Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I’ve been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary’s job – and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor’s salary – is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are “suckers” as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let’s leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor – IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here – they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read “Democrat”] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

Advertisements

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

CEO On Obama’s Own Jobs Council Says Vote For Romney If You Actually Want Any Damn Jobs

November 2, 2012

Ouch, this has got to hurt:

November 1, 20123:53 pm
CEO on Obama Job Council Endorses Romney

Mitt Romney picked up the endorsement of yet another chief executive officer of a major U.S. company—and one who is on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Intel chief executive officer Paul Otellini has endorsed the Republican nominee.

Despite his presence on the president’s job council, however, Ortellini has criticized the administration in the past pretty strongly, as noted by Human Events. In 2010, the Intel CEO blasted Democrats in Washington at an Aspen Forum event:

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

“They’re in a ‘Do’ loop right now trying to figure out what the answer is,” Otellini said.

As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

The CEO of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has basically come to the realization that the Obama administration don’t have one freaking clue about what they’re doing.  He had a chance to take a look under the hood and see what Obama was saying he was going to do – and Otellini didn’t like the idiocy he saw.

The Preference Cascade. How Close Is Romney To A Total Blowout Of Obama?

October 30, 2012

Just one of those pleasure-reading articles that are predicting that Obama will be blown right out of the White House.

The question is just how possible is it that the wheels will completely fall off the Obama campaign???

Watching the Collapse of the Obama Campaign
By Jack Kelly – October 29, 2012

The Navy needs more ships, Mitt Romney said in last Monday’s debate. It has fewer now than in 1916.

President Barack Obama pounced. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them … ”

In the spin room, some journalists laughed and applauded. Liberals imagine themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to conservatives. They love to put them down.

But “sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker’s presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts,” said Pastor Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel.

Mr. Obama was wrong on both the thrust of his argument, and on the examples he used. Aircraft carriers need smaller ships to protect them, lest they be sunk. The military has many more bayonets now than in 1916. Marines think so highly of them they’ve designed a new one, modeled on the famous KA-BAR fighting knife. Special Forces soldiers on horseback were critical to ousting the Taliban.

The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn’t based on actual knowledge. Journalists declared the president the winner of the debate.

But facts and civility do matter to most Americans. A CBS panel of undecided voters in Ohio chose Mr. Romney, 6-2. A video of the dismay of CBS “This Morning” co-host Norah O’Donnell when this was reported is zipping across the Internet.

The Navy and shipbuilding are very important in southeast Virginia. With his wisecrack, the president may have kissed the state goodbye.

It isn’t just in Virginia where Mr. Obama’s fortunes are plummeting. When Missouri isn’t a swing state, but Minnesota is, Democrats are in big trouble. No challenger who’s cracked 50 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll has ever lost. Mr. Romney is polling better at this point in the campaign than did every victorious challenger from 1968 on.

It’s hard to see how the president can mount a comeback. His strategy of demonizing Mitt Romney collapsed when Americans saw in the first debate the GOP candidate has neither horns nor hooves. In an NBC/WSJ poll Monday, 62 percent of respondents said they want “significant change” from Mr. Obama’s policies, but he’s offered little in the way of an agenda for a second term. Instead he makes excuses, and ever more petty attacks. Voters now think Mr. Romney is just as “likeable” as Mr. Obama.

So the question may not be whether Mr. Romney will win, but by how much. When this dawns on Ms. O’Donnell, the video will be priceless.

Our politics are now so polarized I doubt that any candidate in either party — not even JFK or Ronald Reagan — could win much more than 52 percent of the popular vote. But law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) thinks the odds of a preference cascade are rising.

Economist Timur Kuran coined the term to explain why totalitarian regimes usually collapse suddenly. A preference cascade happens when people discover millions of others share their doubts about the Great Leader. Massive media bias has made the term applicable here, Mr. Reynolds said. The Barack Obama that Americans saw in the debates bears little resemblance to the heroic figure portrayed by the news media.

