Republican David Jolly Defeats Alex Sink In Florida To Kick Off A Really Bad 2014 For Democrats (ObamaCare = Death)

This race for Florida District 13 is now being downplayed as a safe Republican seat that had been in Republican hands for decades.

The seat had been held by Rep. C.W. Bill Young for  more than 40 years.  He died last October, prompting this election.

The seat was indeed safe for Young, because he had become a fixture in the life of the district (which is made up from a single county in Florida).  But it had turned blue for pretty much everyone else.

Obama had won that district.  Not once but TWICE.  And when Alex Sink – the former state treasurer – had run for governor in 2010, she had easily won that district, too.  By a five-point margin.  The same district with the same composition that she lost yesterday.

Alex Sink was a powerful, well-known candidate with a huge campaign war chest; versus David Jolly, whom nobody had ever heard of and who wasn’t even the Republican choice.  Democrats had moved heaven and earth to literally move Alex Sink into the district – where she faced no primary.  Versus David Jolly, who had to undergo a bruising primary just to limp into yesterday’s election.

This race SHOULD have gone Democrat.  There is simply no question about it.  Democrats had it all but in their column as their best chance to pick up a seat.  And so clearly, Democrats should have picked up the district 13 seat in the House and advanced Nancy Pelosi’s and Steny Hoyer’s boast that the Democrats would retake the House this year.

Politico ran an article predicting victory for Democrats not only in District 13 in Florida but across the South.  On District 13 they claimed:

Florida 13th District: Leans Democratic

In March, the late GOP Rep. Bill Young’s district will hold a special election. And Democrat Alex Sink, who lost a close gubernatorial vote to Gov. Rick Scott in 2010, could pick up the seat for her party: She has been narrowly leading GOP frontrunner David Jolly, a lobbyist, in recent polls.

So what went wrong with the Democrats plans for total domination of the universe?

ObamaCare went wrong.  Because ObamaCare IS wrong.  And evil.  And un-American.  Which maybe explains why Obama had literally just been in Florida right next door and Alex Sink clearly told him to stay the hell away from her.

And every Democrat who voted for it or who supports it is going to start running increasingly scared as this travesty begins to overtake the American people.

And the question increasingly is, ‘Where CAN Obama campaign for a Democrat in ANY contested race?’

Barack Obama is a fascist who has literally held himself up as a fascist Führer who is above the law some 25 times now.  He is an incredibly cynical weasel who has tried to delay (until just after elections) the parts of his wicked law that would most enrage Americans if they experienced what Obama wanted to do to them.

A hundred million Americans would have lost their health care and been dumped into ObamaCare by now if Obama hadn’t tried to play naked politics and forestall the legitimate rage of the American people.

The Democrat Party under the Holocaust leadership of Führer Obama want to destroy your health care and frankly the entire health care system and force you to do what they want.  Their main purpose all along was “to control the people” as they once actually admitted.  They want to pick who wins, who loses, who gets coverage, who gets the bill and what lifestyles (homosexuals and drug addicts) get rewarded and which lifestyles (Christians) get punished.

Consider it: the rabid hatred of Barack Obama is so total that even if you’re a tiny little nun who has dedicated herself to caring for the poor, Barack Obama wants to bury you if you don’t bow down before him and worship him and him alone in place of God.  Obama told these nuns, “I’ll let you out of my SatanCare if and only if you re-enact the crucifixion of Jesus and play the part of Pontius Pilate.   I want you to fill out a form that ‘washes your hands of guilt’ and then authorizes someone else to do what you say is wrong.  And if you don’t, I’ll crush you and your pathetic Christian values.”

ObamaCare is an all-out assault on Judeo-Christianity and upon the American way of life.  It is utterly evil.

But the reason that Democrats are going to suffer this November is that it was sold on the basis of lies, that it isn’t working and that people will suffer as a result of it.  The American people in these last days before the collapse of America and the coming of the beast are amoral; they don’t hate ObamaCare because it is evil and hurts other people; they hate it only because it is hurting them.  But the fact remains that it IS hurting them.

Of course, the same Democrats who dishonestly assured us that “if you like your doctor and your health plan you can keep your doctor and your health plan” are now saying that all of the millions of stories of American people suffering the loss of their plans or are suffering from skyrocketing premiums and shockingly high deductibles are lying.

Alex Sink was one of them.  David Jolly made this election about ObamaCare and Alex Sink was happy to play on that field by announcing her support for the evil law.  And now she’s gone because even in a Democrat district the American people held her accountable.

So much for the Democrat “Millions of Americans are lying while we liars are telling you the truth” spin.

This doesn’t bode well for the party of naked evil in eight months.

Trayvon Martin, Racism, The Stand Your Ground Law And Michael Dunn. No Comparison Whatsoever.

One can do a search on my blog and see how vigorously I defended George Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.

I was of course called a “racist” by the incredibly racist left for doing so, as someone reading the comments can see.

George Zimmerman was physically attacked.  Only the most rabid ideologue fool refuses to acknowledge that Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten with Trayvon Martin on top of him “MMA style” raining down blows on a man who had already suffered a broken nose and serious abrasions to the back of his skull.

