but it is tirred parking. And, it is nowhere near close to any freeway.
Thus there is a reason why many fans don't make it until the game starts and leave somewhere around the seventh inning.
It is to escape the crowd of cars.
But it appears that did not happen in this case and there was the fender-bender.
But that does not excuse anyone for taking matters the way these four clowns did.
Yet the county D. A. is giving a pass.
Yes, I do believe that they do not wan to give the new owners any bad publicity.
But there should and must be a zero tollerance for these kind of actions. And the D. A. should have at least filed the charges to show that law enforcement will not tollerate this either.
And should there not be justice for the man that was beaten? Is justice only if one is nearly beaten to death?
Maybe someone should ask both the D. A.'s office and the city attorney's office as well.
If this incident is swept under the rug, then it is nothing more than protecting people that should not be.
Well, the man did escape being beaten a-la Brian Stow, the unfortuante San Francisco Giants fan that was nearly beaten to death last opening day at Dodger Stadium.
Mr. Stow's beating occurred under the ownership of Frank McCourt.
The unidentified victim of the latest beating had his under the new Guggenheim Baseball Management group, being fronted by former Los Angeles Laker great Magic Johnson.
My friend Mr. An Unmarried Man, wrote about this in his own colorful manner.
So what is the difference?
Well, there was little if any security when Mr. Stow was beaten inches of his life.
When the unidentified man was beaten, in front of his wight-month pregnant girlfriend, police came upon the scene rather quickly before it escalated to Brian Stow number two.
One obvious difference is that the two suspects in Mr. Stow's beating are one Hispanic and one Black.
In the case of the unidentified fan, the four suspects are all Hispanic. And the one thing is that the man that does not want to be identified is also Hispanic if you watch this link and notice the Mexican accent.
But here is something interesting.
The Los Angeles county district attorney declined to file felony charges against the four men. The case is being dumped to the Los Angeles city attorney and will be reduced to misdemenor charges. If they even decide to file those charges.
Which leads to my overall question.
Is the real reason no charges being filed to protect the new Dodger ownership?
I do wonder.
When Mr. Stow was beaten, and rightfully so, it exposed some serious flaws in the management of Dodger Stadium.
And improvements have been made especially in regards to overall security.
But here is a situation that, while brought under relativly quick control, puts a dent on new ownership. Makes it appear to many that they do not have a handle on the situation in and around Dodger Stadium.
Well, they may not but this should not have to do with this ownership. After all, they are picking up the pieces that was the McCourt era. And it was not pretty.
Let me explain something about getting in and out of Dodger Stadium.
There is no more beautiful ball park in Major League baseball.
But because when Chavez Ravine, the site where the Crown Jewel of ball parks is, is a hill, well let's just say in a word it sucks for transportation.
Most stadiums are on flat land.
Not Dodger Stadium.
When you are driving around, it does not seem it because it is more or less gradual, but it is tirred parking. And, it is nowhere near close to any freeway.
Thus there is a reason why many fans don't make it until the game starts and leave somewhere around the seventh inning.
It is to escape the crowd of cars.
But it appears that did not happen in this case and there was the fender-bender.
But that does not excuse anyone for taking matters the way these four clowns did.
Yet the county D. A. is giving a pass.
Yes, I do believe that they do not wan to give the new owners any bad publicity.
But there should and must be a zero tollerance for these kind of actions. And the D. A. should have at least filed the charges to show that law enforcement will not tollerate this either.
And should there not be justice for the man that was beaten? Is justice only if one is nearly beaten to death?
Maybe someone should ask both the D. A.'s office and the city attorney's office as well.
If this incident is swept under the rug, then it is nothing more than protecting people that should not be.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Say, Why Don't We Photo Shop A Schlong In The Dear Leader's Mouth As Satire, You Know?
WARNING! WARNING! THERE ARE GRAPHIC IMAGES AND OR PHOTOS IN THIS POST!
Yeah, pretty provocative, isn't it?
I mean, why not photo shop the Dear Leader, President Obama, with a schlong in his mouth? I mean, why pick on female liberals when we could photo shop the occupier of the White House, right?
Is it any worse than what the depraved left, and to be clear the fever-swamps, have done to conservative women?
The latest conservative woman to feel the wrath of the fever-swamp left is columnist and writer for Glenn Beck's The Blaze web news site, S. E. Cupp.
Hustler magazine decided that this is a nice photo shop image to show of a bright, intelligent, articulate conservative woman.
Yup, it is what you can imagine taking out the scribble.
I just love people like the debased degenerate, Larry Flynt. I mean, have a policy disagreement with someone, especially a conservative woman, and this is what passes in his crippled mind as response and discourse.
But remember kids, according to the former president of the United States, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, the act that Miss Cupp is photo shopped doing is not sex at all. Oral sex just does not count.
But lets see, what if that were. . .Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama? Would it just be "satire" as Mr. Flynt is now saying it was? And I guess would we conservatives be quiet if that did occur? This conservative would NOT be quiet.
But it is the escalation of "discourse" on the fever-swamp left.
I mean, is it any worse than this from the 2008 presidential campaign worn about then Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin?
Nice look, kids, nice. These two look like they are barely in high school. But hey, its Sarah Palin. Not Dr. Jill Biden. So, its cool.
I suppose that being called a pretty bad name is not all that bad. Considering what happened to the South Carolina governor, Republican Nikki Haley recently.
At a recent picnic, the outgoing president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO decided, hey, what better way to have fun than to have a pinata? OK, no problem. But it was a likeness of Mrs. Haley. And watch here at the link to see the glee Donna Dewitt has in smacking the pinata-likeness of Gov. Haley. And just for better effect, please enjoy a still photo of Miss Dewitt taking a shot at Gov. Haley
Is that not a sweet photo?
Oh, and speaking of which, where are our friends on the left condemning such misogynist acts?
Wait! Wait! Listen.
What, you don't hear anything? I hear a faint. . .Chirp! . .Chirp! . .Chirp!
Why if I did not know any better, I think it is the sound of crickets chirping.
So, I ask again, what is wrong with our side cooking up a photo of the Dear Leader, President Obama, with a member in his mouth?
Because it does show a total disrespect for the office of the presidency of the United States. And it is a personal attack that I do not advocate and never would.
But hey, the left sees no problem in that. You know, disrespecting the office when the wrong person is in there.
Take former President George W. Bush. Everything was thrown at him. And some were very tasteless, such as this
Yup, that is really classy.
But when it is a conservative and or a Republican, it is satire, right?
No, none of it is.
This kind of stuff is why a lot of people hate politics. Many opt out of voting completely. Because while there are serious issues to deal with, people resort to the bizarre and depraved. Especially if they are losing the argument.
But, while the left rants about a "War On Women" allegedly by conservatives, what about this real assault on women by liberal misogynists?
What?! Well if one is a liberal, and a man, how can he be a misogynist?
Folks, look at what I showed you above. That is liberal men and women degrading other women because they do not play the left's game of victim hood.
Well, FTR, I do not seriously advocate and would condemn anything done to disrespect the Dear Leader, President Obama, in anything like the manner I described above
To win we conservatives must win the war of ideas.
But I do wonder, how many are going to write about some blogger wanting to photo shop the president with schlong in mouth and not read this whole post.
Yeah, pretty provocative, isn't it?
I mean, why not photo shop the Dear Leader, President Obama, with a schlong in his mouth? I mean, why pick on female liberals when we could photo shop the occupier of the White House, right?
Is it any worse than what the depraved left, and to be clear the fever-swamps, have done to conservative women?
The latest conservative woman to feel the wrath of the fever-swamp left is columnist and writer for Glenn Beck's The Blaze web news site, S. E. Cupp.
Hustler magazine decided that this is a nice photo shop image to show of a bright, intelligent, articulate conservative woman.
I just love people like the debased degenerate, Larry Flynt. I mean, have a policy disagreement with someone, especially a conservative woman, and this is what passes in his crippled mind as response and discourse.
But remember kids, according to the former president of the United States, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, the act that Miss Cupp is photo shopped doing is not sex at all. Oral sex just does not count.
But lets see, what if that were. . .Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama? Would it just be "satire" as Mr. Flynt is now saying it was? And I guess would we conservatives be quiet if that did occur? This conservative would NOT be quiet.
But it is the escalation of "discourse" on the fever-swamp left.
I mean, is it any worse than this from the 2008 presidential campaign worn about then Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin?
I suppose that being called a pretty bad name is not all that bad. Considering what happened to the South Carolina governor, Republican Nikki Haley recently.
At a recent picnic, the outgoing president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO decided, hey, what better way to have fun than to have a pinata? OK, no problem. But it was a likeness of Mrs. Haley. And watch here at the link to see the glee Donna Dewitt has in smacking the pinata-likeness of Gov. Haley. And just for better effect, please enjoy a still photo of Miss Dewitt taking a shot at Gov. Haley
Oh, and speaking of which, where are our friends on the left condemning such misogynist acts?
Wait! Wait! Listen.
What, you don't hear anything? I hear a faint. . .Chirp! . .Chirp! . .Chirp!
Why if I did not know any better, I think it is the sound of crickets chirping.
So, I ask again, what is wrong with our side cooking up a photo of the Dear Leader, President Obama, with a member in his mouth?
Because it does show a total disrespect for the office of the presidency of the United States. And it is a personal attack that I do not advocate and never would.
But hey, the left sees no problem in that. You know, disrespecting the office when the wrong person is in there.
Take former President George W. Bush. Everything was thrown at him. And some were very tasteless, such as this
Yup, that is really classy.
But when it is a conservative and or a Republican, it is satire, right?
No, none of it is.
This kind of stuff is why a lot of people hate politics. Many opt out of voting completely. Because while there are serious issues to deal with, people resort to the bizarre and depraved. Especially if they are losing the argument.
But, while the left rants about a "War On Women" allegedly by conservatives, what about this real assault on women by liberal misogynists?
What?! Well if one is a liberal, and a man, how can he be a misogynist?
Folks, look at what I showed you above. That is liberal men and women degrading other women because they do not play the left's game of victim hood.
Well, FTR, I do not seriously advocate and would condemn anything done to disrespect the Dear Leader, President Obama, in anything like the manner I described above
To win we conservatives must win the war of ideas.
But I do wonder, how many are going to write about some blogger wanting to photo shop the president with schlong in mouth and not read this whole post.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
What American Political Party REALLY Supports Civil Rights?
Well, it is and always has been the Republican party.
Oh sure, nowadays, the Democrat party claims to be the party of civil rights.
But if that is about killing babies, making who one has relations with and sets race group against race group, then yeah, I guess that is the Democrat party.
The reality is brought to us by Kevin D. Williamson in the latest issue of National Review.
I, like most Americans knew that the Republican party was founded and motivated by ending the "peculiar institution" of slavery.
But what Mr. Williamson does here is lay out the case of the Republicans initiating and supporting the plethora of civil rights legislation from the time of its founding to yes, even today.
In this section of the article, Mr. Williamson lays it all out there for the world to see:
From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
You get that, right? It was the GOP that supported legislation that many Americans know nothing about.
Take Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was to give all Americans equal access to public accomadations. That included inns (now hotels and motels), amusements, public access on land and water.
The proponents of the successfully passed legislation were Sen. Charles Sumner and Rep. Benjamin F. Butler. And, yeah, they were. . .Republicans. And it should be noted that Rep. Butler authored legislation, signed into law, to go after the most odious group in American history, the Ku Klux Klan.
But, sadly, in the deal with the devil to keep the presidency in Republican hands, once Rutherford B. Hayes became president and federal troops were removed from the South and a supreme court decision ruled the act unconstitutional, it was not enforced.
And understrand this.
The man that people give credit to passing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, then President Lyndon Baines Johnson was one of the most openly racist, I mean really racist, men to ever hold the office of president of the United States.
Which leads to this contrast Mr. Williamson points out before launching into giving a brief, yet real history of Mr. Johnson:
And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
And of course Mr. Calhoun and and Mr. Johnson were. . .Democrats.
And Mr. Williamson points out that Mr. Johnson voted against legislation to protect Black Americans from lynching.
Yup, Mr. Johnson voted not to stop Blacks from being lynched but to allow it to happen. If ye can not vote to stop it, you're voting for it.
A brief digression.
A friend of mine always referred to Mr. Johnson as Lynchin' Baines Johnson. I do not know if he realized that he was not all that far from the truth. Maybe Mr. Johnson never actually lynched anyone, but he did not one thing to stop it.