The crowds have been enormous at Romney/Ryan events this past week. If this is the start of a preference cascade, many Democrats may drown in the undertow. The Obama campaign has vacuumed up so much Democratic money there’s little left for other candidates.

In yet another fund-raising appeal on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he and Michelle would be fine if he loses. If the president’s friends are indeed buying him a $35 million mansion in Hawaii, as Chicago blogger Kevin Dujan (Hillbuzz) claims, that’s certainly true. But public employee unions, crony capitalists and others who feed at the public trough have reason to panic.

Underlings must wonder if there will be legal consequences for the laws they’ve broken. I predict an orgy of document shredding Nov. 7.

The biggest losers could be “mainstream” journalists. Their blatant bias has dropped trust in the news media to an all-time low. It’ll plunge further if more evidence of collusion with the administration emerges. Nobody trusts a liar. There will be bankruptcies.

//
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/29/the_obama_presidency_is_about_to_be_swept_away.html at October 29, 2012 – 10:25:20 PM CDT

You first need to understand what has been going on: we have seen a GIANT collapse of Obama to the tune of a well-into-the-double-digits implosion of Obama’s reelection versus just a few weeks ago.  One question that emerges is was Obama’s pathetic debate performance alone really that damning of him as a leader?  Was it because Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to build a despicable straw man caricature of Mitt Romney that Romney obliterated in that debate?  Is it that the American people now largely realize they can no longer trust Obama as his demagogic hate ads were confronted by the reality that Mitt Romney is NOT the bogeyman that Obama so dishonestly claimed?  Or was it that Obama never really had the kind of lead that the media assured us over and over again that Obama had – and that it was merely the propaganda of the mainstream media propping Obama up all along?

I honestly don’t know that answer to that; but I do know that the collapse of Obama has been breathtaking right before the election and that all the momentum at this point belongs to Romney who is surging EVERYWHERE that matters.  And Romney’s surging to over fifty percent is significant because no candidate has EVER lost election with a lead over fifty percent at this point in the race.

The mainstream media polls that have had – and in a few cases still have – Obama up have relied on models that counted on a +8 Democrat turnout for Obama; which is stunning given that Obama only had a +4 Democrat turnout in that 2008 election in which absolutely everything turned Obama’s way.  Those models are simply downright false given what Gallup just found:

Gallup quietly published some stunning data this morning. Based on surveys conducted from October 1 through 24, Gallup finds that 36% of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared with 35% who are Democrats. If leaners are included, the GOP advantage is 49%/46%.

How important is that? In 2008 the Democrats had a ten-point party ID advantage, 12 with leaners. If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7–or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.

Now, you factor that surplus of Republican voters this year along with a sixteen point advantage in Republican enthusiasm over Democrats, and then you factor those two details along  with the nineteen-point Romney advantage with independent voters (52% to 33% for Obama), and you’ve got the very real possibility of an historic asskicking that the media simply would NOT examine.

ABC News just moved Pennsylvania and Minnesota – two blue states – into the tossup column.  Key battleground states are beginning a tectonic shift toward Romney.  And perhaps in an even more powerful signal, early voting has favored Romney by a 52% to 45% margin after early mainstream media reports that declared just the opposite.  One could compare this campaign to World War II: The Germans held all the advantages over Russia until Stalingrad in 1942 – and then the tide turned and suddenly the Germans found themselves fighting a losing battle across a huge front that went from Russian ground to German ground.  That’s what’s happened this election to Obama, with his first miserable debate performance serving as his Stalingrad.

That last is huge due to the sheer sample size: 15% of registered voters have already cast their ballots in the United States, and they have voted for Romney over Obama by a 52% to 45% margin.  That news is huge because historically Republicans prefer to vote by absentee ballot and Democrats heavily favor early voting.  So again Republicans are not only fighting but winning on a Democrat battlefield.  And that seven-point margin even beats the giant six-point advantage Romney has according to Gallup’s latest polling before Hurricane Sandy hit.

What is Obama’s only advantage?  Well, here’s an example:

PolitiChicks.tv has just received confirmation that a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead.