Liberals are fascists who do not want ordinary people to possess the right or capability to defend themselves.  Period.  On top of that, liberals are racist race-baiters who demonize white people and who have no compunction whatsoever to alter reality to make themselves victims.  Thus George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” to eradicate the fact that he himself is a racial minority.  And Trayvon Martin became an innocent ten-year old in the news accounts rather than a 6’3″ thug who already had had numerous encounters with the law and who by his own accounts was already glorifying in violence.

The case was a “no-brainer” from the outset.  And liberals proved that they are brainless ideologues who refuse to accept the real world in their steadfast determination that George Zimmerman be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for daring to defend himself rather than placing all his trust that Obama and the State would defend him.  The ONLY reason the case even ever went to trial was because Democrats are rabid fascists.

The Michael Dunn case is entirely different.  And pathologically rabid liberals might be surprised to learn that I am very firmly on the side of the car-full of black kids who got shot rather than on the white man who shot them.

Michael Dunn, unlike Zimmerman’s defense, is citing the “Stand Your Ground Law.”  Again, pathologically dishonest Democrats made the Zimmerman case all about that “Stand Your Ground” law even though Zimmerman’s defense NEVER cited it.  And the reason that Democrats hate that law so much is that, again, they are fascists whose demons inhabiting them start twitching hysterically the moment an ordinary person is deemed to have the right to stand in any way, shape or form or to protect himself in any way, shape or form.  And that is especially true – in the Democrat age of “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” – when race is involved.

George Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Not a “white Hispanic” as the racist, bigoted, socialist and frankly evil New York Times branded him.  Either acknowledge that Zimmerman is Hispanic, you jackals, or for the sake of any kind of honesty whatsoever STOP CALLING OBAMA AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ONLY HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats are hypocrites without any kind of shame, honor, decency, integrity or virtue whatsoever.  So Obama gets to be the first black president and anybody who doesn’t like Obama’s policies is a “racist” by definition while Zimmerman becomes a “white Hispanic” with the sole emphasis on his being “white” and therefore guilty.

But let’s get back to Michael Dunn.

Here’s the basic account of what happened:

Mr. Dunn, a middle-aged white man, allegedly opened fire on a car with four black teenagers in it at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. The boys were apparently blasting music, and when Dunn asked them to turn it down, they responded angrily. Dunn has said he felt threatened and thought he saw someone point a gun at him through the back window, so he opened fire. No gun was found in the boys’ car, and none of the witnesses to the altercation noticed a gun.

Here’s another:

The day after last Thanksgiving, Dunn was in good spirits when he attended his son’s wedding at a historic home overlooking the St. Johns River in Orange Park, a quaint Jacksonville suburb.

But after the wedding, Dunn got into a parking lot dispute with teenagers at a gas station that ended with a 17-year-old dead and Dunn charged with murder.

Police portray the South Patrick Shores resident as an out-of-control gunman who became enraged over loud rap music booming from a nearby car, grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glovebox and fired two volleys into a Dodge Durango containing four black teens. The gunshots killed Jordan Davis and narrowly missed two other boys.

Dunn told detectives he acted in self-defense after he heard threats and thought he saw Davis raise the barrel of a shotgun above the SUV’s rear passenger window. No gun was found, police said.

Here’s the thing that makes Michael Dunn guilty:

Asked by detectives why he didn’t report the shooting by calling 911, he said he planned to drive Rouer home to Brevard County in the morning, then confess to authorities.

By 4:25 a.m. the next morning, Jacksonville police had obtained an arrest warrant and contacted the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, looking for Dunn. A witness at the gas station had reported his license tag number.

He was arrested by deputies at about 10:30 a.m. at his condo, then taken to police headquarters in Viera for a videotaped interview with two Jacksonville detectives.

Wearing a yellow short-sleeved collared shirt and striped shorts, fidgeting and wiping his hands on his knees, Dunn related his side of the story – but neither detective bought his version of events.

Rather, they said details of Dunn’s story didn’t match those at the crime scene. Neither the surviving boys nor independent witnesses at the gas station said Davis had a firearm or tried to exit the SUV – in fact, one of the boys later said Davis couldn’t have exited a rear door because the child locks were engaged.

“If there was a shotgun coming up at you, we would expect you to do what you did. The problem that we have is, there is no shotgun. That’s the bridge that we’ve got to get across,” a detective told Dunn.

“You keep dwelling on this shotgun as if there’s one at the scene. If there was a shotgun, a BB gun, any type of gun at the scene – hell, if there was a water gun that was black that looked real at the scene. …” the detective said.

This case is NOT about race, any more than the George Zimmerman case was ever about race.

Democrats pathologically despise the Constitution or the United States and our founding fathers, unless and until these great men are perverted into deists and atheists in radical abandonment of actual history and unless and until their words are “fundamentally transformed” by liberal judges into a grotesque mockery of anything they ever actually intended their words to mean.  And the words that Democrats hate only slightly less are Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “I have a dream” speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Democrats hate those words.  They hate the idea that the content of one’s character should matter.  They want it to be exclusively about the color of one’s skin.  And if you are black, you are by definition a “victim” and if you are white, you are by definition a “racist” and a “bigot” and “privileged” and therefore guilty of whatever crime Democrats want to scapegoat you with.