While Mr. Johnson crippled the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he eventually allowed such a watered down version that no one was happy with. And while he got Northern Democrats to give him credit for passing essentially nothing, he could go back to his core Southern constituency and tell them he gave the dog a bone, so to speak.
Why, courtesy of Mr. Williamson, here is ol' Lynchin' Baines Johnson in his own words explaining the 1957 "compromise":
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
Get that, Black America? The man many credit with being the Messiah because of the passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act thought that your forebearers were just too uppity! Your Negro forebearers were a problem that had to be dealt with.
Unfreakingreal.
But, there it is. And yet Mr. Johnson is seen as a hero. Some hero.
A lot of interesting information is provided by Mr.Williamson that shows Republicans were begining to make inroads into the South as early at 1938 when, in a reaction to the attempt by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the supreme court, the Republicans picked up 81 seats in the House of Representatives. One was West Virginia when a Republican broke the all-Democrat congressional delagation. And it really took a lot longer to finally elect a Republican senator but that happened in 1960 with the election of Texas Republican Sen. John Tower.
Mr. Williamson also explains that the conventional wisdom why Republicans are now the majority party in the South is all wrong.
For instance, in 1966. a young entrepenural Republican beat a veteran segragationist Democrat in a congressional race in Texas. Oh, that dude supported all civil rights legislation. That crazy right-winger was George H. W. Bush.
But what really got me thinking was what Mr. Williamson started his piece off with.
The fact that the Democrat party, with not one bit of irony, has enshrined itself as the party of civil rights.
Yet remember that awful Birmingham, Alabama police chief, Bull Connor? What party was he a member of? The Democrat party.
What president reinstututed segregation in the armed forces of the United States? Thomas Woodrow Wilson. And what party was he a member of? The Democrat party. Oh, for good measure, the first motion picture was shown in the White House while Mr. Wilson was president. Guess what that was? It was Birth of a Nation, the D. W. Griffith movie that glorfied and held up the KKK.
Of course I already went through LBJ and his true feelings about them there uppity Negroes.
And it was Democrats who opposed every minor or major piece of civil rights legislation up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, President Johnson had to depend on Republicans to pass the landmark legislation.
Why in the hell has my party not gotten this out there to the masses?
Why do we allow the Democrat party to say the things that they say about a party that has done more to help those on the margins not by big welfare programs but respecting true dignity of all as individuals?
I belive that it is too complex for many in the party to explain. Some would say that look, Ronald Reagan opposed making MLK Day a national holiday. Never mind that he was opposed to the cost and not the honor of the man. Or that Mr. Reagan was not strong in dealing with apartheid in South Africa. No, he did not believe that sanctions would bring down the White government. And it did not. It was the collapse of the Soviet Union that ended many White South African fears of Blacks voting and participating fully in governing their country.
But one has to look at the history in total.
And this article by Mr. Williamson is one great place to start.
Oh sure, nowadays, the Democrat party claims to be the party of civil rights.
But if that is about killing babies, making who one has relations with and sets race group against race group, then yeah, I guess that is the Democrat party.
The reality is brought to us by Kevin D. Williamson in the latest issue of National Review.
I, like most Americans knew that the Republican party was founded and motivated by ending the "peculiar institution" of slavery.
But what Mr. Williamson does here is lay out the case of the Republicans initiating and supporting the plethora of civil rights legislation from the time of its founding to yes, even today.
In this section of the article, Mr. Williamson lays it all out there for the world to see:
From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
You get that, right? It was the GOP that supported legislation that many Americans know nothing about.
Take Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was to give all Americans equal access to public accomadations. That included inns (now hotels and motels), amusements, public access on land and water.
The proponents of the successfully passed legislation were Sen. Charles Sumner and Rep. Benjamin F. Butler. And, yeah, they were. . .Republicans. And it should be noted that Rep. Butler authored legislation, signed into law, to go after the most odious group in American history, the Ku Klux Klan.
But, sadly, in the deal with the devil to keep the presidency in Republican hands, once Rutherford B. Hayes became president and federal troops were removed from the South and a supreme court decision ruled the act unconstitutional, it was not enforced.
And understrand this.
The man that people give credit to passing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, then President Lyndon Baines Johnson was one of the most openly racist, I mean really racist, men to ever hold the office of president of the United States.
Which leads to this contrast Mr. Williamson points out before launching into giving a brief, yet real history of Mr. Johnson:
And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
And of course Mr. Calhoun and and Mr. Johnson were. . .Democrats.
And Mr. Williamson points out that Mr. Johnson voted against legislation to protect Black Americans from lynching.
Yup, Mr. Johnson voted not to stop Blacks from being lynched but to allow it to happen. If ye can not vote to stop it, you're voting for it.
A brief digression.
A friend of mine always referred to Mr. Johnson as Lynchin' Baines Johnson. I do not know if he realized that he was not all that far from the truth. Maybe Mr. Johnson never actually lynched anyone, but he did not one thing to stop it.
While Mr. Johnson crippled the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he eventually allowed such a watered down version that no one was happy with. And while he got Northern Democrats to give him credit for passing essentially nothing, he could go back to his core Southern constituency and tell them he gave the dog a bone, so to speak.
Why, courtesy of Mr. Williamson, here is ol' Lynchin' Baines Johnson in his own words explaining the 1957 "compromise":
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
Get that, Black America? The man many credit with being the Messiah because of the passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act thought that your forebearers were just too uppity! Your Negro forebearers were a problem that had to be dealt with.
Unfreakingreal.
But, there it is. And yet Mr. Johnson is seen as a hero. Some hero.
A lot of interesting information is provided by Mr.Williamson that shows Republicans were begining to make inroads into the South as early at 1938 when, in a reaction to the attempt by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the supreme court, the Republicans picked up 81 seats in the House of Representatives. One was West Virginia when a Republican broke the all-Democrat congressional delagation. And it really took a lot longer to finally elect a Republican senator but that happened in 1960 with the election of Texas Republican Sen. John Tower.
Mr. Williamson also explains that the conventional wisdom why Republicans are now the majority party in the South is all wrong.
For instance, in 1966. a young entrepenural Republican beat a veteran segragationist Democrat in a congressional race in Texas. Oh, that dude supported all civil rights legislation. That crazy right-winger was George H. W. Bush.
But what really got me thinking was what Mr. Williamson started his piece off with.
The fact that the Democrat party, with not one bit of irony, has enshrined itself as the party of civil rights.
Yet remember that awful Birmingham, Alabama police chief, Bull Connor? What party was he a member of? The Democrat party.
What president reinstututed segregation in the armed forces of the United States? Thomas Woodrow Wilson. And what party was he a member of? The Democrat party. Oh, for good measure, the first motion picture was shown in the White House while Mr. Wilson was president. Guess what that was? It was Birth of a Nation, the D. W. Griffith movie that glorfied and held up the KKK.
Of course I already went through LBJ and his true feelings about them there uppity Negroes.
And it was Democrats who opposed every minor or major piece of civil rights legislation up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, President Johnson had to depend on Republicans to pass the landmark legislation.
Why in the hell has my party not gotten this out there to the masses?
Why do we allow the Democrat party to say the things that they say about a party that has done more to help those on the margins not by big welfare programs but respecting true dignity of all as individuals?
I belive that it is too complex for many in the party to explain. Some would say that look, Ronald Reagan opposed making MLK Day a national holiday. Never mind that he was opposed to the cost and not the honor of the man. Or that Mr. Reagan was not strong in dealing with apartheid in South Africa. No, he did not believe that sanctions would bring down the White government. And it did not. It was the collapse of the Soviet Union that ended many White South African fears of Blacks voting and participating fully in governing their country.
But one has to look at the history in total.
And this article by Mr. Williamson is one great place to start.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
BREAKING NEWS! LOS ANGELES KINGS IN THE STANLEY CUP FINALS! WOO! HOO!
If you are a regular reader if this blog, and if not, you should be, you know that I, your humble blogger am one of the biggest Los Angeles Kings fans around.
Tonight is one of the biggest nights in the 44-year history of the franchise as they defeated the Phoenix Coyotes in overtime, 4-3 to win the National Hockey League Western Conference and are in the Stanley Cup finals.
So, why such a big deal?
Think of being a Kings fan on par with being a Chicago Cubs fan. A Cleveland Indians fan.A, well you get the idea. A fan of a team that does not exactly have a history of winning. The last time that the Kings made it, and the only other time, was 1993 when they lost to the storied Montreal Canadiens, 4 games to 1.
If you have been following any of the Stanley Cup playoffs, the Kings have knocked off the number one team in the conference, the Vancouver Canucks, 4 games to 1. Then dispatched the number two seed in the conference, the St. Louis Blues in a four-game sweep. Now, in defeating the Coyotes, they knocked off number three and 4 games to 1.
Thus the Kings playoff record is an astounding 12-2.
The Eastern Conference team is to be determined as the New Jersey Devils are battling the New York Rangers as to who will play the Kings for the Cup.
I have been a hockey fan since 1977. I just started listening and watching Kings games and I was hooked. Back then, when one went to a Kings game in the old Fabulous Forum, most of the fans were going to see the other team. And back then that was the mighty Canadiens. But as noted, most of the time it was ANY other team.
It was not until the Kings acquired the great Wayne Gretzky that people began to, well, like the Kings! And it was was during Mr. Gretzky's time here that the Kings made the finals.
And since then there have been some rough patches for the Kings. In fact, the Kings barely made it into the playoffs this year and are the eighth seed. That makes this run totally awesome and amazing.
I will have more to say, but end with this;
GO KINGS GO! GO KINGS GO! GO KINGS GO!
Tonight is one of the biggest nights in the 44-year history of the franchise as they defeated the Phoenix Coyotes in overtime, 4-3 to win the National Hockey League Western Conference and are in the Stanley Cup finals.
So, why such a big deal?
Think of being a Kings fan on par with being a Chicago Cubs fan. A Cleveland Indians fan.A, well you get the idea. A fan of a team that does not exactly have a history of winning. The last time that the Kings made it, and the only other time, was 1993 when they lost to the storied Montreal Canadiens, 4 games to 1.
If you have been following any of the Stanley Cup playoffs, the Kings have knocked off the number one team in the conference, the Vancouver Canucks, 4 games to 1. Then dispatched the number two seed in the conference, the St. Louis Blues in a four-game sweep. Now, in defeating the Coyotes, they knocked off number three and 4 games to 1.
Thus the Kings playoff record is an astounding 12-2.
The Eastern Conference team is to be determined as the New Jersey Devils are battling the New York Rangers as to who will play the Kings for the Cup.
I have been a hockey fan since 1977. I just started listening and watching Kings games and I was hooked. Back then, when one went to a Kings game in the old Fabulous Forum, most of the fans were going to see the other team. And back then that was the mighty Canadiens. But as noted, most of the time it was ANY other team.
It was not until the Kings acquired the great Wayne Gretzky that people began to, well, like the Kings! And it was was during Mr. Gretzky's time here that the Kings made the finals.
And since then there have been some rough patches for the Kings. In fact, the Kings barely made it into the playoffs this year and are the eighth seed. That makes this run totally awesome and amazing.
I will have more to say, but end with this;
GO KINGS GO! GO KINGS GO! GO KINGS GO!
Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Left Angeles Times Desperate Shilling For The Dear Leader
I tell you that almost any given Sunday, the Left Angeles Times gives me great material and today is no different.
This is the latest attempt at this Obamawhore media outlet shilling for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
That the Dear Leader, President Obama, might actually win some White evangelical Christian voters in Ohio.
OK, sure some will vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Some did last time. So what?
Ahh, but you see, these few examples are not bothered by the Dear Leader, President Obama, coming our as a supporter of same-sex marriage. They are not bothered by the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his such strident support of abortion on demand. So much so that he wants you and I to have to pay for contraception whether we want to or not.
But here is what is wrong with the article.
First, one has to get down to the 10th paragraph to see that, the article is a fraud. Here it is:
It will be a tough sell. Polling numbers show that Obama has actually lost ground slightly among white evangelicals since the 2008 election, when he made significant inroads among voters of faith. In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 73% of white evangelicals polled were supporting Romney for president, compared with just 20% for Obama.
So then, why focus on maybe 20% of White evangelicals? If it is that bad for Team Dear Leader, I do not think there is a chance they will make any inroads beyond the 20%
And as an aside in the Pew poll mentioned, as you read on in the story, not one who identified themselves as Black and evangelical supported the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
So, probably the Times uses this poll to miss an as big, if not bigger story.
Will Black evangelicals turn out in large numbers and give the same support for the Dear Leader, President Obama, as they did in 2008?