Our source said:

“Yesterday I went to an early voting site at Centennial Center in Las Vegas, NV. I went with my 19 year old son who was a first-time voter. I went to an open machine and inserted my card. When the selections came up, all of the candidate pairings were listed and I touched the box for Romney/Ryan. The checkmark appeared next to President Obama’s name. I touched the check mark removing it and touched the box next to Romney’s name again. Again, the checkmark appeared next to Obama. I motioned for an observer to come over and showed him. I touched the mark next to Obama, removing it and again touched Romney’s name. The checkmark appeared next to Obama. At this point, the gentleman next to me was looking over my partition to see. I touched the checkmark, again removing it from Obama’s name and selected Romney. The checkmark appeared next to Romney. I double-checked the paper ballot to ensure that Romney was indeed selected and cast my ballot. I didn’t make a fuss but have called our local election department only to get recordings. I also wrote an email to the Clark County Election Department about the incident. My son said that he had no issues casting his ballot.”

I called the Las Vegas GOP office but haven’t gotten a response from anyone about this yet.

Please folks, check and re-check your ballots before turning them in. A similar case was reported earlier today in North Carolina.

And here’s the story on North Carolina.

The only chance Obama has at this point is massive voter fraud.  You just can’t overcome the following disadvantages: the other party is larger than your party AND has more enthusiasm to get out and actually vote; plus independent voters support the other candidate by nineteen points more than they support you.  Democrats only “hope and change” is to cheat and to cheat massively.

[Update, 10/31/12]: Just to make it official, Obama is cheating in Ohio, too:

Voting machine swaps Obama for Romney
Incorrect inputs irritate voter
6:51 AM, Oct 31, 2012

MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.

Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.

It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.

ddd

Is A Giant Storm About To Hit America That ISN’T Hurricane Sandy? Romney Poised To Wash Right Over Obama.

October 29, 2012

Obviously, I don’t know what’s going to happen in eight days.  But I feel a heck of a lot better for the same reasons that a lot of Democrats are feeling a heck of a lot worse:

Gathering Storm: Time for Dems to Hit Panic Button
by Mike Flynn 28 Oct 2012, 4:08 PM PDT

A massive and historic storm is barreling towards the beltway this weekend. The entire DC-NYC axis, headquarters of the left media complex, will suffer the effects of three storm-fronts, converging at the same time. Evacuations may be ordered, but it is likely too late. No, I’m not talking about Hurricane Sandy. The storm I mean is the growing realization that Obama is on the cusp of losing the election. But, with just a little over a week to go, it may be too late to hit the panic button.

Democrats and the media have labored under several false assumptions the entire campaign. They wove these into a narrative that Obama’s reelection was inevitable. It may have helped them sleep at night, but it caused them to miss the teutonic plates shifting beneath the election. This weekend three storm-fronts started converging that will sweep their assumptions away. Let’s look at each in turn.

The first storm-front is the expanding campaign battleground. I’ve long noted that which states become competitive towards the end of the race can tell you a lot about the state of the campaign. In 2008, when “red” states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Montana suddenly became competitive, it was a clear sign that Obama had a huge momentum advantage. This year, however, it is “blue” states becoming competitive. In the final week, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota are emerging as new battleground states. If Romney’s position is improving in states like these, its a good sign that he slated to win states like Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

Even if Obama still has the edge in these newly competitive states, the fact that the campaign will have to spend resources to shore them up says a lot about the campaign’s weak position.

The second storm-front is the increased convergence of the polls in the direction of Romney. Most national tracking polls show Romney with a lead, with two, Rasmussen and Gallup, showing him over the important 50% threshold. For a week or so, Democrats consoled themselves that Obama led in state-level polling. Most of those polls were built on samples that assumed Democrats would match or exceed the turnout advantage they enjoyed in 2008. This was always something of a fantasy, but now even this assumption can’t prop up Obama. Virtually every state poll over the last week has shown consistent movement towards Romney. Moreover, virtually every state poll shows Obama stuck below the 50% level of support.

For a variety of reasons, it is very difficult for an incumbent to get back above 50% once they have fallen below it for a considerable period of time. North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Virginia are likely now out of reach for Obama. Ohio is definitely moving towards Romney.