I think of the character in the great movie, “The Ten Commandments” named Nathan.  Because he is the epitome of the Democrat Party.  Like Nathan, DEMOCRATS are the real party of slavery.  Democrats literally fought the damned Civil War to keep slavery while Republicans fought to liberate the slaves.  The Ku Klux Klan that rode like a living cancer after that Democrat War constituted the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party who persecuted blacks and white Republicans while their fellow Democrats undid everything Republican president Abraham Lincoln tried to do in his Reconstruction Act.

I’ve documented this before, so I’ll quote myself.  Who are Democrats?

The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

Or read my slightly different account here about who the Democrats are:

We know that FDR was a racist bigot who detested black people and allowed labor unions to exclude blacks from work that they desperately needed to survive the darkest days of America.

The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain.  I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).

Or for more modern facts, read my account here about who Democrats are:

Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage.  But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.

Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:

‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’

Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect.  And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid.  “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”

Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.

Bill snidely told Ted Kennedy,

“A  few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

I know, William Jefferson.  That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.

Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:

“I  shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by  my side …   Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory  trampled in the   dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved  land of ours become   degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the  blackest specimen from  the  wilds.”

Ah.  There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.

And:

“The Klan is needed  today as never before and I am  anxious to see its  rebirth here in West  Virginia and in every state in  the nation.”

When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:

“He  was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He  was  trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have   done…”

Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?

And you can read here for the massive, hypocrite double-standard that Democrats lived by when it comes to “race.”

Liberals are liars and haters.  And worst of all, they are true moral idiots.  “Democrat” stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat” as they seek to advance two interests: Satan’s love for 55 million murdered human beings in the abortion mills and the worship of homosexual sodomy, plus their determination to replace the God of the Bible with “the State” and make GOVERNMENT our God and Savior while increasingly marginalizing and even criminalizing the worship of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.

So what’s this Michael Dunn case about?  I already stated it above.  It is about a guilty man – and I don’t frankly give a damn WHAT color he is – who fired ten shots into a vehicle with kids inside and claimed he was being threatened with a gun when nothing even remotely resembling a gun was found at the scene.

It’s about this question: do you have the right to stand your ground with a gun?  You’re damn right you do – and again, I don’t CARE if you are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever.  Do you have a right to whip out a gun after confronting somebody and then start shooting at them when they are no real threat to you?  You’re damned right you don’t.

Michael Dunn ought to be convicted for his crime of shooting at those kids and for murdering one named Jordan Davis.  And if Michael Dunn were black and the kids were white, he should be every bit as convicted.

And I say that as a conservative and a Republican rather than a racist liberal Democrat.

 

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

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.

More Proof Of Democrat Voter Fraud: Democrat Withdraws From Maryland 1st District Race Over Having Voted In Both Maryland AND Florida

But… but… but…  This is illegal.  But don’t we need like a voter ID to stop stuff like this? 

Oh, wait.  That would stop Democrats from cheating.  THAT’S why Democrats won’t allow it.  How the hell else could they ever win elections?

Democrats keep saying, “Show us ONE incident of voter fraud.”  And we’re like able to show THOUSANDS.  In fact, we’re able to show over ONE THOUSAND in one Senate race that was “won” by 312 votes in just one state and one race alone.

Then there are these other cases:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/the-party-of-voter-fraud-democrat-is-a-truly-oxymoronic-name-for-a-party-that-is-utterly-opposed-to-actual-democracy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/voter-fraud-is-real-and-barack-obama-eric-holder-and-every-democrat-in-america-is-a-dishonest-cockroach/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/obamas-chicago-political-way-continues-to-play-democrats-engaged-in-massive-voter-fraud-in-new-york/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/mainstream-media-propagandists-refuse-to-do-their-jobs-up-to-a-college-kid-to-expose-democrat/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/wisconsin-judge-election-city-caught-destroying-uncounted-ballots/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/election-fraud-if-you-vote-democrat-you-are-a-corrupt-dishonest-cheat-by-proxy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/democrats-abandon-all-respect-for-american-voter-and-electoral-integrity/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/democrats-caught-cheating-undermining-democracy-in-new-jersey-race/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/barack-obamas-ties-with-acorn-go-back-20-years/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/philadelphia-liberal-judge-removes-gop-poll-watchers-while-lack-black-panthers-intimidate-voters/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/barack-obamas-acorn-registers-dallas-cowboys-to-vote-in-nevada/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/obama-from-acorn-organizer-to-audacious-hypocrite/

And that is only the articles that I’ve written.  There are a hundred more cases like the ones I’ve documented.

So here’s yet another example of Democrats cheating in elections because they are miserable, loathsome cheaters from the party of miserable, loathsome cheaters:

Democrat withdraws from 1st District congressional race after allegations she voted in two states
Rosen says she registered in Fla. to support friend there
By Matthew Hay Brown, The Baltimore Sun
9:50 a.m. EDT, September 11, 2012

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

It was unclear, however, whether she could remove her name from the ballot with the election less than two months away. Under state law, a candidate has until 70 days before an election to remove his or her name from the ballot. The deadline for the Nov. 6 election passed on Aug. 28.