Where is the article about Blacks not happy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, coming out of the closet for same-sex marriage?
If the Dear Leader, President Obama, loses any significant support of Black Americans, his reelection chances dim considerably.
And as you read on in the article, it really does not seem likely this miracle will occur with Team Dear Leader.
But why run such a piece?
To plant seeds of doubt. To say, as one of the pastors does say in the article, that evangelicals are moving to the left politically.
The Rev. Dave Workman of Vineyard Community church says that evangelicals are becoming more aware that there are more than two issues in deciding which party or candidate to vote for.
You know the two issues.
Abortion and same-sex marriage.
I do not know anything about the Rev. Workman, but if he really believes those are the only two issues most evangelicals care about, he is the one out of touch.
One of the reasons that evangelicals, well evangelize, is because of the sin and sickness that is in this world. One of those is poverty. Many evangelicals care deeply about not just bringing people to Jesus Christ, but bringing them up from bottom as well. Many think that they do a better job than any government program can do.
But this article paints the usual picture that evangelical Christians are single-issue voters.
The reality is that evangelical Christians are voters like the rest of us. While they care deeply about the "two issues", it is nowhere near the only reason they vote. They are concerned with many if not all the issues non-evangelical Christian voters care about. The dormant economy. The growing national debt and deficit. The more power that Washington, D. C. is claiming for itself. The standing of the United States in the international community.
So, the point of this article is to make White evangelicals look like they don't care about other issues than abortion and same-sex marriage. That there are some on the left of the political spectrum.
Hey, as I noted, where will there be an article about declining Black Christian support for the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Yup, the crickets are chirping for that one.
This is the latest attempt at this Obamawhore media outlet shilling for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
That the Dear Leader, President Obama, might actually win some White evangelical Christian voters in Ohio.
OK, sure some will vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Some did last time. So what?
Ahh, but you see, these few examples are not bothered by the Dear Leader, President Obama, coming our as a supporter of same-sex marriage. They are not bothered by the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his such strident support of abortion on demand. So much so that he wants you and I to have to pay for contraception whether we want to or not.
But here is what is wrong with the article.
First, one has to get down to the 10th paragraph to see that, the article is a fraud. Here it is:
It will be a tough sell. Polling numbers show that Obama has actually lost ground slightly among white evangelicals since the 2008 election, when he made significant inroads among voters of faith. In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 73% of white evangelicals polled were supporting Romney for president, compared with just 20% for Obama.
So then, why focus on maybe 20% of White evangelicals? If it is that bad for Team Dear Leader, I do not think there is a chance they will make any inroads beyond the 20%
And as an aside in the Pew poll mentioned, as you read on in the story, not one who identified themselves as Black and evangelical supported the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
So, probably the Times uses this poll to miss an as big, if not bigger story.
Will Black evangelicals turn out in large numbers and give the same support for the Dear Leader, President Obama, as they did in 2008?
Where is the article about Blacks not happy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, coming out of the closet for same-sex marriage?
If the Dear Leader, President Obama, loses any significant support of Black Americans, his reelection chances dim considerably.
And as you read on in the article, it really does not seem likely this miracle will occur with Team Dear Leader.
But why run such a piece?
To plant seeds of doubt. To say, as one of the pastors does say in the article, that evangelicals are moving to the left politically.
The Rev. Dave Workman of Vineyard Community church says that evangelicals are becoming more aware that there are more than two issues in deciding which party or candidate to vote for.
You know the two issues.
Abortion and same-sex marriage.
I do not know anything about the Rev. Workman, but if he really believes those are the only two issues most evangelicals care about, he is the one out of touch.
One of the reasons that evangelicals, well evangelize, is because of the sin and sickness that is in this world. One of those is poverty. Many evangelicals care deeply about not just bringing people to Jesus Christ, but bringing them up from bottom as well. Many think that they do a better job than any government program can do.
But this article paints the usual picture that evangelical Christians are single-issue voters.
The reality is that evangelical Christians are voters like the rest of us. While they care deeply about the "two issues", it is nowhere near the only reason they vote. They are concerned with many if not all the issues non-evangelical Christian voters care about. The dormant economy. The growing national debt and deficit. The more power that Washington, D. C. is claiming for itself. The standing of the United States in the international community.
So, the point of this article is to make White evangelicals look like they don't care about other issues than abortion and same-sex marriage. That there are some on the left of the political spectrum.
Hey, as I noted, where will there be an article about declining Black Christian support for the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Yup, the crickets are chirping for that one.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Another Race Story In The New York Times
Not just another race story, but one about the fact that for the first time, Whites in the United States accounted for less than half of all live births last year.
Of the 4,080,000 births in the United States last year, 1,988,824 were to Whites. The rest, 2,019,176 and that number includes mixed-race births.
What I find obnoxious about such stories is the seemingly negative tone about this trend.
But what I want to talk about is the mixed-race births and that is a positive trend in the United States.
The article did not discuss how many births were of mixed or multiple race children.
So I will from a personal perspective of family and friends.
My good friend, Mr. An Unmarried Man is a Mexican-American. He married a Korean-American woman and they had a son, a Korean-Mexican American.
Another good friend's sister, also a Mexican-American, married an Armenian. They also had a son. An Armenian-Mexican American.
In my own family, the numbers are very high in mixed-race marriage and children.
One of my brothers had a son with a Mexican-American woman.
My sister's oldest son is White and Mexican-American. And he is with a Mexican-American woman and has three children.
One of my nieces married a Black man and they have a son.
Two of my nephews and brothers married Asians. One married a Korean-American and they have two children. The other, married a Philippina-American and have two children.
So, what is the point of this?
That the whole paradigm of race in the United States is changing.
And for the better.
People are no longer feeling a false "race loyalty" and are getting together, well because. Religion may have a role. Trying to be different. I do not really know.
But what this does is make the dream of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King come true. That people will be judged, yes judged, not on the color of their skin but the content of their character.
How can you not define the dilution of the races as nothing more than the Americanization of our nation, once and for all?
Of course, the Race-Huckster Industrial Complex can not stand this.
If Americans on their own begin the process of deemphasizing race, then what will the fill-in-the-blank race-centered group to do?
Well, they take take off their veils and admit that the race mixing is not a good thing for their own race. They can just go about the negativity many Americans, especially us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Americans, The irony. That these RHIC people will blame Whites while castigating their own for not caring about race when the meet that special someone and marry. And have children.
The more that we see of mixed-race births the less it becomes relevant the whole attitude of race relations.
Oh, I want to note that there are a fair share of White Americans do have negative views on mixed-race relationships. But I find that is less and less of that is important as more and more, particularly young Whites, just say no to all this pointless race stuff.
You know, is not good to just know people and like them, or not, for who they are as a person and nothing more?
I believe that.
And so do many Americans.
I do not know if it will happen in my lifetime, but I do know that it will in our grand children's lifetime.
What will happen?
That we will not have to check off a race box for anything. We will simply be Americans. We will have multiple heritages and a lot to look back at in genealogy.
Too bad The New York Times did not look at that and find something positive about that trend.
Of the 4,080,000 births in the United States last year, 1,988,824 were to Whites. The rest, 2,019,176 and that number includes mixed-race births.
What I find obnoxious about such stories is the seemingly negative tone about this trend.
But what I want to talk about is the mixed-race births and that is a positive trend in the United States.
The article did not discuss how many births were of mixed or multiple race children.
So I will from a personal perspective of family and friends.
My good friend, Mr. An Unmarried Man is a Mexican-American. He married a Korean-American woman and they had a son, a Korean-Mexican American.
Another good friend's sister, also a Mexican-American, married an Armenian. They also had a son. An Armenian-Mexican American.
In my own family, the numbers are very high in mixed-race marriage and children.
One of my brothers had a son with a Mexican-American woman.
My sister's oldest son is White and Mexican-American. And he is with a Mexican-American woman and has three children.
One of my nieces married a Black man and they have a son.
Two of my nephews and brothers married Asians. One married a Korean-American and they have two children. The other, married a Philippina-American and have two children.
So, what is the point of this?
That the whole paradigm of race in the United States is changing.
And for the better.
People are no longer feeling a false "race loyalty" and are getting together, well because. Religion may have a role. Trying to be different. I do not really know.
But what this does is make the dream of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King come true. That people will be judged, yes judged, not on the color of their skin but the content of their character.
How can you not define the dilution of the races as nothing more than the Americanization of our nation, once and for all?
Of course, the Race-Huckster Industrial Complex can not stand this.
If Americans on their own begin the process of deemphasizing race, then what will the fill-in-the-blank race-centered group to do?
Well, they take take off their veils and admit that the race mixing is not a good thing for their own race. They can just go about the negativity many Americans, especially us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Americans, The irony. That these RHIC people will blame Whites while castigating their own for not caring about race when the meet that special someone and marry. And have children.
The more that we see of mixed-race births the less it becomes relevant the whole attitude of race relations.
Oh, I want to note that there are a fair share of White Americans do have negative views on mixed-race relationships. But I find that is less and less of that is important as more and more, particularly young Whites, just say no to all this pointless race stuff.
You know, is not good to just know people and like them, or not, for who they are as a person and nothing more?
I believe that.
And so do many Americans.
I do not know if it will happen in my lifetime, but I do know that it will in our grand children's lifetime.
What will happen?
That we will not have to check off a race box for anything. We will simply be Americans. We will have multiple heritages and a lot to look back at in genealogy.
Too bad The New York Times did not look at that and find something positive about that trend.
My 2012 Election Map As Of Today
Today I will start a hopeful weekly feature here at Right View From The Left Coast and it is the 2012 presidential election map.
A great feature over at Real Clear Politics is an interactive map in which you can make an map of who will win what state.
So, here is my projection as of today, Thursday, May 17, 2012:
Romney wins
Because for some reason, and probably because I am not all that well versed on transferring the image, I have to link it.
But here is what I have as the electoral college prediction as of today:
Miit Romney 336
Barack Obama 202
The difference between my projection and the one provided by Real Clear Politics is that they have toss up states. I do not.
So, why do I do that? How do I look at things that clearly now?
I do not. I do have a lot more solid Romney states that RCP does. There are just some that the Democrats will not be able to pry no matter what.
Really, South Carolina, one of the most Republican states in the South leaning to Mr. Romney? Not a chance that South Carolina will even be close.
But by taking out the toss-up states, I simply make this what it will be on election day. While it is only May, the whole point is to see where said candidate will be on Tuesday evening, November 6, 2012.
That is why I just look at the state, try to think is there any major change since 2008 and pick accordingly. Polls are somewhat important in each state. But so many are not real battlegrounders that one can figure where they will go now.
But, the caveat is that this can change week to week. That is why it is going to be, hopefully, a weekly feature until Election Day.
A great feature over at Real Clear Politics is an interactive map in which you can make an map of who will win what state.
So, here is my projection as of today, Thursday, May 17, 2012:
Romney wins
Because for some reason, and probably because I am not all that well versed on transferring the image, I have to link it.
But here is what I have as the electoral college prediction as of today:
Miit Romney 336
Barack Obama 202
The difference between my projection and the one provided by Real Clear Politics is that they have toss up states. I do not.
So, why do I do that? How do I look at things that clearly now?
I do not. I do have a lot more solid Romney states that RCP does. There are just some that the Democrats will not be able to pry no matter what.
Really, South Carolina, one of the most Republican states in the South leaning to Mr. Romney? Not a chance that South Carolina will even be close.
But by taking out the toss-up states, I simply make this what it will be on election day. While it is only May, the whole point is to see where said candidate will be on Tuesday evening, November 6, 2012.
That is why I just look at the state, try to think is there any major change since 2008 and pick accordingly. Polls are somewhat important in each state. But so many are not real battlegrounders that one can figure where they will go now.
But, the caveat is that this can change week to week. That is why it is going to be, hopefully, a weekly feature until Election Day.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Hey Kids, Next Time You Wanna Make Out, Get A Room!
Now I usually don't like to delve into such a topic. But this does say something about the time and the culture and what seems to be OK and not OK.
This past Monday, the office I work at (all four of us!) went out to lunch on the company I work for. It appears that we did something good. And hey, they were treating, so why not?!
We went to the nearby Olive Garden, or as I used to call it, the Overrated Garden. I don't know but the food seems to be better than it used to be.
My boss left a few minutes early to get a table and the rest of us walked over since it is nearby out office.
Once we all got there, seated and looking over the menu, I could not help but to keep looking over to my left.
There they were.
Two people, a dude and a gal. They looked to be college age from what I could tell. The problem was what they were doing.