Romney’s poll movement isn’t just on the overall head-to-head match up, though. In almost every poll he now has a substantial lead on who would better handle the economy. He has a significant lead on who can best tackle federal spending and the deficit. He is also starting to lead on the softer questions like “understands my problems”, is a “strong leader” and “can get things done. This suggests a major preference cascade toward the challenger.

Most important, though, is the clear lead Romney has with Independents. In 2008, Obama won independents by 8 points. This year, Romney leads among Independents in virtually every national or state poll, often by double-digits. There is simply no path for Obama to win reelection if he loses Independents by that kind of margin.

The third, most significant storm-front descending on Democrats is the change in the electorate. In 2008, the Democrats rode an historic wave from a near perfect political storm to their largest turnout advantage in decades. In the final vote, Democrats edged Republicans by 7 points, making the election D+7. New research from Rasmussen and Gallup, however, show that, not only is that advantage gone, but Republicans now have the edge. Both surveys report, for the first time in modern history, that more likely voters identify as Republicans than Democrats. Considering that every poll has found GOP voters more enthusiastic about voting then Democrats, this edge may be decisive. Keep in mind that every poll is built on the assumption that Democrats will have a turnout edge next week. If they don’t have the edge or if the GOP has an advantage? Well, this could be a blowout. And, a lot of down-ballot Dems will be swept under as well.

When the history of Obama’s failed reelection campaign is written, it will be noted that Obama’s campaign made a critical strategic blunder. Their plan was to disqualify Romney at the outset, rather than other up a compelling agenda for a second term. They essentially decided to run a challenger’s race, dragging down the opponent in a wave of negative ads. When Romney took the stage at the first debate in Denver, he didn’t just defeat Obama, he defeated Obama’s entire campaign plan. The Romney on the stage didn’t match the caricature painted by Obama and the media. It gave him an opening which he seized.

Obama responded by ratcheting up negative attacks and getting engulfed in small-bore issues issues relevant to mere slivers of the voting base. Big Bird. Binders. Bayonets. In a time of economic uncertainty and looming fiscal crisis, the issues Obama focused on were ridiculous. They were patently unserious. But, these are serious times.

So, going into the final week, Romney looks like a President on the road to reelection, while Obama looks like a challenger who knows he’s about to lose. While the “Gang of 500” media mavens hunker down for Hurricane Sandy, left with their own thoughts after the inevitable power outages, and away from cocooning lefty reassurances from people like Nate Silver, they will have this realization too. Campaign 2012 is just about over. And so, too, is Obama.

You rampage, you giant, pissed-off symbol of the Republican Party.

Media That Endorsed Obama In 2008 Saying He Failed And That They’re Endorsing Mitt Romney Now

October 29, 2012

I’m always only too happy to welcome a former blind idiot who now sees the light of day back into the fold:

Posted October 28, 2012
Media Continues its Abandonment of Obama
By Mr. Curmudgeon

Denial is not a river in Egypt. That in effect is the theme of the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel’s Friday editorial endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. “When President Obama came into office in 2009, the economy was in freefall and though untested, he inspired us with promise of hope and change. Now, four years later, we have little reason to believe he can turn things around,” said the Sentinel.

“… Rather than articulate a compelling vision for growth,” continued the Sentinel, “the president falls back on the tired talking point of increasing taxes for the wealthy … it’s hard to see how raising taxes is going to kick start jobs in the private sector.”

Having admitted its mistake (the Sentinel endorsed Obama in 2008), the newspaper said, “We believe Romney will help this nation find the political will to address the challenges with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid … The greatest threat to our national defense is not the size of our military, but the ever-escalating size of our national debt. We must get government spending under control, across the board … We believe the best chance to get America back working again is to elect Mitt Romney. That’s why we endorse him for president.”

There is nothing like a near-death experience to help focus the mind.