Democratic leaders — who raised the allegations, urged Rosen to step aside and notified prosecutors — said they would gather Central Committee members this month to identify a write-in candidate for the district, which includes the Eastern Shore and parts of Harford, Carroll, Cecil and Baltimore counties.

Republicans, meanwhile, said the allegations prove that voter fraud is real and called on Democrats to join the GOP in calling for reforms.

Rosen, 57, a Cockeysville businesswoman and Maryland voter, told The Baltimore Sun that she registered to vote in Florida several years ago in order to support a “very close friend” running for the St. Petersburg City Council and to vote on local issues there.

Rosen said she was able to register in Florida because she owned property there.

Under Maryland law, a voter here may not maintain registration in a second state if it allows the voter to participate in state or federal elections there, according to Jared DeMarinis, director of candidacy and campaign finance at the State Board of Elections.

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Maryland and Florida both held gubernatorial and congressional contests in 2006 and presidential primaries in 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination.

Asked by The Sun on Monday if she had voted in both states in the same elections, Rosen said she did not remember how she voted. Asked if she had voted twice in the 2008 presidential primaries, she declined to comment “due to possible litigation.”

Lewis referred the allegations Monday to Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and State Prosecutor Emmitt C. Davitt.

“We believe that this is a clear violation of Maryland law and urge the appropriate office to conduct a full investigation,” she wrote. “The Maryland Democratic Party strongly believes in upholding and expanding the right to vote but, at the same time, believes there should be zero tolerance for voter fraud of any kind.”

DeMarinis, the state elections official, said there are narrow circumstances under which a Maryland voter may register legally in two places.

Some municipalities maintain separate voting rolls for local elections. These allow property owners — even those that live and vote elsewhere — to register and participate in elections for local offices and ballot questions.

Thus, DeMarinis said, a resident of Baltimore who owned a vacation home in Ocean City could legally vote in local elections there, too.

DeMarinis said he knows of no law against a Maryland voter participating in local elections in another state. But an out-of-state registration that permitted participation in state and federal elections would be illegal, he said.

A spokesman for Maryland Democrats said party leaders were told of Rosen’s dual registration by someone within the party on Friday. After verifying the details over the weekend, spokesman Matthew Verghese said, the leaders confronted Rosen on Monday.

Rosen was seen as the underdog to Harris, a 55-year-old physician from Baltimore County who is serving his first term in Congress. The district that has grown more solidly Republican since Harris ousted Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil in 2010.

Still, she mounted a highly visible effort to promote her candidacy in July at the annual J. Millard Tawes crab feast in Crisfield.

At the time, she told a reporter she believed Harris was vulnerable to a challenge because of unpopularity among voters.

She traveled to Charlotte, N.C., last week for the Democratic National Convention. At a Maryland Democratic party luncheon at that city’s Mint Museum, she stood up to be recognized and receive applause.

Rosen edged Chestertown physician John LaFerla in the Democratic primary in April by just 57 of the more than 25,000 votes cast.

She withdrew from the general election in an email to party leaders.

“I have been proud to serve as the Democratic Congressional Candidate of Maryland’s 1st Congressional District for the last five months, so it is with great regret, and much sorrow that I must resign,” she wrote. “Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make.”

Harris campaign manager Kathy Szeliga said Rosen’s withdrawal “must not delay our troops serving oversees from getting their ballots and exercising their right to vote in such an important presidential election.”

Rosen’s withdrawal comes during an election season in which Republicans across the country have cited voter fraud to push for new identification requirements at the polls.

Democrats say voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and describe voter ID laws as a pretext to make it more difficult for the poor, minorities and other traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to vote.

The Maryland Republican Party said Monday it was “happy to see Maryland’s Democrats publicly agree that voter fraud is wrong.”

“Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi should not only investigate but also prosecute Wendy Rosen to the fullest extent of the law,” David Ferguson, the executive director of the state party, said in a statement.

Given that the state Democratic Party was “willing to push one of its own candidates out of the race due to voter fraud,” Ferguson said, “I’m sure this means they will join us in an effort to purge the rolls across Maryland of illegal immigrants, the deceased, and those otherwise unqualified to vote.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, commended the “swift and decisive action” of Democrats to demand Rosen’s withdrawal.

“The action taken today by the Maryland Democratic Party sends a clear message to Marylanders — we will not tolerate any violation of election laws,” he said.

Sun reporters Michael Dresser, John Fritze and Annie Linskey contributed to this article.

The next time a stupid vile Democrat tells you that we’ve got a right to vote and therefore voter ID is immoral, you point out what a dumbass hypocrite that fool is.  Because there is ZERO QUESTION that people have a right to keep and bear arms without being “infringed,” and yet there are gun registration laws up the whazoo that have mostly been passed by DEMOCRATS.  And given the fact that the damn NAZIS were elected, it is a frightening fact that the right to vote is a responsibility that can easily be perverted.  And in this nation where races – even for the presidency – can be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states, WE HAVE A RIGHT AS AMERICAN CITIZENS TO GUARANTEE THAT ONLY LEGITIMATE VOTES ARE CAST AND COUNTED.

I say it again.  The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine evil today.

