Mitt Romney Wins Debate By Several Touchdowns

Last night, Mitt Romney absolutely flattened President Obama in the debate like a cartoon character under a steamroller. It was like watching Abraham Lincoln debate Milton Waddams. OK, I exaggerate a little. But I was continually waiting for President Obama to go search for his stapler.

Mitt was on point. He was packed with facts. He was charismatic. He called Obama out on his blatant lies at one point, and did it so tactfully that President Obama could barely respond. He also took the wind right out of President Obama's sails by bringing up and disarming the President's best retorts on issues like Obamacare (and Romneycare) and what the President was about to say (falsely) about Governor Romney's tax plans. It reminded me of Harvey Dent taking the gun from the mobster in Dark Knight, except of Dent had seen the gun in the mobster's coat and taken it before he even pulled it out.

Mitt was, frankly, brilliant.  You know how I know? Because the Drive-By Media is in pure, unadulterated spin mode now. They are saying Romney won by lying. They are saying "it doesn't matter because Obama's still leading in the polls" (in fantasy world with a +8% Democrat turnout, mind you). They are on full blown defense. Their candidate just showed up and was incompetent in a debate. So much for being such a great rhetorician, right? I guess Obama just missed his teleprompter.

So let's talk about President Obama, shall we?  Remember how I said all through the primaries that Foghorn Leghorn could beat Obama in this election? (I still believe that, just like I still firmly believe we will win on November 6th). Well it sounded to me like Foghorn Leghorn showed up to debate in place of Barack Obama. A whole lot of rambling. A whole lot of stuff made up on the spot (which Foghorn Leghorn was fond of doing, as well, by the way).

Friends, the Drive-By Media is going to tell you a different story. They aren't claiming Obama won the debate, because frankly, that's like saying Picket's Charge went really well for the Confederacy.  Fact is the Left does not know what hit them. President Obama made Jimmy Carter's 1980 debate performance look strong. They don't know what to do, friends!

They're going to double down on skewed polls, that I can guarantee. They are going to talk about how debates don't matter. But debates do matter. President Obama had to go toe to toe with Mitt Romney last night. As conservative columnist David Limbaugh said on Twitter during the debate: "So far it's a boxing analogy -- O is flailing away blindly without even seeing his target much less hitting it. Mitt's blocking & punching."

That's how the debate went. Obama flailed, Romney kept hitting him and hitting him and flat out won. In the end, do you want to know how Mitt won? He did precisely what I've told you he needed to do: He effectively communicated conservatism. Bottom line: If the same Mitt Romney keeps showing up for the next 33 days, Barack Obama does not have a chance. Game on.

Romney is a Strong Debater, MSM Will Claim Otherwise

The first of four debates is a week away.  Mitt Romney could genuinely use a good performance in these debates. (I won't go so far as to say Mitt NEEDS a great performance, because I do not believe for a minute these Drive-By Media polls that show Obama winning comfortably or even at all.)

Now I watched nearly every debate in the Republican primary season. I blogged on most of them. While I think Mitt was sometimes out debated by Newt Gingrich, President Obama is no Newt.  Take away his podium and all of a sudden Obama doesn't sound so smart.

The fact is I spent a lot of those debates rooting against Governor Romney and being frustrated at how well he performed in those debates because it meant my candidate (as you regular readers should know, I endorsed Newt Gingrich in the primary season) was losing ground.

Now I flat out guarantee you that the Drive-By Media is going to say that Obama won the debates in post-game. It turns out reality isn't much of a concern to the Drive-Bys. I can say this with such confidence because I remember the same Drive-By Media calling the flat retread of a convention by the Democrats brilliant and the energetic celebration of American by the Republicans flat. Just to shock you folks, the Drive-By Media is in the tank for Obama so they won't report reality.

However, the good news is the majority of Americans don't trust the media!  According to Gallup, 60% of Americans trust the media very little or not at all.  To get more specific, 58% of Democrats trust the media (shocker) while only 31% of Independents and 26% of Republicans trust the media.

Here's the reality: Barack Obama is not used to being questioned. He's used to kid gloves. You start daring to question his brilliance and he gets more flustered than a hen thrown out of a helicopter 100 feet off the ground. (You're welcome for that visual.)  If Mitt actually goes after him he's going to slam dunk Obama in these debates. Ditto for Paul Ryan in his debate with Joe Biden.

I'll be back in a week to point out I was right, but for now you've got the prediction in writing.  Be prepared for Mitt to mop the floor with Obama. Also be prepared for the Drive-By Media to tell you to try their weird Jedi Mind Trick and tell you that you did not see what you saw.