The excuse making by the president and his supporters is at long last falling flat: They can’t explain away nearly 6 trillion dollars added to the nation’s debt; they can’t explain away the fiscal cliff approaching us this January; they can’t explain away 23 million chronically unemployed Americans; they can’t explain away the expansion of government power at the expense of the individual – personified by ObamaCare’s dictatorial “individual mandate”; they can’t explain away a collapsing economy barely held together by Federal Reserve bailouts and quantitative easing; they can’t explain away a foreign policy that blames an obscure YouTube video for inspiring the murder of Americans in Libya than admit Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked America on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11; they can’t explain away the deaths of a U.S border patrol agent and hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens resulting from their sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and Central American gangs.

Less than two weeks before Americans head to the polls, the media’s blind support for the president is dissolving. It’s crunch time, and there are no excuses left for defending the indefensible – that Barack Obama should remain President of the United States.

And it’s hardly just the Sun Sentinel:

Des Moines Register endorses Romney, ending Democratic streak
By Seema Mehta
October 27, 2012, 6:32 p.m.

LAND O’ LAKES, Fla. — The Des Moines Register endorsed Mitt Romney on Saturday night, breaking a decades-long streak of backing Democrats for president in a state that launched President Obama‘s 2008 election.

The paper, the largest in Iowa, wrote that the top priorities in the election must be reviving the economy, spurring job growth and moving toward a balanced budget and reducing the deficit.

“Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate,” the paper wrote, citing Romney’s achievements as Massachusetts governor, a business leader and turning around the 2002 Olympics. “Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.”

Four years ago, the Iowa caucuses launched Obama’s presidential bid, and he handily won the state in the general election. The Register endorsed him, impressed with his background, his calls for Americans to come together and his positions on the economic crises that unfolded in the final months of the campaign.

This time around, the paper offers a sober assessment of his tenure, and his potential.

“The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House,” the paper wrote.

It’s unclear how much newspaper endorsements matter to voters, given that many gravitate toward media outlets that align with their political views. But the endorsement is notable because of the Register’s long history of supporting Democrats – the last Republican they endorsed was President Nixon in 1972.

And it may offer a window into the mood of heartland voters in a state that is a crucial battleground. Romney has been trying to court past Obama supporters there by focusing on the nation’s debt, a theme that resonates among many in a frugal state that has the lowest per capita credit card debt in the nation.

Obama gave a nod to the newspaper’s importance when, after speaking with the editorial board, he had a separate conversation two weeks later with the paper’s editor and publisher.

“I want your endorsement. You’ll feel better when you give it,” he concluded in his phone conversation with them.

Romney tweeted his appreciation for the paper’s endorsement. “We need Iowa to help get America back on track. I am honored to have the @DMRegister’s endorsement,” he wrote.

The news of the endorsement broke Saturday while Romney was speaking to 15,000 supporters at a rally on a high school football field here, capping a three-event day stumping in Florida.

“America’s going to win,” Romney said. “We’re going to make the change in November that will bring the real change that we need.”

Hell, you’ve even got New York Times columnists turning on Obama the Loser-in-Chief.  A New York Times liberal turning on a Democrat president running for reelection will happen again in maybe about a hundred years – because hopefully it will take that damn long for the Democrat Party to annoint such a catastrophic failure as their candidate again.

Wake the hell up, you idiot Democrats.  Your messiah failed America and he has failed YOU.  And we need an actual leader in our White House if we want to finally turn this economy and this nation around.

This Explains Why Our Economy Is Terrible But Obama Thinks It’s Good: Obama Openly Admits That He’s ‘Pretty Lost’ With Math Beyond The 7th Grade Level

October 29, 2012

I recall a movie I saw years back called “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.”  There was this giant character named “Blaster” who was the thug muscle for a brainy little monster who called himself “Master”:

Well, Mad Max fought Blaster in a death match and managed to win when he discovered that Blaster was vulnerable to a dog whistle.  He knocked Blaster’s helmet off and discovered the truth:

Blaster wasn’t really a monster; he was just an oversized idiot.  And you couldn’t hold Blaster responsible for merely doing what smarter people who manipulated a feeble mind told him to do.