Just To Brighten Your Day: Romney Has Overtaken Obama In The Polls Even As Obama’s Approval Has Plummeted

Nice to see articles like this from the Washington Times:

LAMBRO: Romney polls overtake Obama
President’s approval plummeting
By Donald Lambro – The Washington Times
Thursday, August 16, 2012

Let’s get a few things straight about the presidential race between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. It’s not a dead heat anymore.

Everyone knew this was going to be a close race, but as of this week, Mr. Romney moved slightly ahead of President Obama. Not by much, maybe a couple of points, but he clearly has begun to move into the lead.

Heading into July, the race clearly was a tie, with the Gallup Poll showing each candidate at 46 percent in its head-to-head daily surveys. But something happened this week that appears to have changed the political equation.

Perhaps it was Mr. Romney’s choice of veteran Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee. Or more evidence of the Obama economy’s persistent weakness and soaring gasoline prices. Or the tough TV ads Mr. Romney’s campaign has begun running after months of being punched around by an avalanche of negative ads in the battleground states.

Whatever the reason, the numbers began slowly but clearly to edge Mr. Romney’s way, and Mr. Obama’s numbers took a nose dive on his job-approval ratings.

The first indication that Mr. Obama’s shaky presidency was taking a tumble came Monday, when the Gallup Poll’s daily tracking survey showed his job-approval numbers plunging to 43 percent and his disapproval climbing to 50 percent.

Then, on Wednesday, Gallup’s candidate matchup suddenly was leaning in Mr. Romney’s direction, 47 percent to the president’s 45 percent. That’s where things stood heading into Friday.

While a number of factors are contributing to Mr. Obama’s slight decline and Mr. Romney’s rise in the national polls, there is no doubt the economy and jobs are the biggest factors driving this race.

Gallup proved that Thursday when it released new poll numbers showing voters were giving Mr. Obama some of the worst scores of his failed presidency on the economy, job creation and four years of $1 trillion-plus deficits that most trouble the American people.

White House morale, which reportedly is declining fast, must have sunk even further when staffers looked at Mr. Obama’s bleak approval-disapproval numbers on these issues:

Creating jobs: 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval.

The economy: 36 percent approval and 60 percent disapproval.

The federal budget deficits: 30 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval.

These aren’t just disastrous job-approval scores, they are among the worst in recent presidencies, including the one Mr. Obama followed in 2009.

“Obama’s ratings on the economy are significantly worse than all three prior successful presidential incumbents at this same point in their first term,” Gallup reported Thursday.

“His 36 percent approval rating on the economy is well below George W. Bush’s rating in August 2004 (46 percent), Bill Clinton’s in August 1996 (54 percent), and Ronald Reagan’s in July 1984 (50 percent),” Gallup said.

It’s worth noting that in Reagan’s case, the 1984 election was all about Reagan’s tax-cut-driven recovery versus tax increases proposed by Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. Reagan won in a landslide, carrying 49 states.

In many ways, the central election issues in 1984 were the same ones we are fighting over today. Tax cuts get the economy back on its feet, stimulate capital investment, create more jobs and produce more revenue to boot.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are embracing lower taxes, just as John F. Kennedy, Reagan and, eventually, even Bill Clinton did, to build the economy, while Mr. Obama and the Democrats are running on raising taxes to grow the government and increase spending.

Mr. Obama and his party charge that lowering taxes will worsen the deficit, when one of the chief culprits driving the Obama deficits, besides his spending binge, is slower 1.5 percent economic growth and an 8.3 percent jobless rate. People who don’t have jobs don’t pay income taxes.

Meantime, another issue is emerging in the campaign that is hurting Mr. Obama’s quest for a second term, and that is his directive to rewrite the welfare reform law of 1996.

That directive will grant waivers to the states to override the welfare reform law, according to a study written by two top analysts at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley.

“The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama administration clearly guts the law and seeks to impose its own policy choices — a pattern that has become all too common in this administration,” they wrote.

In a nutshell, Mr. Obama’s directive says the “traditional TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the Section 1115 waiver authority,” they said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a separate study of that section, “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.”

The Romney campaign has been hitting the airwaves with an ad lambasting the administration for its backdoor attempt to undermine the welfare reforms. The Obama campaign has counterattacked, charging the ad is a lie and that Mr. Romney sought the same kind of waiver authority as governor.

Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, while criticizing the Romney ad, said “There is something fishy about the administration’s process on this memorandum.” He gave the Obama camp “a solid three Pinocchios” for its shaky waiver claim against Mr. Romney, saying “there is little evidence that is the case.”

Increasingly, as Mr. Obama’s disapproval numbers have been getting worse, his campaign has been making up things that aren’t true. A sense of desperation and hysteria is creeping into its bipolar rhetoric, with Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. warning voters (guess who?) that Mr. Romney will “put y’all back in chains.”

Historically, Gallup says, presidents who won a second term had near 50 percent job-approval ratings. But with Mr. Obama’s ratings stuck in the mid to low 40s, it looks as if the end is near.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

If that doesn’t make you happy, then consider the Purple Poll which examines the dozen swing states that will decide the presidency.  Romney is now leading in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

What is most promising of all is that Obama has enormously outspent Romney the last several months – even as Romney has actually outraised Obama during those months – due to the campaign laws that prevent Romney from spending money he has raised for the general election until he is the official nominee of his party.  After the GOP convention near the end of August, it will suddenly be ROMNEY who has the huge money edge over Obama.  Obama has spent hundreds of millions lying and slandering and demonizing – and it basically hasn’t done him any good.  And in less than three weeks it will be Romney on serve.