They were passionately making out. In the middle of the frickin restaurant!
It was not the peck on the cheek. No, that would have been OK. But the gal's eyes were shut as she was kissing her boyfriend/husband. It was NOT just kissing. It was full on. . .french kissing. I could see the lips opening up and the tongue hanging out.
As the gals say nowadays, EEEUUUWWW!
The gal was practically in the guy's lap and this went on for a while.
I was sitting next to my boss, in her early 50s as I am 47. I turned around and said "Are those two going to get a room?!" And her response was, "I know! Its too much especially in here!"
Exactly.
Listen, I am not a prude. But my issue is that there is a time and a place for that kind of stuff.
In the middle of an Olive Garden restaurant is not one of those places or times.
The scene was just too much. If the waiter had not brought the food to them, I do not know what might have happened next.
But back to my issue.
I am pretty affectionate with Mrs. RVFTLC. We hold hands often. We kiss. We hug. Even when we were dating we did the making out kind of stuff privately. We just don't feel we needed to or need to put on a show of any kind for people.
And that is what is wrong today.
It seems that today's youts have to take all this stuff to the limit. Test the boundaries. Kind of get into the face of the rest of us.
But as I have grown older and hopefully wiser, I just wonder the kind of message it sends to people to see young people act like they are ready to do it any time, any place?
It sends a bad message. It sends a message that they have no self control. They live way too much in the moment.
What drives them to that attitude? Is it the Hollyweird/celbutard culture? Is it marketing that seems to say to young people, you can do anything? Is it a sense of despair underlying the seemingly cool lives the youts of today lead?
The fact is that every generation asks these questions. But one thing the generations of old did not have to deal with is the near epidemic of unmarried pregnancies. Guys doing the deed and skipping out on their responsibilities. Gals so wanting a child to be "fulfilled" and a dad be damned.
Now I am not suggesting that full-on making out in an Olive Garden restaurant is going to lead to a pregnancy that the couple may have not wanted. But we are told by the smart people that all to cure this problem is more sex-ed and more birth control.
Hey, how about self-control?
That is what was lacking from the young couple. They were acting as if it was their own private restaurant. They did not care about the people around them. That there may have been very young kids around.
Again, it is all about self-control.
The above tale is real but shows a lack of that which separates many of us. The ability to control one's self when it seems most uncontrollable. And trust me, once the hormones start and the guy getsexcited, the thought process often goes right out the window.
But my advice to people like that?
Please, next time you want to make out in a restaurant, get a room!
This past Monday, the office I work at (all four of us!) went out to lunch on the company I work for. It appears that we did something good. And hey, they were treating, so why not?!
We went to the nearby Olive Garden, or as I used to call it, the Overrated Garden. I don't know but the food seems to be better than it used to be.
My boss left a few minutes early to get a table and the rest of us walked over since it is nearby out office.
Once we all got there, seated and looking over the menu, I could not help but to keep looking over to my left.
There they were.
Two people, a dude and a gal. They looked to be college age from what I could tell. The problem was what they were doing.
They were passionately making out. In the middle of the frickin restaurant!
It was not the peck on the cheek. No, that would have been OK. But the gal's eyes were shut as she was kissing her boyfriend/husband. It was NOT just kissing. It was full on. . .french kissing. I could see the lips opening up and the tongue hanging out.
As the gals say nowadays, EEEUUUWWW!
The gal was practically in the guy's lap and this went on for a while.
I was sitting next to my boss, in her early 50s as I am 47. I turned around and said "Are those two going to get a room?!" And her response was, "I know! Its too much especially in here!"
Exactly.
Listen, I am not a prude. But my issue is that there is a time and a place for that kind of stuff.
In the middle of an Olive Garden restaurant is not one of those places or times.
The scene was just too much. If the waiter had not brought the food to them, I do not know what might have happened next.
But back to my issue.
I am pretty affectionate with Mrs. RVFTLC. We hold hands often. We kiss. We hug. Even when we were dating we did the making out kind of stuff privately. We just don't feel we needed to or need to put on a show of any kind for people.
And that is what is wrong today.
It seems that today's youts have to take all this stuff to the limit. Test the boundaries. Kind of get into the face of the rest of us.
But as I have grown older and hopefully wiser, I just wonder the kind of message it sends to people to see young people act like they are ready to do it any time, any place?
It sends a bad message. It sends a message that they have no self control. They live way too much in the moment.
What drives them to that attitude? Is it the Hollyweird/celbutard culture? Is it marketing that seems to say to young people, you can do anything? Is it a sense of despair underlying the seemingly cool lives the youts of today lead?
The fact is that every generation asks these questions. But one thing the generations of old did not have to deal with is the near epidemic of unmarried pregnancies. Guys doing the deed and skipping out on their responsibilities. Gals so wanting a child to be "fulfilled" and a dad be damned.
Now I am not suggesting that full-on making out in an Olive Garden restaurant is going to lead to a pregnancy that the couple may have not wanted. But we are told by the smart people that all to cure this problem is more sex-ed and more birth control.
Hey, how about self-control?
That is what was lacking from the young couple. They were acting as if it was their own private restaurant. They did not care about the people around them. That there may have been very young kids around.
Again, it is all about self-control.
The above tale is real but shows a lack of that which separates many of us. The ability to control one's self when it seems most uncontrollable. And trust me, once the hormones start and the guy getsexcited, the thought process often goes right out the window.
But my advice to people like that?
Please, next time you want to make out in a restaurant, get a room!
North Carolina, That "Swing" State Swinging Right
For some reason, North Carolina has been deemed by the compliant Obamawhore media, and to be fair, some on the conservative side as a swing state this election cycle.
I suppose when the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win North Carolina by the rip-roaring margin of 0.3 percent in 2008, it would be easy to categorize as such. And the state does have a Democrat governor in Beverly Perdue.
But a funny thing has happened in North Carolina since 2008.
It has swung to the right and with a vengeance.
In 2010, the infamous mid-term election, the state senate went into Republican hands. Before the election, the state senate was 30 Democrat, 29 Republican. WHOOPS! After the election, it went to 19 Democrat, 31 Republican. OUCH! And lower house went from 68 Democrat to 52 Republican to the new number of 52 Democrat to 67 Republican and one independent.
One would contend a total reversal of Democrat control, right?
Somehow, the Democrat party bought into the notion that their party was on the rise in North Carolina and chose the state's largest city, Charlotte, to host the Democrat National Convention this time around.
The reward for that?
Of course the now infamous vote on same-sex marriage in which 61% of voters said should be recognized as being between one man and one woman.
And the Democrat implosion is now about to be complete as the latest Rasmussen poll for North Carolina shows the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, with an eight percentage point lead. As Ed Morrissey correctly points out, this will probably take North Carolina off the so-called swing state map and into solid Republican territory.
Oh, another aspect of this poll is that Mr. Romney has 51% of those polled. That is a high number this early out. And Mr. Romney is not even the official nominee as yet. And note that this is among likely voters. So this is a pretty accurate read at this point.
And yes, I think this takes North Carolina out of the Democrat column.
The question then becomes how many other states the Dear Leader, President Obama, won in 2008 that former President George W. Bush won go back to the Republican column?
A safe projection at this point is this.
Indiana will go back to the GOP. So will the following states (with the electoral votes for each state):
Colorado 9
Florida 29
Iowa 6
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
When you figure the 11 electoral votes for Indiana and the 15 for North Carolina, these states have a combined electoral vote total of 79.
And all of that takes the Dear Leader, President Obama, down from his 359 electoral vote total in 2008 to 280 this time around.
At some point, it may become more of what Democrat state can Mr. Romney take away rather than the other way around.
But so far, North Carolina is really no longer a swing state but a getting safer Republican state. And that has to hurt the Democrats across the board.
I suppose when the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win North Carolina by the rip-roaring margin of 0.3 percent in 2008, it would be easy to categorize as such. And the state does have a Democrat governor in Beverly Perdue.
But a funny thing has happened in North Carolina since 2008.
It has swung to the right and with a vengeance.
In 2010, the infamous mid-term election, the state senate went into Republican hands. Before the election, the state senate was 30 Democrat, 29 Republican. WHOOPS! After the election, it went to 19 Democrat, 31 Republican. OUCH! And lower house went from 68 Democrat to 52 Republican to the new number of 52 Democrat to 67 Republican and one independent.
One would contend a total reversal of Democrat control, right?
Somehow, the Democrat party bought into the notion that their party was on the rise in North Carolina and chose the state's largest city, Charlotte, to host the Democrat National Convention this time around.
The reward for that?
Of course the now infamous vote on same-sex marriage in which 61% of voters said should be recognized as being between one man and one woman.
And the Democrat implosion is now about to be complete as the latest Rasmussen poll for North Carolina shows the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, with an eight percentage point lead. As Ed Morrissey correctly points out, this will probably take North Carolina off the so-called swing state map and into solid Republican territory.
Oh, another aspect of this poll is that Mr. Romney has 51% of those polled. That is a high number this early out. And Mr. Romney is not even the official nominee as yet. And note that this is among likely voters. So this is a pretty accurate read at this point.
And yes, I think this takes North Carolina out of the Democrat column.
The question then becomes how many other states the Dear Leader, President Obama, won in 2008 that former President George W. Bush won go back to the Republican column?
A safe projection at this point is this.
Indiana will go back to the GOP. So will the following states (with the electoral votes for each state):
Colorado 9
Florida 29
Iowa 6
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
When you figure the 11 electoral votes for Indiana and the 15 for North Carolina, these states have a combined electoral vote total of 79.
And all of that takes the Dear Leader, President Obama, down from his 359 electoral vote total in 2008 to 280 this time around.
At some point, it may become more of what Democrat state can Mr. Romney take away rather than the other way around.
But so far, North Carolina is really no longer a swing state but a getting safer Republican state. And that has to hurt the Democrats across the board.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Chris Matthews, One Obnoxious Dumb S--t
Oh yeah, the dude that has Hardball on OMNBC, er MSNBC, hosts The Chris Matthews Show, the left's version of the McLaughlin Group is one annoying dumb s--t.
Sorry for the blunt assessment. But the man that said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin couldn't hack it on the game show Jeopardy, well he could not hang at all.
Mr. Matthews should thank Almighty God that he was guaranteed $10,000 for his Charity as his pathetic performance netted a paltry $2,300 dollars.
Over at NewsBusters there is the video link and a literal blow-by-blow display of Mr. Matthews, er, how should I write this.
Dumbs--tery.
As a pretty faithful watcher of Jeopardy, let me explain the very basic of the game.
The host, Alex Trebek, gives an answer clue and the contestant must provide the answer in the form of a question.
Well, damn!
Mr. Matthews just did not get it.
Here is an answer clue provided by Mr. Trebek:
"At ____, soldier! Four letters."
And Mr. Matthews shot back:
"At ease, soldier,"
Now, what is wrong with Mr. Matthews answer?
Remember how the answer is to be provided?
In the form of a question.
Mr. Matthews does eventually redeem himself, bless his huge, massive brain:
"What is 'At ease, soldier?'"
Oops! My bad! I am mistaken. It really is not the correct answer because Mr. Matthews added a word. "At" is already in the provided answer. But, Mr. Trebek and the judges took pity on the befuddled Mr. Matthews and let it go.
Now, keep in mind that Mr. Matthews had this to say about Mrs. Palin back in 2008 regarding her vice-presidential debate with then Sen. Joe The Brain Surgeon Biden:
Well Mr. Matthews, you sure did not.
Because it just gets better as Mr. Matthews stumbles along.
Going back to the heady days of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, here is an answer clue Mr. Trebek gave:
"Full name of the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960."
And the question answer from Mr. Matthews:
"Who is Gary Powers?"
OK, that is part of it. And Mr. Trebek tells Mr. Matthews that he needs the full name. And Mr. Matthews continues to insist that Gary Powers is his full name.
Well too bad for Mr. Matthews because the full name is Francis Gary Powers.
Francis Gary Powers.
And it just gets worse from there.
I suggest reading the full link at NewsBusters for more.
But let me give you another bit of Mr. Matthews dissing the intellect of Mrs. Palin:
They find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book — it’s full of that crap....It’s unbelievable how little this woman knows!...Don’t put her on Jeopardy!”
Chris, Chris, Chris.
Your went on Jeopardy and made an absolute fool of yourself.
Mr. Matthews, do you even actually watch the show? Do you realize you have to provide the answer as a question?!
As I wrote earlier, I watch the show. I get a lot of the question answers. Mrs. RVFTLC thinks that I should try out for the show. I think about it every now and then.