Perhaps I owe Obama an apology.  He isn’t the evil tyrant Pharaoh that I assumed he was.  No, Barack Obama is merely an idiot who doesn’t even know how to damn count:

Obama Admits He Is Lost When It Comes To Math Beyond 7th Grade
Jaggator
10-26-2012, 01:28 AM

Now I understand why Obama doesn’t understand the math when Romney was trying to explain to him in the debates how he planned to reduce the debt. He kept saying it doesn’t add up and it won’t work. Maybe it won’t work because he doesn’t understand it. The fact is Obama admits he struggles with math past the 7th grade. I’m not kidding…

No wonder he doesn’t want to turn over his college records.

Go to the 3:38 mark of this you tube video and you’ll hear proof when Obama answered questions from the audience asked by Jay Leno.

Obama in his own words at 3:40:

Well, the math stuff, I was fine with up until about… 7th grade.  But Malia’s now a freshman in high school, and, um, I’m pretty lost.”

No, you’re just hopelessly confused, Barry H.  It is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that is “pretty lost” under your failed leadership.

This gets us back to Clint Eastwood and his discussion with the Empty Chair-in-Chief.

I told a joke that we can know safely say was a very relevant parable about the Barack Obama regime:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was. The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.

‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!.’

The question at this point isn’t whether Obama is fit to be president of the United States; it is rather who’s the damn puppet master who stuck a man who can’t even understand his daughter’s 7th grade homework into the presidency.

I guaran-damn-tee you that Mitt Romney won’t be thwarted by math that a child ought to be able to understand.

And just in case some toxic racist bigot wants to try to drag me into the racsit sewer he or she lives in because I questioned the intelligence of a man who is half black, allow me to point out that another former CEO and Republican presidential candidate named Herman Cain wouldn’t have been stymied by 8th grade math, either.

ABC/WaPo Poll Has Romney Over 50% (No Candidate Has EVER Lost Being Over 50% At This Point In Campaign) With HUGE Lead On The Economy

October 26, 2012

It’s a lot more fun to be a Republican now than it was four years ago – or even four weeks ago for that matter.

Four years ago, Republicans were trying to explain away the polls.  Now those polls are for the most part telling us that Obama is on the way to having his ass kicked.

No presidential candidate in the history of polling has EVER lost election with the lead that Romney now has.  And that lead now being affirmed by a decidedly LEFT-LEANING poll.  And three of the four major tracking polls have Romney above 50%.  To make it even more fun for Republicans, Dianne Sawyer anchored ABC’s news, and for some strange reason she barely mentioned her own network’s poll.

Romney isn’t merely winning in the polls and isn’t merely above the critical 50% point; he’s also hammering home runs on the absolutely crucial issue of the economy (leading Obama by a 52% – 43% margin):

By Gary Langer
Oct 25, 2012 5:00pm
Romney Hits the 50 Percent Mark, With a Clear Edge on the Economy

Mitt Romney has seized further advantage on economic issues at the core of the 2012 campaign, taking him to 50 percent support among likely voters vs. 47 percent for Barack Obama – Romney’s highest vote-preference result of the contest to date.

The difference between the two candidates is within the margin of sampling error in the latest ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll, and their individual support levels have not significantly changed. But the momentum on underlying issues and attributes is Romney’s.

See PDF with full results and charts here.

Romney’s gains are clear especially in results on the economy. This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that likely voters now pick Romney over Obama in trust to handle the economy by 52-43 percent – the first time either candidate has held a clear lead over the other on this central issue.

Equally important, Romney has erased Obama’s customary advantage on which candidate better understands the economic problems of average Americans. Today, 48 percent pick Obama, 46 percent Romney – essentially a dead heat. Yesterday and today mark the first time in the campaign that Obama hasn’t had at least a marginally significant lead on economic empathy.

Within-group trends on both these economic measures were covered in yesterday’s analysis; they reflect movement in Romney’s direction almost exclusively among white men, and particularly among less-educated white men.

SIGNALS – There are other signals of Romney’s gains. Expectations are one: Fifty-two percent of likely voters now expect Obama to win the election, down from a peak of 61 percent in late September. Forty percent expect Romney to win – still well fewer than half, but up by 8 percentage points.