The race is close.  But it is very possible that Romney is beginning to break through.

Pray.  Contribute/donate.  Volunteer.  And vote.  For the love of God and the love of America.

Obama Welcomes Illegal Immigrant Voters While Gaming System To Attack Military Voters And Those Who Vote Republican

The most dishonest politician in the history of America is striking again – in Florida as he targets black conservative Allen West:

Exclusive Breaking: 1,100 Florida Voters Disenfranchised Today

 

Election Law Center has learned that 1,100 Florida voters will not be able to participate in today’s state primary because of snafus by the government. 300 absentee voters in Martin County (FL) and 800 in Indian River County (FL) did not receive their requested absentee ballots in time to participate in today’s important primary election because the United States Post Office treated the bulk absentee ballot mailings as third class mail. The ballots were deposited by Martin and Indian River County election officials with the United States Post Office nearly three weeks ago, but the USPS office in Jacksonville treated the absentee ballot mailings as third class mail.Some of the voters just today received their absentee ballots by mail, and today is the day of the election. According to attorneys knowledgeable with Florida election law, these ballots may not be faxed, emailed or otherwise returned electronically. That means 1,100 voters who sought to participate in the election will not be allowed to participate.Who is running? There are primaries for United States Senate, Alan West vs. Robert Crowder, State House, County Commissioner, Sheriff, School Supervisors, and other Congressional offices. Examine a sample ballot here.

 Posted by Christian Adams at August 14, 2012

What’s the makeup of those two counties?  Glad you asked: both heavily Republican:

Yep, here’s Martin County…

Registered Voters as of 07/30/2012 | Republican: 51,078 | Democrat: 25,943 | Other: 22,170 | Total: 99,191

http://www.martinvotes.com/content.aspx?id=148

Indian River County…

Active Registered Voters
as of 08/14/2012 Republicans:43,570|Democrats:26,155|Others:20,903|Total:
90,628

http://www.voteindianriver.com/

Somehow, Obama’s Post Office managed to avoid similar screwups in Democrat-leaning counties.  What a surprising coincidence!!!

Meanwhile, we got Al Franken in the Senate – and frankly we got ObamaCare – because to be a Democrat is to be a lying, cheating slimebag: because there is absolutely no question that man “won” his seat by fraud.

And Democrats are lying and cheating in other regions the same exact way.  Because that’s what they are.

Meanwhile, the lying, corrupt weasel-in-chief is doing everything he can to take away the vote from our military in swing states – because military service members vote overwhelmingly Republican.

I can’t even imagine what the fallout would be if Republicans cheated in an election to disenfranchise a black liberal Democrat.  But let’s just say that abject hypocrisy is the quintessential ingredient of liberalism and so that doesn’t matter, either.

Update, 8/15/12: Thank God, the federal judge ruled today that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law can go forward.

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR. 

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

Barack Obama Needs To Resign NOW: U.S. Government Gunwalking Scandal Blowing Sky High

This scandal makes Watergate and Iran-Contra look like nothing.  Innocent Americans are DEAD because of this scandal.  A great many Mexican civilians are DEAD because of this scandal, including the tortured and murdered brother of a Mexican state attorney general.

And the end to American deaths from this Obama administration scandal is nowhere near at an end.  Guns from this incredibly stupid program are turning up in U.S. cities.  They are being found in the hands of murderous Mexican gangs operating in the U.S.

This is a DEADLY serious matter.  People need to go to jail.  People need to be impeached.  Gory severed human heads of U.S. government officials need to be put on pikes as a reminder to anyone else who would try something this utterly stupid.

And Obama has been basically acting like, “How DARE you question your god?”  Because at this point it’s becoming readily apparent he’s got some kind of Goa‘uld snake-thingy controlling him.

The [Obama] Justice Department blocked senior ATF leaders from cooperating with Congress in its investigation of the “Fast and Furious” weapons operation, ordering them not to respond to questions and taking full control of replying to briefing and document requests, the agency’s top boss told congressional investigators.

More accurately and specifically:

The Obama Administration has denied, obfuscated and is refusing to cooperate with the Congressional inquiry into the Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious scandal where the US Government facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms and ‘countless hundreds of thousands of rounds of rounds of ammunition’ to Mexican narcotics cartels.

Here’s the result:  Republican House Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF], “Who authorized this program that was so felony stupid it got people killed?”:

Chairman Issa started off the interrogation of Weich by holding up one of the pages that the ATF had provided his committee. It was completely blackened, one of hundreds that had been totally redacted by the agency. Issa told Weich that this was unacceptable and that he was tired of the lack of cooperation at the Department of Justice.

Issa also caught Weich in a lie by pointing to a letter in which he denied any knowledge of Fast and Furious, when we now know that Weich did know about the program

I don’t know what they call that on your planet, but where I come from they call this “stonewalling.”  We also use terms like “cover-up.”  It’s bad here.  We’ve actually impeached people for pulling crap like this.