And I watched last night's show and realized, well hell yeah! I could do a better job than Mr. Matthews. Cashew, the Little Guy, could do a better job.
But what this does is show something interesting.
How the left loves to question the intelligence of conservatives and when push comes to shove, it is often in the case of a game show competition that they can show that they are not all that bright.
Could Mrs. Palin have done a better job than Mr. Matthews? I don't know but I think that it is way better than 75/25 she would have.
Remember back in the 1980s we were told constantly by the likes of Mr. Matthews and his boss, the former Speaker of the House, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill (D-Mass.) how dumb President Reagan was?
And move ahead to the 2000s and how dumb and stupid President George W. Bush was?
And guess what?
We are told how wonderful and brilliant President Clinton was.
How we just do not deserve the likes of the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Say, where are those high school records of the Dear Leader, President Obama? What about his college records? Have they all just gotten lost?
Knowledge, last I checked, is not based on partisanship and or political ideology. It is about a ability to absorb facts and deliver them. It is a natural curiosity about the world around them. Some have an amazing gift for absorbing and delivering knowledge. Some do not. But, I can assure you that there has not been, until recent years, anything remotely political about one's knowledge and by extension, intellect.
So, when a Leftywhore media maven like Chris Matthews dumps on Sarah Palin and he ends up on the show he think she can't hang on, and looks like a dumb s--t, well should I say he is just not all that smart?
Sorry for the blunt assessment. But the man that said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin couldn't hack it on the game show Jeopardy, well he could not hang at all.
Mr. Matthews should thank Almighty God that he was guaranteed $10,000 for his Charity as his pathetic performance netted a paltry $2,300 dollars.
Over at NewsBusters there is the video link and a literal blow-by-blow display of Mr. Matthews, er, how should I write this.
Dumbs--tery.
As a pretty faithful watcher of Jeopardy, let me explain the very basic of the game.
The host, Alex Trebek, gives an answer clue and the contestant must provide the answer in the form of a question.
Well, damn!
Mr. Matthews just did not get it.
Here is an answer clue provided by Mr. Trebek:
"At ____, soldier! Four letters."
And Mr. Matthews shot back:
"At ease, soldier,"
Now, what is wrong with Mr. Matthews answer?
Remember how the answer is to be provided?
In the form of a question.
Mr. Matthews does eventually redeem himself, bless his huge, massive brain:
"What is 'At ease, soldier?'"
Oops! My bad! I am mistaken. It really is not the correct answer because Mr. Matthews added a word. "At" is already in the provided answer. But, Mr. Trebek and the judges took pity on the befuddled Mr. Matthews and let it go.
Now, keep in mind that Mr. Matthews had this to say about Mrs. Palin back in 2008 regarding her vice-presidential debate with then Sen. Joe The Brain Surgeon Biden:
"Is this [vice presidential debate] about her brain power?... Do you think cute will beat brains?...Do you think she’d do better on the questions on Jeopardy! or the interview they do during a half-time?...My suspicion is that she has the same lack of intellectual curiosity that the President of the United States has right now and that is scary!"
Well Mr. Matthews, you sure did not.
Because it just gets better as Mr. Matthews stumbles along.
Going back to the heady days of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, here is an answer clue Mr. Trebek gave:
"Full name of the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960."
And the question answer from Mr. Matthews:
"Who is Gary Powers?"
OK, that is part of it. And Mr. Trebek tells Mr. Matthews that he needs the full name. And Mr. Matthews continues to insist that Gary Powers is his full name.
Well too bad for Mr. Matthews because the full name is Francis Gary Powers.
Francis Gary Powers.
And it just gets worse from there.
I suggest reading the full link at NewsBusters for more.
But let me give you another bit of Mr. Matthews dissing the intellect of Mrs. Palin:
They find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book — it’s full of that crap....It’s unbelievable how little this woman knows!...Don’t put her on Jeopardy!”
Chris, Chris, Chris.
Your went on Jeopardy and made an absolute fool of yourself.
Mr. Matthews, do you even actually watch the show? Do you realize you have to provide the answer as a question?!
As I wrote earlier, I watch the show. I get a lot of the question answers. Mrs. RVFTLC thinks that I should try out for the show. I think about it every now and then.
And I watched last night's show and realized, well hell yeah! I could do a better job than Mr. Matthews. Cashew, the Little Guy, could do a better job.
But what this does is show something interesting.
How the left loves to question the intelligence of conservatives and when push comes to shove, it is often in the case of a game show competition that they can show that they are not all that bright.
Could Mrs. Palin have done a better job than Mr. Matthews? I don't know but I think that it is way better than 75/25 she would have.
Remember back in the 1980s we were told constantly by the likes of Mr. Matthews and his boss, the former Speaker of the House, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill (D-Mass.) how dumb President Reagan was?
And move ahead to the 2000s and how dumb and stupid President George W. Bush was?
And guess what?
We are told how wonderful and brilliant President Clinton was.
How we just do not deserve the likes of the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Say, where are those high school records of the Dear Leader, President Obama? What about his college records? Have they all just gotten lost?
Knowledge, last I checked, is not based on partisanship and or political ideology. It is about a ability to absorb facts and deliver them. It is a natural curiosity about the world around them. Some have an amazing gift for absorbing and delivering knowledge. Some do not. But, I can assure you that there has not been, until recent years, anything remotely political about one's knowledge and by extension, intellect.
So, when a Leftywhore media maven like Chris Matthews dumps on Sarah Palin and he ends up on the show he think she can't hang on, and looks like a dumb s--t, well should I say he is just not all that smart?
Friday, May 11, 2012
Explain If The American Public Is More Accepting Of Same-Sex Marriage Why Does It Keep Losing At The Polls?
Forgive the looong headline, but the point is that I do not get the meme of the Leftywhore media as to the supposed change of heart of Americans in regard to same-sex marriage.
And again, I am not advocating for or against, I think that there is a huge disconnect between so-called polls and what voters are saying across this Great Land.
Now since voting has occurred on this subject since 1998, 30 states have voted to varying degrees to affirm the meaning of marriage to that state between one man and one woman.
In the proceeding 14 years since the first vote in Alaska to the last one (before this past Tuesday in North Carolina), the numbers are staggering as to what the people have said.
Since 1998, 63,415,154 Americans have voted in referendums regarding the subject of same-sex marriage. And again, they have ranged from affirming traditional marriage to, yes, banning civil unions and also domestic partnerships. In all, 40,315,695 Americans have voted in 30 states before the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll vote in North Carolina to uphold traditional marriage. Only 23,099,459 have voted against or for eventual recognition of same-sex marriages. That translates to about 67% for traditional marriage and 33% against or to eventually redefine marriage.
And make no mistake. Again, no matter what you feel on the subject, it does redefine marriage recognizing same-sex unions.
But back to the raw data.
These votes have occurred in Blue of the Bluest states like California and Red as a tomato states as Alabama. And all have voted for the state to recognize marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Now to be fair, in 2006, Arizona became the first and only state to defeat a traditional marriage initiative on the ballot. But that was more restrictive and would not have recognized civil unions. So, in 2008, just marriage was on the ballot and it won handily.
The interesting numbers are in fact from 2008.
The Arizona initiative passed 56% to 44%. And Republican presidential candidate Sen. John "F--- You" McCain carried his home state.
In Blue as Blue California, while the Democrat candidate, Sen. Messiah Barack, was carrying the state with 61% of the vote, 52% of voters passed a marriage between one man and one woman. That is amazing in and of itself that it passed here. But it did pass.
And Florida was also being carried by Sen. Messiah Barack. But 62% of voters voted to affirm traditional marriage and ban civil unions.
But because of the closeness of the California vote, roughly about 56% of voters said at the very least that traditional marriage is all that should be recognized by the state.
Now I do not pull these numbers out of a hat. All one has to do is go to this link at Wikipedia and crunch the numbers as I did.
So, what is it?
Do we believe people who answer a poll or people that actually take the time in each state to vote for or against any of these measures?
Sorry proponents, gotta go with people who vote. I go with the fact that 63,415,154 people that have voted on this issue. Again, 67% of that number have voted in one way or another to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
So, is the public more accepting of same-sex relationships? I can say yes. Do Americans really want to redefine marriage. Not at all. Will a lot of Americans want some kind of allowance for same-sex relationships yet not call it marriage? That kind of depends what part of the United States one lives in.
Now, some states have passed legislation or been forced by supreme courts and not overturned those decisions to recognize same-sex marriages and perform them.
They are Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York state and Vermont. The common thread is that these are all Northeast and or New England states, except for Iowa.
But, most other states will not recognize these relationships as marriage.
And, like it or not proponents, that is the real number to look at.
And while no one for same-sex marriage wants to listen to me, an eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll conservative, I will still offer a little advice.
One, if ye want to win people over, demonizing them and essentially calling them idiots and hoping for their deaths is probably not going to win over people.
Two, if you are in a committed relationship and the people you care about, or claim to care about, see that, they just may come around on their own in their own time. Something that you believe is worthwhile can not be rushed.
Three, recognize that those who believe in traditional marriage are not all bad, evil people. Most believe that while your intentions are good, there is a broader social ramification that you have not thought about or just do not care about. That is what other types of marriages could emerge. Polygamy, adult-child, relatives other than cousins. And that concern does not diminish your relationship. No one is seriously taking your relationship, good and great as it is, and saying your leading the way to the aforementioned. It is a real and genuine concern.
Forth, make the case that same-sex marriage is a great civilizer of those relationships. What most people see, especially at so-called Gay Pride parades is a freak show. It is what upsets a lot of people. And I am sure alot of same-sex couples don't exactly like seeing that as well. After all, they are not interested in a lot of the freakishness that is out there at those shows.
Again, I don't expect a lot of people who advocate same-sex marriage to actually take what I write and think about it. No, just go on Facebook and get into it with people who actually believe that the Dear Leader, President Obama, sudden change of heart on same-sex marriage is genuine. They are blinder than Helen Keller to actually get that maybe it is not all that it seems to be.
Which is the point of all this.
Polling data only goes so far. It depends on how questions are in fact and indeed asked and answered. The most important poll to look at is how voters actually vote when the question is put on the ballot.
Oh, and North Carolina voted for traditional marriage 61% to 39%.
So, please explain polls that show one thing and people voting a vastly different way.
And again, I am not advocating for or against, I think that there is a huge disconnect between so-called polls and what voters are saying across this Great Land.
Now since voting has occurred on this subject since 1998, 30 states have voted to varying degrees to affirm the meaning of marriage to that state between one man and one woman.
In the proceeding 14 years since the first vote in Alaska to the last one (before this past Tuesday in North Carolina), the numbers are staggering as to what the people have said.
Since 1998, 63,415,154 Americans have voted in referendums regarding the subject of same-sex marriage. And again, they have ranged from affirming traditional marriage to, yes, banning civil unions and also domestic partnerships. In all, 40,315,695 Americans have voted in 30 states before the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll vote in North Carolina to uphold traditional marriage. Only 23,099,459 have voted against or for eventual recognition of same-sex marriages. That translates to about 67% for traditional marriage and 33% against or to eventually redefine marriage.
And make no mistake. Again, no matter what you feel on the subject, it does redefine marriage recognizing same-sex unions.
But back to the raw data.
These votes have occurred in Blue of the Bluest states like California and Red as a tomato states as Alabama. And all have voted for the state to recognize marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Now to be fair, in 2006, Arizona became the first and only state to defeat a traditional marriage initiative on the ballot. But that was more restrictive and would not have recognized civil unions. So, in 2008, just marriage was on the ballot and it won handily.
The interesting numbers are in fact from 2008.
The Arizona initiative passed 56% to 44%. And Republican presidential candidate Sen. John "F--- You" McCain carried his home state.
In Blue as Blue California, while the Democrat candidate, Sen. Messiah Barack, was carrying the state with 61% of the vote, 52% of voters passed a marriage between one man and one woman. That is amazing in and of itself that it passed here. But it did pass.
And Florida was also being carried by Sen. Messiah Barack. But 62% of voters voted to affirm traditional marriage and ban civil unions.
But because of the closeness of the California vote, roughly about 56% of voters said at the very least that traditional marriage is all that should be recognized by the state.
Now I do not pull these numbers out of a hat. All one has to do is go to this link at Wikipedia and crunch the numbers as I did.
So, what is it?
Do we believe people who answer a poll or people that actually take the time in each state to vote for or against any of these measures?