When Carter Beat Reagan (According to Pre-Election Polls)

Oh, you thought the 2012 Election polls that show a very weak incumbent President in a surprisingly close election with his challenger?

In 1980, as the American Spectator reminded us recently, The New York Times was showing President Jimmy Carter in a horse race with challenger Ronald Reagan in several crucial swing states.

The states in question were:

• California
• Texas
• Pennsylvania
• Illinois
• Ohio *
• New Jersey
• Florida *
• New York
• Michigan *

The Times, in typical Times fashion, considered all nine of these states as close, critical swing states. Only Reagan's home state of California was considered a Likely Reagan state and New Jersey was said to Lean Reagan. So let's talk about what the Times predicted vs what actually happened, shall we? (Please remember that the Election of 1980 had John Anderson, a major Independent challenger, running against both Carter and Reagan which lead to states where the Carter-Regan aggregate did not come close to 100%.)

Texas: About a month before Election '80, the Times told it's readers the race sat at Carter 40%, Regan 39%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state by 13%. A 14% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.

Pennsylvania: The Times claimed that, again about a month before the election, Reagan was leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Regan won the state by 7%. A 5% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.




Illinois: About two weeks before the election, the Times stated that Illinois was "too close to call." According to their recent CBS/New York Times poll, Reagan was leading Carter 34% to 33%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state 49% to 41%. A 7% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.

Ohio: Again, about two weeks before the election, the Times called Ohio a close race, with Reagan leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Reagan won Ohio by 10%. An 8% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.

Florida: This time the Times refused to publish their own poll. Instead, they quoted "recent local newspaper polls" that showed Reagan leading Carter by 2%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter to win Florida by a staggering 17%. A 15% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.

New York: Imagine New York as a swing state? (As a lifelong resident I cannot.) But in 1980, the Times, just over a week before the election, stated that Carter was leading Reagan by 9%. On Election Day, Reagan won New York by 2%. An 11% swing from the polls.

Michigan: In Michigan, the Times did not report the actual race as it sat that day, save for saying it was close. On Election Day, Reagan won by 6%.



Nationally: A week before the election, the New York Times/CBS Poll had Carter leading Reagan 39% to 38%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter by 10%. An 11% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.

So friends, when we look at history, especially when we're looking at a weak President who is oddly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter in his policies, success (or lack there of) and the Drive-By Media is again trying to tell tales about how close the race is or how Obama is winning, just remember the Election of 1980. And how Carter beat Reagan. Oh wait...

* Swing State in 2012

Source: The American Spectator -How Carter Beat Reagan

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Only Good With a Fantasy Electorate

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that one of my favorite things to do is dissect polling samples from the Drive-By Media which clearly come from Happy Imagination Land (since they have no bearing on reality. Do I do this because, frankly, it's an easy post to put together and there's a ton of source material? Partly. But also so you realize how absolutely ridiculously prevalent this is from the Drive-By Media.

You see, friends, despite what the same media sources who give you these skewed samples claim, polls are not an attempt to guage public opinion. Rather, it is an attempt to SHAPE public opinion. Sure, Mitt Romney is pretty well guaranteed the conservative VOTE. But the vote isn't all that matters, as I've told you time and time again.  It's about passion. It's about donations, too. If conservatives with money vote for Romney but don't donate, it's going to be a rough election. Ditto for conservatives who vote for Romney but don't volunteer or help convince their friends to vote for him. If the Drive-By Media can convince you that Romney's campaign is a lost cause, people who do a whole lot less donating, volunteering, and convincing.

So we get these polling samples based on a fantasy electorate. Consider this Pew Poll (which likely would've been the subject of a post if I wasn't on vacation last week).  It claims Obama has a 10% advantage over Governor Romney. There's only one problem: It claims that there will be a 19% advantage of Democrats over Republicans in voter turnout. NINETEEN PERCENT! Now let's give you a nice fat reality check, from Breitbart.com:

In the best election season Democrats have enjoyed since Nixon resigned, 2008, the Democrat advantage was only D+8, but Pew is now attempting to hustle us into believing the turnout this  year is going to be D +19.

To be honest, here in the Real World, there's about as much chance of the Democrats seeing a +19 advantage in turnout this time around as we do of seeing Barney Frank purchase a Chik-Fil-A franchise as part of his retirement investments.  Friends, assumption that we're going to see a Democrat turnout advantage on par with 2008's +8 advantage is not going to happen!