When Mexico found out about this operation of lethal weapons coming into their country, they asked the Obama administration about it.  And the administration denied that there was any such operation:

[Mexican deputy assistant attorney general Jorge Alberto Lara Rivera] “Lara said Friday that as soon as Mexico heard of reports regarding operation Fast and Furious, U.S. officials contacted their counterparts in Phoenix to ask them about it and that they denied that the operation included the movement of weapons.”

It’s time to impeach Barack Obama.  He is a fool, a failure and a fraud.  That’s the only way we’re going to be able to spray the big giant can of Raid into the cockroach nest Obama has planted in the Department of Justice.

Let’s go back to the Obama administration demonizing America for trafficking guns to Mexico:

EXCLUSIVE: You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

– CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

– California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

I pointed out in the article in which I cited the immediately preceding that Obama and his top officials shared a common agenda to abolish our 2nd Amendment rights and were actively trying to undermine our right to bear arms.

And now we find out that WHILE THEY WERE DEMONIZING GUN DEALERS FOR TRAFFICKING GUNS TO MEXICO THEY WERE THE VERY ONES WHO WERE ACTUALLY TRAFFICKING GUNS TO MEXICO.

Communist revolutionaries and Islamic terrorists share a common feature with the “Chicago Thug” Obama administration: what they do is attack the very institution that they intend to replace in order to undermine confidence in it and thus seize absolute power as the people lose confidence in their institutions.

They create a crisis, and then use that crisis to get what they want.  Or as former Obama chief of staff Emanuel put it, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Particularly when your the one who started it in the first place.

Send thousands of guns illegally to Mexico, and then crack down on American gun rights because, My God, THERE ARE U.S. GUNS IN MEXICO!!!

That’s what this rat bastard sonofabitch Obama did, and he needs to seriously burn for it.

So far, the only one Obama has gone after is the righteous ATF agent who blew the whistle on this demonic program.

Obama has denied any knowledge, as has his attorney general, as has his Homeland Security Director.

But somehow this MASSIVE operation that was going on without ANYBODY knowing about it included the FBI and the DEA as well as the ATF and the Justice Department.  Sssshhhh, it’s a secret!

Reporting from Washington—The embattled head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has told congressional investigators that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration kept his agency “in the dark” about their dealings with Mexican drug cartel figures linked to a controversial gun-trafficking investigation.Kenneth Melson, the ATF’s acting director, has been under pressure to resign over the agency’s handling of the gun-trafficking operation, known as Fast and Furious. But in two days of meetings with investigators, Melson disclosed that other law enforcement agencies had a connection to the operation. His statements sharply ratcheted up the affair, and strongly suggested that House and Senate investigations, as well as an internal review by
the Justice Department, will widen.

“Our investigation has clearly expanded,” one source close to the investigation said Wednesday. “We know now it was not something limited to just a small group of ATF agents in Arizona.”

The only possible reason NOT to believe that some senior White House figure – who would necessarily have been briefing the president – did not know about this is because THIS administration is actually incompetent and irresponsible and stupid and naive enough to be so utterly and completely clueless as to what was obviously going on all around them.

And, I mean, how was the Obama Department of “Justice” supposed to know about anything when they were actually far too busy looking at child porn at work instead of doing their jobs???

And guess what?  It’s not blatant enough yet, because it’s ACTUALLY EVEN MORE BLATANT THAN THAT: we’re finding out now that there was a SIMILAR federal gunwalking operation going on in Tampa (that’s more than 2,000 miles apart from Phoenix, fwiw). This one was sending guns to criminals in Honduras.

But noooooooobody was directing this fiasco.  It all just happened.  It was just like a couple of chemicals evolving into Albert Einstein, or, you know, a thousand monkeys randomly typing until they’d written the complete works of Shakespeare including all the thees and the thous.

I look around at America with the same appalled outrage of jailed journalist Stephan Laurent who looked at Nazi Germany:

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

One day people are going to wake up and see the ruins of their once-great nation, and wonder what the hell happened.  And I write this blog to keep a record of the hell that is Barack Hussein Obama and his demonic cockroach minions.

Barack Obama is destroying this country gigantic chunks of meat at a time, like some kind of ruthless socialist tyrannosaurus attacking a listless brontosaurus.  And most Americans are completely ignorant and apathetic about it.

Can Someone Explain Why The Government Should Be The Unions’ Bag Man And Forcibly-Collect Union Dues???

This is really quite amazing; not that the Republicans are ending the practice in Florida, but rather that it was ever done anywhere in the first place:

House approves bill banning automatic deduction for union dues
By Kathleen Haughney, Tallahassee Bureau
2:00 p.m. EDT, March 25, 2011

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida House delivered a major blow to public employee unions Friday, approving a bill that would ban automatic dues deduction from a government paycheck and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

Democrats and Republicans fought over the legislation for just under two hours. Democrats and labor unions have accused conservatives of “union-busting” and said the bill was more about political payback than public policy. Unions have typically been big backers of Democratic candidates.

Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, the House sponsor of the legislation, said this was simply the state’s movement to get out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of it.

“It’s a bill that empowers membership of labor unions,” Dorworth said.

The measure, HB 1021, passed by a 73-40 vote, with three Republican lawmakers siding with the Democrats.