Notably, political independents divide by 42-46 percent on whether they expect Obama or Romney to win; that’s shifted dramatically from 61-31 percent in Obama’s favor. Whites, likewise, have moved from a 55-38 percent expectation in Obama’s favor Sept. 29 to 44-48 percent now.

Romney is more competitive in another area, as well – international affairs. Even though likely voters by 2-1 picked Obama as the winner of Monday’s debate on foreign policy, comfort with Romney on the issue nonetheless has progressed. He runs essentially evenly with Obama in trust to handle international affairs, 48-47 percent, Obama-Romney; they were about this close on Monday, but it was +7 for Obama in mid-October and +8 in early September.

Obama retains a larger numerical (but not significant) edge on another issue, trust to better advance the interests of the middle class, 50-45 percent. It was similar, 51-43 percent, when last asked in an ABC/Post poll completed Sept. 9.

In other results, Obama has a 49 percent job approval rating among likely voters – it’s been 49 or 50 percent steadily since mid-October – but more “strongly” disapprove than strongly approve, 41 percent vs. 30 percent – an intensity gap that may work against him.

abc post poll 2012 election 102512 Romney Hits the 50 Percent Mark, With a Clear Edge on the Economy

HORSE RACE – Romney never before has exceeded 49 percent support in ABC/Post polls, making his 50 percent a new high numerically. That includes new highs among a range of groups – including 60 percent support among whites, 56 percent among white women, 58 percent among middle- to upper-middle income adults and 83 percent among conservatives.

Most strikingly, Romney’s advanced to 57 percent support among independents. They’re a changeable group, less rooted in partisan predispositions, so their eventual preferences – and their turnout – are uncertain. But they’re key to Romney’s current fortunes; he’s improved among independents by 9 points in the past week.

The debates are one apparent reason. By a broad 47-10 percent, independents say the debates left them with a better rather than a worse impression of Romney. In the same group, by contrast, just 17 percent say their impression of Obama improved – and 26 percent say it got worse.

Polarization, meantime, is extreme; Obama is at a new high in support among nonwhites, 80 percent, and continues to pull in broad support from younger adults – six in 10 of those younger than 40. All the same, at 61 percent, his support among unmarried women, a core Democratic group, has reached a new low, chiefly because he’s slipped among unmarried white women.

Still, the gender gap overall remains wide: women for Obama by 54-43 percent; men for Romney by 57-40 percent.

As noted, the overall 3-point gap between Romney and Obama in this poll is not statistically significant. Given the sample size, it would take a difference of greater than 6 points for the result to be significant at the customary 95 percent confidence level, or more than 5 points at a less-stringent 90 percent confidence level (referred to as a “slight” or marginal difference).

While the race, then, remains close, Romney’s momentum has come in time for most voters: Thirty-seven percent of likely voters say they’ve voted early or plan to, but that includes far fewer, 8 percent, who already have done so. It’s a number that’s growing daily, putting each campaign’s get-out-the-vote efforts to the critical test.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 21-24, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,386 likely voters, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents.Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 points, including design effect. (Questions 12f, 12h and 21 were asked Oct. 23-24 among 707 likely voters; those results have a 4.5-point error margin.) The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Partisan divisions in this survey, Democrats-Republicans-independents, are 34-30-31 percent among likely voters. Partisan divisions in the 2008 exit poll were 39-32-29 percent.

Given that Romney has pulled even with women voters (having pretty much ALWAYS held a substantial lead among men) and given that he is absolutely kicking Obama’s ass up one side and down the other with independents (by 19 points in this poll!), and further given the simple fact that undecided voters ultimately overwhelmingly vote against the incumbent, it very much seems that Obama is very deep in the substance he classlessly ascribed to the man who will very probably be the next president of the United States.

Michigan and Wisconsin are dead even and Pennsylvania could actually end up voting for Romney.

It’s getting to the point where it’s time for Carter-Clown-Clone Obama to say bye-bye.