Why do I say this? Well, how about the fact that Republican voter has risen 16% since 2008, while Democrat voter enthusiasm has dropped 22% since the 2008 election.  For the record, in 2008, Democratic Voting Enthusiasm was at 61%, and now it has dropped to 39%. In 2008, Republican Voting Enthusiasm was at 35%, but today it's up to 51%. So even though Republican Voter Enthusiasm has spiked, and Democrat Voter Enthusiasm has plunged, we expect the 2012 election to see Democrat voter turnout that exceeds even the best advantage in recent memory four years ago? Go ahead and pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, too.

Bottom line, friends, is that Obama is hanging on by a thread at this point. He's got small leads in polls of Registered Voters. (20-30% of registered voters won't show up to vote, by the way...and Republican voters are more reliable than Democrat voters, historically.) Friends, do not believe the Drive-By Media poll cooking samples. We are on our way to win.

Obama Claims He Didn't Say "You Didn't Build That"

President Obama's ridiculousness has risen to a new level, friends. Now he's running an ad where he claims that he never said "If you've got a successful business, you didn't build that!" Here's the absolutely ridiculous part of it: HE SHOWS IN THE VIDEO WHERE HE INDEED SAID THAT!

The ad, which you can see here claims specifically that President Obama did not say what Governor Romney quotes him as saying. Then, at the 36 second mark of the video, IT QUOTES OBAMA!

Honestly, friends, what is the President trying to pull? Does he think he's a Jedi now or something? "President Obama didn't say that...and those aren't the droids you're looking for." I'm taken aback at the blatant lie that is self-disproved within the very same video.

Yes, I know the President did explain himself somewhat in the same speech noting he spoke of bridges and roads. Yet the fact that the President continues to wilfully ignore the very obvious fact that the businesses that he continues to attack PAID INTO THE POT THAT BUILT ROADS AND BRIDGES! So it turns out...and this is at least the second most mind-numbing part of this statement: THOSE BUSINESS DID PAY FOR THE BRIDGES AND ROADS! We discussed that very reality last week on Thursday here at Biblical Conservatism. Government expenditure come from taxes. Taxes come from taxpayer. The wealthy pay the lions share of taxes. Not that complicated.

Friends, I know I'm ranting a bit in this post, and if that bothers you I'm truly sorry. But I think this commercial by the President deserves a rant. He sits there and tells you he didn't say something then seconds later shows us where he said it, verbatim. The fact that he calls Mitt Romney a liar while proving him to be truthful in the same video is just as maddening. Especially when the President proceeds to lie to our faces while calling someone a liar then prove to us that he's lying all in 30 seconds!

Enough is enough, friends. I'm asking you, I'm BEGGING you, to help me in electing Somebody Else in 2012. And that Somebody Else is Mitt Romney. He's not the perfect candidate, but he's certainly a better option than the President we have now.

Reactions to the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

Today's post on the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare is simply my thoughts. I may post a more in-depth analysis later on. For now, let's all just mourn.

Today's blog is a little late, as I wanted to wait for the decision to be announced.  Then it came across the newswire first saying the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate. I breathed a sigh of relief...at least THAT's gone, I thought. Then it turned out that report was wrong, and this blogger's heart sank. All I could think of was a quote from the apocryphal Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. To be specific, Chief Justice John Roberts failed to uphold the Constitution. As sad as I was when I heard of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold forcing Americans to purchase a product (by calling it a tax and not a mandate), I was just as sad when I heard who the deciding vote was in this decision.  I figured it was probably the wishy-washy Anthony Kennedy. It wasn't. It was the Chief Justice.

Friends, I fully expected Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to uphold the law. (Two Clinton appointees and two Obama appointees. Fine.) I also expected Justices  Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to stand for the Constitution, which they did. I'm glad Justice Kennedy found the Constitution and read the darn thing before ruling on Obamacare.

Yet it was Chief Justice Roberts, who I believed to be a strong Constitutionalist, went and upheld the law. By calling the mandate what it ALWAYS was: a tax. Friends, this law never would have passed if it was presented to the nation by it's true nature: A massive tax increase. Very few people in Congress would have signed on for a bill that was such a massive tax increase. That's why Barack Obama said in 2009, and I quote:

For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. - Barack Obama, 2009 - Obama Interview with George Stephanopolus, ABC News

Friends, if you go read that link, which I won't quote, even George "Mister" Snuffleupagus didn't believe President Obama when he said it wasn't a tax. Neither did Chief Justice Roberts, apparently.

This fight isn't over, friends. We can absolutely still get rid of this law. We have one chance: Fire President Obama on November 6, 2012. We'll talk about that more in days to come. In the meantime, this is just a plain sad day for America, for the Constitution, and for freedom.