Florida is a “right to work” state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers’ paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions.

Democrats argued that Republicans are simply trying to take out their political opponents.

“It’s about silencing the opposition. That’s not democratic,” said Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach.

During the last general election cycle, the statewide teachers’ union gave more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees doled out nearly $1.4 million, much of it directly to the state Democratic Party.  And the AFL-CIO and other labor groups gave hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

For the past few weeks, labor groups have been actively campaigning against the bill and testifying against it in legislative committee meetings, but the Republican majority was largely united in pushing the bill through the House.

“This bill aims to do nothing more than silencing dissent,” said Florida Education Association President Andy Ford. “The lawmakers who voted for this bill have signaled their desire to use the power of government to single out and attack the hardworking men and women who serve Florida in public employment.”

The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor.

Republicans have denied Democrats’ accusations that the bill is a political attack, saying the legislation was designed to get government out of the political process since it would no longer be collecting dues for organizations that sometimes do political work. And people who decide they don’t want their dues used for political purposes can say no, Republican lawmakers argued.

“If you want your money –your money– you get to keep it,” said Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami.

What am I supposed to say, unions?  “Sorry.  Don’t got it right now.”  Or maybe, “The check’s in the mail.”

I absolutely love the way liberals turn reality on its head and then spit on it after urinating on it and defecating on it.  By voting to give workers a chance to decide for themselves whether or not to fund the unions – instead of this bizarre practice where the government forcibly seizes their money and gives it to people who are ostensibly bargaining against the government that pays the bills – Republicans are “silencing dissent” and “undemocratic.”

It is “undemocratic” to believe that a worker shouldn’t be forced by the government to give his or her wages to a union that fundamentally opposes that workers core interests and beliefs.

On a liberal-fascist view, “democracy” means refusing to allow the people to vote.  “Democracy” means the government seizing the people’s money and giving it to ideological organizations.

Apparently, given that it is “silencing dissent” to end this practice, Republicans should pass another bill requiring the government to deduct from union workers’ paychecks moneys payable to the Grand Old Party.

We’ve reached the point where arguing about democracy with a “Democrat” is rather like arguing nuclear physics with a cockroach.

When Assessing Obama, The Best Word Turns Out To Be ‘Contempt’

How many times have we heard some breathless-with-adoration mainstream media “journalist” tell us that Barack Obama is a “constitutional professor”?

What we actually find when examining the record is that Obama is more like a “constitutional demolition expert.”

Take a look at two recent developments to witness Obama’s contempt for our Constitution and the Separation of Powers that has kept it intact for going on 230 years:

Judge in La. holds Interior Department in contempt over offshore oil drilling moratorium
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN , Associated Press
Last update: February 2, 2011 – 8:05 PM

NEW ORLEANS – The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.

A magistrate will consider how much the companies’ attorneys should get.

An Interior Department spokeswoman wouldn’t comment. A lawyer for the companies hailed the ruling.

“We’re obviously delighted with the court’s recognition of the government’s manipulation of the judicial review process,” said Carl Rosenblum, an attorney for Hornbeck Offshore Services and other companies that sued over the first moratorium.

Realize that the Interior Department isn’t in contempt; Obama is in contempt.  The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of Barry Hussein.  The Interior Department is pursuing the will of the president.  And the president has contempt for the court, contempt for the law and naked contempt for the Constitution.

And simultaneously there is this (story from Legal Insurrection):

Monday, January 31, 2011
Florida Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient.  In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived.  By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect). 

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:

“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”

In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.

Here is the conclusion of the Order (emphasis mine):

“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. 

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.”

[Please click on that article for more on this story.]

“Contempt” is all over Obama on both of these major federal cases.  Obama is all about contempt.  Along with hypocrisy, contempt is the blood that flows through his veins.

To put it succinctly, to whatever extent Obama knows a damn thing about the Constitution, it merely makes him all the more in contempt of it, and all the more personally contemptible.

This “constitutional expert” is on the record tacitly saying, “I’m the pharaoh; I’m the emperor.  And the Constitution means whatever the hell I want it to mean.  And federal judges be damned.”

Barack Hussein’s contempt for our freedoms and the Constitution which guarantees those freedoms is evident in other areas, as well.  And we see that this rabid intolerance for freedom characterizes the thinking of the left.

For the record, this contempt for the Constitution extends beyond Obama and contaminates his entire Democrat Party. 

Even when liberals like Obama pay lip service to the Constitution, they only do so as a purely rhetorical device in order to ignore everything it stands for.  Because the REAL intent of the Democrat Party is “to control the people.”  Democrats believe that there is no constitutional limit on their ability to regulate the lives of the American people.  And “Democrats” and “democracy” are antonyms. 

Obama is making the founding fathers spin in thier graves.  And they will keep spinning in their graves until Obama is finally out of the White House on his ear in disgrace.

Obama is our first Afrocentrict socialist redistributionist radical president.  His vision of the Constitution is – to phrase it in his own terms when he demonized the Constitutiona and the founding fathers who wrote it – “fundamentally flawed.”  And because of that fundamentally flawed thinking, Obama believes that the Government should stand in the place of God and owns everything that the people create and produce.