Sorry proponents, gotta go with people who vote. I go with the fact that 63,415,154 people that have voted on this issue. Again, 67% of that number have voted in one way or another to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
So, is the public more accepting of same-sex relationships? I can say yes. Do Americans really want to redefine marriage. Not at all. Will a lot of Americans want some kind of allowance for same-sex relationships yet not call it marriage? That kind of depends what part of the United States one lives in.
Now, some states have passed legislation or been forced by supreme courts and not overturned those decisions to recognize same-sex marriages and perform them.
They are Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York state and Vermont. The common thread is that these are all Northeast and or New England states, except for Iowa.
But, most other states will not recognize these relationships as marriage.
And, like it or not proponents, that is the real number to look at.
And while no one for same-sex marriage wants to listen to me, an eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll conservative, I will still offer a little advice.
One, if ye want to win people over, demonizing them and essentially calling them idiots and hoping for their deaths is probably not going to win over people.
Two, if you are in a committed relationship and the people you care about, or claim to care about, see that, they just may come around on their own in their own time. Something that you believe is worthwhile can not be rushed.
Three, recognize that those who believe in traditional marriage are not all bad, evil people. Most believe that while your intentions are good, there is a broader social ramification that you have not thought about or just do not care about. That is what other types of marriages could emerge. Polygamy, adult-child, relatives other than cousins. And that concern does not diminish your relationship. No one is seriously taking your relationship, good and great as it is, and saying your leading the way to the aforementioned. It is a real and genuine concern.
Forth, make the case that same-sex marriage is a great civilizer of those relationships. What most people see, especially at so-called Gay Pride parades is a freak show. It is what upsets a lot of people. And I am sure alot of same-sex couples don't exactly like seeing that as well. After all, they are not interested in a lot of the freakishness that is out there at those shows.
Again, I don't expect a lot of people who advocate same-sex marriage to actually take what I write and think about it. No, just go on Facebook and get into it with people who actually believe that the Dear Leader, President Obama, sudden change of heart on same-sex marriage is genuine. They are blinder than Helen Keller to actually get that maybe it is not all that it seems to be.
Which is the point of all this.
Polling data only goes so far. It depends on how questions are in fact and indeed asked and answered. The most important poll to look at is how voters actually vote when the question is put on the ballot.
Oh, and North Carolina voted for traditional marriage 61% to 39%.
So, please explain polls that show one thing and people voting a vastly different way.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Our Dear Leader's Cynicism Comes Out Of The Closet
The highest elected official in the land, the President of the United States, the Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama has finally come out of the closet.
Well, not completely.
But today, the Dear Leader came out of the closet on the subject of same-sex marriage.
He's for it.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, gave a full-throated approval of same-sex marriage after spending the last eight years saying that he has been against same-sex marriage. But that is after answering this question while runnimg for the Illinois state senate in 1996 in the affirmative.
In the same link above is the actual timeline of the Dear Leader, President Obama from being a same-sex marriage advocate to ha8er*, er pro-traditional marriage candidate for senate, still more of a ha8er* running for president. But in 2010, now firmly entrenched as the president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said his view was "evolving" on the subject.
OK, I know that you think this is going to be a post about the pros and cons of same-sex marriage.
No.
It is about flip-flopping-flipping again and the politics of cynacism and desperation.
The supposed change of heart from the Dear Leader, President Obama, came in this interview with Robin Roberts from ABC news. Nice to pick someone that won't ask tough questions. You know, like how were you for it, against it, now for it again.
So what has it really been Dear Leader, President Obama.
Was it the position that you took in 1996 while running for a heavily gerrymandered very left-wing Democrat state senate seat in Illinois? Was this what you really thought then:
6) I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.
Or when you were running state-wide in Illinois for the senate in 2004? You know for the yokels outside of your tony Hyde Park neighborhood. You said then that your religious faith, being a Christian, dictates that marriage is sacred. And between one man and one woman. And even stronger that marriage is not a civil right!
But today, from The Weekly Standard comes this from the Dear Leader, President Obama:
“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, [the First Lady] feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”
Again, what is it? And were you lying all that time you said that you were against same-sex marriage? Or lying when you said that you were for it in the beginning? And why do you pick this moment in time to suddenly have this epiphany?
Could it be that you were losing the homosexual vote? That many of your homosexual backers were turning the cash spigots off.
Well, the spirit does work in mysyeryous ways, doesn't it?
In the Washington Free Beacon, we get some background as to the truth behind this sudden change of heart.
Its all about the Benjamins.
Why within 90 minutes of the announcement, a cool $1,000,000 was raised by homosexual allies of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Shocking, isn't it?
Well, not in the least.
Because as many people are finding out, this is the most cynical, pandering, tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear administration in recent memory.
Before I continue, did not Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, once tell us that Barack was going to be against all this cynisim? This from Mr. Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty, at The Campaign Spot from 2008:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Really, Mrs. Dear Leader? I should shed my cynicism? When the sitting president of the United States hopes we do not do a timeline and the math on this very cynical decision?
Why the hell should we? He lied to Pastor Rick Warren back in 2008 about marriage? Or is he lying now because he needs the gay cash?
While advocating a hard left agenda and playing games, Team Dear Leader is making it quite clear. They do not want to talk about the abject failure that is Obamanomics. They do not want to talk about the real reason unemployment went down a tenth of a percent last month to only 8.1 percent. They do not want to talk about slow if not no economic growth. They do not want to talk about a nationalization of health care that the people did not want. They do not want to talk about these issues.
That, my friends, is a desperate administration.
As noted in The Other McCain, could have the real Barack Hussein Obama even won the Iowa caucus in 2008 if he stuck by his 1996 position on same-sex marriage?
Hell frickin no!
So, the Dear Leader, President Obama, no matter what his base, homosexual allies and his Obamawhore media will tell you, is an out and out liar.
And all will cover for him and make this coming out oh just so cool.
The really sad part is that the Dear Leader, President Obama's hand was forced by. . .of all people, his vice-president, Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden.
For the record, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has never been for same-sex marriage. Yes, he did run on some support for equal right for homosexuals, but never stood for same-sex marriage. The left is trying to say that somehow, Mr. Romney is the flip-flopper on homosexual rights. But this shows nothing of flip-flopping in the least. Mr. Romney may have been ahead of his time on a lot of these issues, but the proof is that when he was governor of Massachusetts and the state supreme court divined a right for same-sex marriage, he became an opponent of the court decision and did all that he could to overturn it. Mitt Romney, like it or not, has been consistent while, well we all know now where Mr. Cynical, the Dear Leader, President Barack Hussien Obama has been on the issue.
And I leave you with this.
We are being constantly told by the Obamawhore media that American's view on same-sex marriage is changing and in fact in some polling a slim majority of American's favor same-sex marriage.
So please explain why when the question has been posed in 29 states, including beet-Red states like California.
Oops! My bad! I mean Blue of the Blue California.
I digress.
When put to the voters in 29 states, why has not one said NO to opposing defining marriage as one man and one woman? Again, even in California, 52% said YES to defining marriage as the above. Even while 61% were voting for Mr. Cynical.
Explain yesterday in North Carolina? Where 61% of voters said marriage is between one man and one woman.
I guess they are all ha8ers* and have not evolved like Mr. Cynical, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
ha8ers-the pro same-sex marriage side cute way of calling proponents of traditional marriage haters.
Well, not completely.
But today, the Dear Leader came out of the closet on the subject of same-sex marriage.
He's for it.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, gave a full-throated approval of same-sex marriage after spending the last eight years saying that he has been against same-sex marriage. But that is after answering this question while runnimg for the Illinois state senate in 1996 in the affirmative.
In the same link above is the actual timeline of the Dear Leader, President Obama from being a same-sex marriage advocate to ha8er*, er pro-traditional marriage candidate for senate, still more of a ha8er* running for president. But in 2010, now firmly entrenched as the president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said his view was "evolving" on the subject.
OK, I know that you think this is going to be a post about the pros and cons of same-sex marriage.
No.
It is about flip-flopping-flipping again and the politics of cynacism and desperation.
The supposed change of heart from the Dear Leader, President Obama, came in this interview with Robin Roberts from ABC news. Nice to pick someone that won't ask tough questions. You know, like how were you for it, against it, now for it again.
So what has it really been Dear Leader, President Obama.
Was it the position that you took in 1996 while running for a heavily gerrymandered very left-wing Democrat state senate seat in Illinois? Was this what you really thought then:
6) I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.
Or when you were running state-wide in Illinois for the senate in 2004? You know for the yokels outside of your tony Hyde Park neighborhood. You said then that your religious faith, being a Christian, dictates that marriage is sacred. And between one man and one woman. And even stronger that marriage is not a civil right!
But today, from The Weekly Standard comes this from the Dear Leader, President Obama:
“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, [the First Lady] feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”
Again, what is it? And were you lying all that time you said that you were against same-sex marriage? Or lying when you said that you were for it in the beginning? And why do you pick this moment in time to suddenly have this epiphany?
Could it be that you were losing the homosexual vote? That many of your homosexual backers were turning the cash spigots off.
Well, the spirit does work in mysyeryous ways, doesn't it?
In the Washington Free Beacon, we get some background as to the truth behind this sudden change of heart.
Its all about the Benjamins.
Why within 90 minutes of the announcement, a cool $1,000,000 was raised by homosexual allies of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Shocking, isn't it?
Well, not in the least.
Because as many people are finding out, this is the most cynical, pandering, tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear administration in recent memory.
Before I continue, did not Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, once tell us that Barack was going to be against all this cynisim? This from Mr. Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty, at The Campaign Spot from 2008:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Really, Mrs. Dear Leader? I should shed my cynicism? When the sitting president of the United States hopes we do not do a timeline and the math on this very cynical decision?
Why the hell should we? He lied to Pastor Rick Warren back in 2008 about marriage? Or is he lying now because he needs the gay cash?
While advocating a hard left agenda and playing games, Team Dear Leader is making it quite clear. They do not want to talk about the abject failure that is Obamanomics. They do not want to talk about the real reason unemployment went down a tenth of a percent last month to only 8.1 percent. They do not want to talk about slow if not no economic growth. They do not want to talk about a nationalization of health care that the people did not want. They do not want to talk about these issues.
That, my friends, is a desperate administration.
As noted in The Other McCain, could have the real Barack Hussein Obama even won the Iowa caucus in 2008 if he stuck by his 1996 position on same-sex marriage?
Hell frickin no!
So, the Dear Leader, President Obama, no matter what his base, homosexual allies and his Obamawhore media will tell you, is an out and out liar.
And all will cover for him and make this coming out oh just so cool.
The really sad part is that the Dear Leader, President Obama's hand was forced by. . .of all people, his vice-president, Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden.
For the record, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has never been for same-sex marriage. Yes, he did run on some support for equal right for homosexuals, but never stood for same-sex marriage. The left is trying to say that somehow, Mr. Romney is the flip-flopper on homosexual rights. But this shows nothing of flip-flopping in the least. Mr. Romney may have been ahead of his time on a lot of these issues, but the proof is that when he was governor of Massachusetts and the state supreme court divined a right for same-sex marriage, he became an opponent of the court decision and did all that he could to overturn it. Mitt Romney, like it or not, has been consistent while, well we all know now where Mr. Cynical, the Dear Leader, President Barack Hussien Obama has been on the issue.
And I leave you with this.
We are being constantly told by the Obamawhore media that American's view on same-sex marriage is changing and in fact in some polling a slim majority of American's favor same-sex marriage.
So please explain why when the question has been posed in 29 states, including beet-Red states like California.
Oops! My bad! I mean Blue of the Blue California.
I digress.
When put to the voters in 29 states, why has not one said NO to opposing defining marriage as one man and one woman? Again, even in California, 52% said YES to defining marriage as the above. Even while 61% were voting for Mr. Cynical.
Explain yesterday in North Carolina? Where 61% of voters said marriage is between one man and one woman.
I guess they are all ha8ers* and have not evolved like Mr. Cynical, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
ha8ers-the pro same-sex marriage side cute way of calling proponents of traditional marriage haters.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
A Conservative Primary Night
Today three states held primaries and in the presidential section, it was another three-state sweep for Republican Mitt Romney.
But, in two of the three states, a strong conservative showing made marriage still between one man and one woman. And a veteran Republican senator is being sent packing after a strong Tea Party challenge.
First, Amendment 1 to the constitution of North Carolina says that the state recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. It does not undo any legal protections already in place for same-sex couples. And the result was not even close as it won by a 61% to 39% margin. In the linked article, of course it being the Charlotte Observer, there was the usual canards of shifting attitudes among young voters and older voter softening their stand. Really? A lopsided 21 point defeat is only close in Leftywhore medialand.