I just gave my second donation to the Romney campaign and I hope you support the effort to oust Obama, too.

Democrats Continue To Prove That Theirs Is The Violent Ideology Of Fascism

October 24, 2012

Just to first document that the story that follows is no fluke, here are just a few of the articles I’ve written featuring Democrats proving over and over and over again that theirs is the ideology of hate and intolerance:

Tea Party Vs. Occupy Protests: The Winners Of The Out-Of-Control Violence Trophy – For The Millionth Consecutive Time – Is The LEFT

Another Example That Liberalism Is The Ideology Of Hate And Violence

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

Kansas City Throat Slashing Liberal: Media Continues To Cover Up Leftist Violence

On The So-Called Link Between ‘Rightwing’ Political Rhetoric And Violence

Liberal Fascists In Wisconsin: Show Me Crap Like THIS Coming From Tea Party Protests

When It Comes To Charges Of Racism And Violence, Democrats Need To Do A Lot More Shutting The Hell Up

AFL-CIO President With Brutal History Of Inciting Violence Attacks Sarah Palin For Inciting Violence

When America Goes To Hell, Rest Assured It Will Be Leftists Resorting To Violence, Too

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

Left Continues Violence; Media Continues To Demagogue Tea Parties

Labor Unions: A Century Of Genuine Evil

Actual Leftwing Violence Keeps Piling Up While Media Focuses On ‘Threat’ From Tea Parties

Left Continues To Be Source Of ACTUAL Acts of Violence

And so, again, true to form, Democrats document yet again that they are the violent fascist thugs out to intimidate and attack decent people:

State Legislator’s Son Beaten Defending Romney Sign From Thieves
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/22/12 7:21 PM

Vandalism is a normal part of the course of a political campaign — with signs stolen, cars with bumper stickers keyed or spray painted comments plastered on walls of offices used by candidates and their staff.

But the son of a Wisconsin state legislator paid the price for defending a Romney sign from two apparent Obama supporters, he was beaten for standing up for his property and the candidate his sign supports.

From Brietbart:

Early Friday morning, thugs presumably supporting President Obama beat up the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie outside of his apartment in Whitewater. Kedzie caught the two men removing a Romney sign outside of his apartment around two o’clock in the morning. After telling them to put the signs back, one of the thugs attacked Kedzie and then put him in a choke hold and continued to beat his head.

Mark Belling spoke to the Senator’s son Sean on the radio earlier today. Sean Kedzie told Belling he was rushed to the hospital by ambulance with possible skull and eye socket fractures.

Here is Sen. Kedzie’s statement:

Early on Friday morning, October 19th, my son Sean was awakened by noises outside his residence in Whitewater. As he went to see what the commotion was about, he noticed an individual removing a Romney/Ryan yard sign from his property. He yelled to the person that they were taking something not theirs and to return it immediately. The individual returned the sign, however, a second person confronted and attacked Sean without warning.

Sean was wrestled to the ground by both persons, held down by a constricting chokehold, and struck repeatedly about the face and head. He nearly passed out from the chokehold and suffered contusions to his face and eyes. Fortunately, an alert neighbor heard the commotion, scared the individuals away, and called the police. My wife and I were awakened by a telephone call from Sean’s roommate that Sean had been taken by ambulance to Fort Atkinson Memorial Hospital.

Sean was treated for his injuries and released from the hospital the same day. As this was a private family matter, we chose not to remark publicly about it and allow law enforcement to do their job. But we understand these types of incidents will eventually become public and questions will arise, particularly in my position as a state legislator.

Sean is still recovering from the injuries he sustained as a result of this beating, and we are confident he will make a full recovery. But obviously, as parents, we are shaken by this event and very troubled it was apparently initiated and motivated for political reasons.

Soon – and particularly if Obama gets re-elected – we will be seeing unions and students violently rioting to get more of other people’s money.  It is who they are because liberals are evil and violent and hateful (55 million babies murdered by Democrats and liberals are crying out for God’s justice as we speak).  When violence comes to America, it will come from the left.  Just as it is coming from the left now all over Europe.

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

October 23, 2012

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.