It may very well be that people's attitudes can and will change on same-sex marriage. But when it is put to a vote of the people, so far it has not lost. Even here in California. In 2008, while 61% of voters went with the Democrat Sen. Messiah Barack, Proposition 8 still passed with a 52% to 48% margin.
Does that make California a bunch of ha8rs?!
No.
People may be pushing back at activist judges and supreme courts more than anything.
But so far, advocates of same-sex marriage have not won a people's vote anywhere.
Meaning simply put, the people of the United States, by and large, either want to recognize marriage to be one man and one woman and something more along the lines of civil unions for everyone else.
The pro side needs to work harder at persuading and not demonizing those opposed to same-sex marriage.
But the other big story is a huge Tea Party win in Indiana where the state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, defeated six-term Republican senator Richard Lugar. And once again, it was not even close as Mr. Mourdock defeated Sen. Lugar 61% to 39%.
The bottom line on this is mutliformed.
For one, 36 frickin' years in the senate. Sen. Lugar began serving in the same year Jimmah Carter was elected president in 1976. While Sen. Lugar tried the losing senate seniority canard, that fell very flay among voters. So what if he has the seniority if he votes often against the voters and the interests of Indiana?
Second and related is Sen. Lugar becoming part of Washington and losing touch with the people of his home state. So much so that a serious challenged was launched as to whether he is still an actual resident of Indiana. And while he did survive that challenge, he did so only to annoy the voters even more.
Third, Sen. Lugar seemed to be OK with the Dear Leader, President Obama. He has a let's work with him attitude. That did not sit well in the home state. Maybe Sen. Lugar had that attitude because the Dear Leader, President Obama, actually became the first Democrat to win Indiana since 1964. But since then Indiana has returned to it's solidly Red state roots and elected Republican Mitch Daniels as governor and put the GOP in charge of the state legislature and a Republican majority in the congressional delegation.
And lastly, Sen. Lugar while pretty center-right has had some high-profile votes over the years that rankle many conservatives. As of 2011, Sen. Lugar's lifetime American Conservative Union rating was a respectable 71%. But look at that as becoming a calcified member of the Washington governing class rather than a conservative fighting for smaller government.
Mr. Mourdock is not someone that Sen. Lugar should have taken lightly. But he did. Mr. Mourdock is actually serving his second term as the Indiana state treasurer. So, he has won statewide before.
Look for Indiana to stay in the GOP column for the senate, but it will be a tougher fight than if Sen. Lugar had won the primary. The Democrat party is going to make this a target, but it will prove to be a waste of money.
Overall, these results were good news for conservatives and an ominous sign, once again, for Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrat party.
But, in two of the three states, a strong conservative showing made marriage still between one man and one woman. And a veteran Republican senator is being sent packing after a strong Tea Party challenge.
First, Amendment 1 to the constitution of North Carolina says that the state recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. It does not undo any legal protections already in place for same-sex couples. And the result was not even close as it won by a 61% to 39% margin. In the linked article, of course it being the Charlotte Observer, there was the usual canards of shifting attitudes among young voters and older voter softening their stand. Really? A lopsided 21 point defeat is only close in Leftywhore medialand.
It may very well be that people's attitudes can and will change on same-sex marriage. But when it is put to a vote of the people, so far it has not lost. Even here in California. In 2008, while 61% of voters went with the Democrat Sen. Messiah Barack, Proposition 8 still passed with a 52% to 48% margin.
Does that make California a bunch of ha8rs?!
No.
People may be pushing back at activist judges and supreme courts more than anything.
But so far, advocates of same-sex marriage have not won a people's vote anywhere.
Meaning simply put, the people of the United States, by and large, either want to recognize marriage to be one man and one woman and something more along the lines of civil unions for everyone else.
The pro side needs to work harder at persuading and not demonizing those opposed to same-sex marriage.
But the other big story is a huge Tea Party win in Indiana where the state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, defeated six-term Republican senator Richard Lugar. And once again, it was not even close as Mr. Mourdock defeated Sen. Lugar 61% to 39%.
The bottom line on this is mutliformed.
For one, 36 frickin' years in the senate. Sen. Lugar began serving in the same year Jimmah Carter was elected president in 1976. While Sen. Lugar tried the losing senate seniority canard, that fell very flay among voters. So what if he has the seniority if he votes often against the voters and the interests of Indiana?
Second and related is Sen. Lugar becoming part of Washington and losing touch with the people of his home state. So much so that a serious challenged was launched as to whether he is still an actual resident of Indiana. And while he did survive that challenge, he did so only to annoy the voters even more.
Third, Sen. Lugar seemed to be OK with the Dear Leader, President Obama. He has a let's work with him attitude. That did not sit well in the home state. Maybe Sen. Lugar had that attitude because the Dear Leader, President Obama, actually became the first Democrat to win Indiana since 1964. But since then Indiana has returned to it's solidly Red state roots and elected Republican Mitch Daniels as governor and put the GOP in charge of the state legislature and a Republican majority in the congressional delegation.
And lastly, Sen. Lugar while pretty center-right has had some high-profile votes over the years that rankle many conservatives. As of 2011, Sen. Lugar's lifetime American Conservative Union rating was a respectable 71%. But look at that as becoming a calcified member of the Washington governing class rather than a conservative fighting for smaller government.
Mr. Mourdock is not someone that Sen. Lugar should have taken lightly. But he did. Mr. Mourdock is actually serving his second term as the Indiana state treasurer. So, he has won statewide before.
Look for Indiana to stay in the GOP column for the senate, but it will be a tougher fight than if Sen. Lugar had won the primary. The Democrat party is going to make this a target, but it will prove to be a waste of money.
Overall, these results were good news for conservatives and an ominous sign, once again, for Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrat party.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
The Life Of Julia And A Lot Of Left-Wing Misogyny
Ooh boy!
Team Dear Leader, so desperate to keep the single gal vote, has released this horrible power-point style timeline of the supposed life of a supposed "Julia" underheaven on earth, er Barack Obama's America.
First it is important to take each frame and make some points as to why it is silly.
The first one explains the glory of the Head Start preschool program and it is as follows:
Under President Obama: Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.
Really, do ALL children need Head Start? Why is it so important to get these kids in preschool? So the government can indoctrinate children?
As an aside, a good friend of mine has her child in a preschool. He has special needs and for him it is probably a good thing. They are Christians. So I tease with her and her brother, my good friend, "So, have they taught your son to hate God yet?" Then I get an eye roll. Then I say, "Wait until they teach him to hate you and what YOU believe!"
When I was in school, not all that long ago, kindergarten was the way most of us acclimated to school life. And it was a transition from the home to school life. Now, because of the push of preschool, kindergarten is all but the 1st grade for many. The fun of it is gone.
And the fundamental question is why does the federal government need to fund such a program? Again, the fact is that not all children need preschool and certainly not funded by a federal government with strings attached.
So we skip, essentially, how Julia has done throughout her mythical school life to when she is 17 years-old and here is another pat-himself-on-the-back from the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Under President Obama: Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.
Interesting that the whole Race to the Top is but another part of the so-called "stimulus" scam. But more than that, once again, why is this the purview of the federal government? Why do they have to have a uniform program that in reality does not necessarily meet the needs of certain areas of the country? What about individual school districts? Sounds like really nothing more than a way for school districts to get more money out of Washington, D. C. and damn the consequences.
And to top that, the federal government will help mythical Julia pay for the first semester of college.
Check that.
You and I, actual taxpayers, will help mythical Julia pay for that first semester of college.
Under President Obama: As she prepares for her first semester of college, Julia and her family qualify for President Obama's American Opportunity Tax Credit—worth up to $10,000 over four years. Julia is also one of millions of students who receive a Pell Grant to help put a college education within reach.
Do you want to know why college is so damn expensive?
The above is why.
As long as all college and universities know that they are going to get paid somehow, why not make it a pricey experience to be in college? After all, most students will not owe them any money. They will owe the government that is subsidizing their college years. That is what is so insidious about this.
And while former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was raked over the coals for questioning if college is for everybody, the reality is that he is correct.
College and university are not for everybody. We do need those contractors, plumbers, tradesmen and tradeswomen, mechanics. Or are these jobs now those that Americans will not do?
No, maybe mythical Julia could go to college, but does she have to? That is a serious question.
And I believe that is an individual decision.
Oh, but while mythical Julia is in college, she needs to have some kind of surgery. It is not explained what kind of surgery, but because mommy and daddy, if there is a daddy, have to keep her on their insurance until she is 26 years-old, no prob!
Under President Obama: During college, Julia undergoes surgery. It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents' coverage until she turns 26.
Psst, let me tell you a little secret.
Most colleges and universities have offered some kind of health services. At least they sure did when I was in college. Since one does not know what kind of surgery mythical Julia had, it could have been covered by catastrophic health coverage that said mythical Julia could have paid for as part of the cost of attending college.
But no! No, poor mythical Julia would actually have to learn a lesson about growing up. That there is no such thing as a free lunch. Being on your parent's health coverage just makes that cost go up. And it is very possible they can lose that coverage, more than likely provided by employers, and be forced to government health care.
Terrific.
The whole family on government health care.
And when mythical Julia gets out of college, she will become a web designer. And darn it, she will be paid same as the boys!
Once again, from The Life of Julia.
Under President Obama: Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she'll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay. She starts her career as a web designer.
Again, what makes her as qualified as a male to do the same job? What about a male with a vast more array of experience? Should mythical Julia make the same as that male? And mythical Julia spent four years in college to become a web designer? The equal pay for "equal" work is but another scam of the left to make the poor, besieged gals feel more of a victim than I am certain they already are.
And mythical Julia, the web designer, can make sure her student loans are paid and on time, thanks to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Under President Obama: After graduation, Julia's federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low. She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.
Yet, ironically, what the little blurb does not tell you is that more and more students are defaulting on their loans. And again, mythical Julia really needed four years of college to become a web designer? Would she not be better served going to a technical school and maybe getting a degree sooner? Just askin'.
And mythical Julia, she dosen't have to worry about contraceptives and preventative health care. No ma'am. She can thank the Dear Leader, President Obama, for that as well.
Under President Obama: For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.
Note what is really important for them to point out.
"Health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care."
Yes, birth control is more important to the young gal than so-called preventive care. I do not know about mythical Julia, but I think that most gals I know, and guys, would be more interested in preventive care. Even though there are many studies that essentially point to preventive care as not all that it is cracked up to be. If you think that I am just writing smack, here is from The New England Journal of Medicine, a right-wing outfit if ever there was one.
Well, mythical Julia makes an adult decision. Finally. She decides to have a child. And thank ourLord and Savior, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.
Again, nothing is free. The maternal checkups, prenatal care and "free" screenings are being paid for. Guess who? By you and I. Actual taxpayers. Not that mythical Julia is not at this point. But she wants a child and damnit, someone else needs to take care of these basics of having a child. Oh, also note that it appears mythical Julia is having said child alone. Hey, mythical Julia, maybe if you got married and the mythical husband had health coverage through his employer, or you do through your own job, then the government would not have to offer free services. Again, it is not free. Taxpayers pay for it.
But this, this is one that just is absurd to believe. Unless you are a liberal or socialist.
Under President Obama: Julia starts her own web business. She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama's tax cuts for small businesses like Julia's help her to get started. She's able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.
So, let me get this straight.
A bank or a savings and loan or a credit union can not provide the same loan? Why does she have to turn to the federal government as the first resort rather than the last resort? If she has a solid proposal and plan, any of the above will give her a loan. Well, that is how it used to be done in the free-enterprise system. But not in Barack Obama's America. All government, all the time.
Now that mythical Julia is about to retire, thank God for Social Security, right? Well, that is what we are left to believe.
Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.
Really? Mythical Julia is going to live off Social Security and never go into her savings?!
WTF?
The reality is that unless mythical Julia makes investments and prepares to have a retirement income not dependent on Social Security, she will be guranteed to have a crappy retirement and more than likely not be able to volunteer at that community garden.
Oh, and Social Security is on the road to bankrupcy. Just thought I would throw that in there.
I have to write all of this to get to the basic point.
Is this not left-wing misogyny?
Of course it is.
It is, by implication, that mythical Julia can never do anything without the help of the federal government. No schooling, no job, no child birth and or child rearing, no loan unless it is guranteed by the goverment, no retirement unless it is Social Security.
And notice that they keep Julia a single woman throughout this timeline? Why do you think that is?
It is to clearly make her appear independent to the naked eye. Yet every example shows her to be, how can I write this, a helpless waif.
Really? Is that what women really want for their self-esteem? That they can not do anything without the help of an all powerful government? That they are not even capable of maybe, oh I don't know, getting married? Maybe working, maybe not? Maybe the husband could be stay-at-home-daddy. There are truly boundless possibilities for women today.
And most if not all do not need the heavy-hand of the federal government.
It is shameful and yes, mysoginystic to paint any woman in this helpless light.
But, that is the thrust of Team Dear Leader. That only the federal government can help you, poor waif of a gal and or woman.
To the women of the United States, you really deserve to be treated better and with much more respect than this "Life Of Julia".
Team Dear Leader, so desperate to keep the single gal vote, has released this horrible power-point style timeline of the supposed life of a supposed "Julia" under
First it is important to take each frame and make some points as to why it is silly.
The first one explains the glory of the Head Start preschool program and it is as follows:
Under President Obama: Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.
Really, do ALL children need Head Start? Why is it so important to get these kids in preschool? So the government can indoctrinate children?
As an aside, a good friend of mine has her child in a preschool. He has special needs and for him it is probably a good thing. They are Christians. So I tease with her and her brother, my good friend, "So, have they taught your son to hate God yet?" Then I get an eye roll. Then I say, "Wait until they teach him to hate you and what YOU believe!"
When I was in school, not all that long ago, kindergarten was the way most of us acclimated to school life. And it was a transition from the home to school life. Now, because of the push of preschool, kindergarten is all but the 1st grade for many. The fun of it is gone.
And the fundamental question is why does the federal government need to fund such a program? Again, the fact is that not all children need preschool and certainly not funded by a federal government with strings attached.
So we skip, essentially, how Julia has done throughout her mythical school life to when she is 17 years-old and here is another pat-himself-on-the-back from the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Under President Obama: Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.
Interesting that the whole Race to the Top is but another part of the so-called "stimulus" scam. But more than that, once again, why is this the purview of the federal government? Why do they have to have a uniform program that in reality does not necessarily meet the needs of certain areas of the country? What about individual school districts? Sounds like really nothing more than a way for school districts to get more money out of Washington, D. C. and damn the consequences.
And to top that, the federal government will help mythical Julia pay for the first semester of college.
Check that.
You and I, actual taxpayers, will help mythical Julia pay for that first semester of college.
Under President Obama: As she prepares for her first semester of college, Julia and her family qualify for President Obama's American Opportunity Tax Credit—worth up to $10,000 over four years. Julia is also one of millions of students who receive a Pell Grant to help put a college education within reach.
Do you want to know why college is so damn expensive?
The above is why.
As long as all college and universities know that they are going to get paid somehow, why not make it a pricey experience to be in college? After all, most students will not owe them any money. They will owe the government that is subsidizing their college years. That is what is so insidious about this.
And while former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was raked over the coals for questioning if college is for everybody, the reality is that he is correct.
College and university are not for everybody. We do need those contractors, plumbers, tradesmen and tradeswomen, mechanics. Or are these jobs now those that Americans will not do?
No, maybe mythical Julia could go to college, but does she have to? That is a serious question.
And I believe that is an individual decision.
Oh, but while mythical Julia is in college, she needs to have some kind of surgery. It is not explained what kind of surgery, but because mommy and daddy, if there is a daddy, have to keep her on their insurance until she is 26 years-old, no prob!
Under President Obama: During college, Julia undergoes surgery. It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents' coverage until she turns 26.
Psst, let me tell you a little secret.
Most colleges and universities have offered some kind of health services. At least they sure did when I was in college. Since one does not know what kind of surgery mythical Julia had, it could have been covered by catastrophic health coverage that said mythical Julia could have paid for as part of the cost of attending college.
But no! No, poor mythical Julia would actually have to learn a lesson about growing up. That there is no such thing as a free lunch. Being on your parent's health coverage just makes that cost go up. And it is very possible they can lose that coverage, more than likely provided by employers, and be forced to government health care.
Terrific.
The whole family on government health care.
And when mythical Julia gets out of college, she will become a web designer. And darn it, she will be paid same as the boys!
Once again, from The Life of Julia.
Under President Obama: Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she'll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay. She starts her career as a web designer.
Again, what makes her as qualified as a male to do the same job? What about a male with a vast more array of experience? Should mythical Julia make the same as that male? And mythical Julia spent four years in college to become a web designer? The equal pay for "equal" work is but another scam of the left to make the poor, besieged gals feel more of a victim than I am certain they already are.
And mythical Julia, the web designer, can make sure her student loans are paid and on time, thanks to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Under President Obama: After graduation, Julia's federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low. She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.
Yet, ironically, what the little blurb does not tell you is that more and more students are defaulting on their loans. And again, mythical Julia really needed four years of college to become a web designer? Would she not be better served going to a technical school and maybe getting a degree sooner? Just askin'.
And mythical Julia, she dosen't have to worry about contraceptives and preventative health care. No ma'am. She can thank the Dear Leader, President Obama, for that as well.
Under President Obama: For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.
Note what is really important for them to point out.
"Health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care."
Yes, birth control is more important to the young gal than so-called preventive care. I do not know about mythical Julia, but I think that most gals I know, and guys, would be more interested in preventive care. Even though there are many studies that essentially point to preventive care as not all that it is cracked up to be. If you think that I am just writing smack, here is from The New England Journal of Medicine, a right-wing outfit if ever there was one.
Well, mythical Julia makes an adult decision. Finally. She decides to have a child. And thank our
Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.
Again, nothing is free. The maternal checkups, prenatal care and "free" screenings are being paid for. Guess who? By you and I. Actual taxpayers. Not that mythical Julia is not at this point. But she wants a child and damnit, someone else needs to take care of these basics of having a child. Oh, also note that it appears mythical Julia is having said child alone. Hey, mythical Julia, maybe if you got married and the mythical husband had health coverage through his employer, or you do through your own job, then the government would not have to offer free services. Again, it is not free. Taxpayers pay for it.
But this, this is one that just is absurd to believe. Unless you are a liberal or socialist.
Under President Obama: Julia starts her own web business. She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama's tax cuts for small businesses like Julia's help her to get started. She's able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.
So, let me get this straight.
A bank or a savings and loan or a credit union can not provide the same loan? Why does she have to turn to the federal government as the first resort rather than the last resort? If she has a solid proposal and plan, any of the above will give her a loan. Well, that is how it used to be done in the free-enterprise system. But not in Barack Obama's America. All government, all the time.
Now that mythical Julia is about to retire, thank God for Social Security, right? Well, that is what we are left to believe.
Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.
Really? Mythical Julia is going to live off Social Security and never go into her savings?!
WTF?
The reality is that unless mythical Julia makes investments and prepares to have a retirement income not dependent on Social Security, she will be guranteed to have a crappy retirement and more than likely not be able to volunteer at that community garden.
Oh, and Social Security is on the road to bankrupcy. Just thought I would throw that in there.
I have to write all of this to get to the basic point.
Is this not left-wing misogyny?
Of course it is.
It is, by implication, that mythical Julia can never do anything without the help of the federal government. No schooling, no job, no child birth and or child rearing, no loan unless it is guranteed by the goverment, no retirement unless it is Social Security.
And notice that they keep Julia a single woman throughout this timeline? Why do you think that is?
It is to clearly make her appear independent to the naked eye. Yet every example shows her to be, how can I write this, a helpless waif.
Really? Is that what women really want for their self-esteem? That they can not do anything without the help of an all powerful government? That they are not even capable of maybe, oh I don't know, getting married? Maybe working, maybe not? Maybe the husband could be stay-at-home-daddy. There are truly boundless possibilities for women today.
And most if not all do not need the heavy-hand of the federal government.
It is shameful and yes, mysoginystic to paint any woman in this helpless light.
But, that is the thrust of Team Dear Leader. That only the federal government can help you, poor waif of a gal and or woman.
To the women of the United States, you really deserve to be treated better and with much more respect than this "Life Of Julia".
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
So The Dear Leader Is Boasting The Bin laden Killing For Political Gain? BFD*
Oh yeah, what a shock that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is running a victory lap a year later after he gave the go-ahead for Navy Seal Team #6 to take out Osama bin-Laden.
But more bothersome is that way too many on our side are trying to dust off the Marquis of Queensbury rules of political discourse.
People, we are dealing with the Dear Leader, President Obama. Quite possibly the most sociopathical man to inhibit the White House since Richard Nixon.
So we need to not get too worked up over what the Dear Leader, President Obama has or is doing in regards to the victory lap.
Such as this so-important speech to the nation.
From Kabul.
And the on and on that he killed bin Laden.
No, Navy Seal Team #6 actually did the job. Yes on direct order of the commander-in-chief, Barack Obama.
But the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had a comeback. Not just a comeback but an OUCH!
In response to a question from a reporter as to whether or not if he were the president he would have given the same order as the Dear Leader, President Obama, did.
The answer:
"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."
Like I said, OUCH!
And in President Peanut's defense, he did give the order to carry out Operation Eagle Claw, the ill-fated attempt to rescue the American hostages in Tehran during the 444-day long Iranian hostage crisis.
The difference?
President Peanut suffered a humiliating defeat.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, can say as he is, that he got bin-Laden.
To acronym our illustrious Vice-President, Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, BFD*
It is the only accomplishment that the Dear Leader, President Obama, can point to in the reelection campaign.
What about so-called health care "reform"?
A loser since the majority of Americans have consistently opposed the partisan bill that has caused damage and uncertainty for millions of Americans.
The economy?
Forget it.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, can not run on eight percent plus unemployment. Deficits beyond our great-grand children's eyes. Debt that could crush us like Greece.
The list goes on.
So, how should Mr. Romney react and run his campaign.
I suggest all on Team Romney read this from The Weekly Standard from the Big Cheese himself, William Kristol.
Most important is that Mr. Romney should act presidential.
Which would be refreshing since the current occupier of the White House seems to think that his main job is to glad-hand himself.
It is important to show what it means to be presidential and a leader not obsessed with himself.
It will be refreshing to see.
So, as Mr. Kristol points out, don't get all worked up over this victory lap about the killing of bin-Laden.
Let the underlings deal with that.
It is time to see a president.
Although we have to wait a while longer, a president will be in charge next year at this time.
His name will be President Willard Mitt Romney.
*BFD-Big F---ing Deal.
But more bothersome is that way too many on our side are trying to dust off the Marquis of Queensbury rules of political discourse.
People, we are dealing with the Dear Leader, President Obama. Quite possibly the most sociopathical man to inhibit the White House since Richard Nixon.
So we need to not get too worked up over what the Dear Leader, President Obama has or is doing in regards to the victory lap.
Such as this so-important speech to the nation.
From Kabul.
And the on and on that he killed bin Laden.
No, Navy Seal Team #6 actually did the job. Yes on direct order of the commander-in-chief, Barack Obama.
But the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had a comeback. Not just a comeback but an OUCH!
In response to a question from a reporter as to whether or not if he were the president he would have given the same order as the Dear Leader, President Obama, did.
The answer:
"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."
Like I said, OUCH!
And in President Peanut's defense, he did give the order to carry out Operation Eagle Claw, the ill-fated attempt to rescue the American hostages in Tehran during the 444-day long Iranian hostage crisis.
The difference?
President Peanut suffered a humiliating defeat.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, can say as he is, that he got bin-Laden.
To acronym our illustrious Vice-President, Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, BFD*
It is the only accomplishment that the Dear Leader, President Obama, can point to in the reelection campaign.
What about so-called health care "reform"?
A loser since the majority of Americans have consistently opposed the partisan bill that has caused damage and uncertainty for millions of Americans.
The economy?
Forget it.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, can not run on eight percent plus unemployment. Deficits beyond our great-grand children's eyes. Debt that could crush us like Greece.
The list goes on.
So, how should Mr. Romney react and run his campaign.
I suggest all on Team Romney read this from The Weekly Standard from the Big Cheese himself, William Kristol.
Most important is that Mr. Romney should act presidential.
Which would be refreshing since the current occupier of the White House seems to think that his main job is to glad-hand himself.
It is important to show what it means to be presidential and a leader not obsessed with himself.
It will be refreshing to see.
So, as Mr. Kristol points out, don't get all worked up over this victory lap about the killing of bin-Laden.
Let the underlings deal with that.
It is time to see a president.
Although we have to wait a while longer, a president will be in charge next year at this time.
His name will be President Willard Mitt Romney.
*BFD-Big F---ing Deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)