Once Mitt Connects, Obama is Done

Now that Mitt Romney is the official Republican nominee we are getting some level of accurate polling data in this November's Presidential matchup. So far, it's been pretty close. Yet the writing is also on the wall that suggests that Obama's numbers will be dropping off after Mitt Romney becomes less unknown to the voting populace.

Ironically enough, the Drive-By Media is claiming that it's Mitt who is out of touch with most Americans. Ironic, since their beloved President has never had a real job in his life and was a professor, then a community organizer, and then he became a professional politician. Apparently THAT is the typical career path of the average American.

Here's a nice dose of reality for those of us who want to see America fire Obama in 2012: He's only doing as well as he is because Romney is still an unknown quantity to many Americans. A lot of people still believe that Mitt is basically C. Montgomery Burns. But here's the thing: People trust their own eyes before they trust the Drive-By Media stories. I remember when the first Republican Primary debate happened last year. I heard so many people who were so very shocked that Michelle Bachmann wasn't a fire-breathing dragon.

Mitt's going to do the same thing. He's going to rationally explain what Bain Capital does, and explain the utter stupidity of the Obama line that "Bain didn't exist to create jobs." Well no duh, Mr. President. As I stated before, that's not why businesses form. Unfortunately, our President is a man who simply does not understand how business works.

Friends, President Obama has nothing positive to run on, save for making an increidbly obvious decision to go get Osama Bin Laden. I've said it over and over. His biggest domestic achievement is Obamacare, remains tremendously unpopular, so much so that the law is now ADVERTISING how great it is as if it was a public service announcement!

Let's also remember that there are multiple major scandals on this administration's back, like Fast and Furious where Attorney General Eric Holder is now in contempt of Congress. Or how about the Green Energy subsidies that have gone belly up...after investing back in major Obama donors.

For that matter, tell me the last time Obama was above 50% approval for a significant period of time? Or even having higher approval than disapproval for more than a few days?

Remember when Obama was going to spend $1 Billion on this campaign? His fundraising is down! As a matter of fact, Mitt Romney is beating Obama in fundraising!

Friends, the only reason Obama is hanging on by a thread is that Mitt Romney remains unknown. That is not going to last, friends. The Drive-By Media is trying so hard to protect Obama. It's not working, because there are other outlets to compete with the Drive-Bys, friends (outlets with more consumers).

Bottom line: As soon as Mitt Romney connects with voters, President Obama's job is lost.

Obama is losing Independents, Women

The writing is beginning to show up on the wall...even in liberal polls. In a New York Times/CBS Poll released this week, Mitt Romney is now beating the President by a rate of 46% to 43% overall with all registered voters (remember, once you eliminate the 30% or so of registered voters who don't show up to vote, Republicans usually gain 2-3%). 

More troubling for President Obama is this: Romney is defeating Obama 43% to 36% with Independent voters....a 7% margin of victory, comfortably outside the margin of error. Furthermore, Governor Romney is beating President Obama with women 46% to 44% (within the margin of error, but still statistically tied). The President's lead also shrunk to a statistical tie with Adults 18-45 years old; he now leads Governor Romney 46% to 44%.  (This all happens while Mitt Romney isn't yet officially the Republican nominee.)

Compare that to the same poll in April (conducted with the same people, as explained by the poll) where the President was statistically tied with Governor Romney on Independents (Romney lead Obama 42% to 41%) and was winning comfortably with women (Obama lead Romney 49% to 42%).  With adults 18-45, a key demographic for the President as he needs to win the votes of people too young to have figured out the failures of liberalism yet (in April the President lead Governor Romney by a comfortable enough margin, 50% to 42%.)

This is bad news for President Obama, friends, very bad news. If the President loses Independents by a 9% margin, his loss overall will be significant. If the President can't carry women, his loss overall will be significant. If the President can't win adults under 45 years old and do so significantly (by at least 5-10%), he doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of a second term.

When the New York Times is admitting Obama's weakness, that should tell you something. That's precisely what the Times is doing. So let's focus on pushing Governor Romney to the right, friends, because in 2013 it looks like President Romney will be inaugurated. Not a moment too soon, my friends.

Can we stop talking about dogs in the 2012 Campaign, please?

Both sides. Seriously, friends. I get it, ok. Nearly thirty years ago, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a car-top dog carrier on a road trip. Also, over thirty years ago, as a child, President Obama was served dog meat and ate it.

I love dogs too, people. Seriously. I'm one of the world's biggest dog lovers. But this is blatantly stupid. So stupid that I'm even defending the President here.

Let's look at these stories realistically. We've come a long way in thirty years when it comes to safety. I'm willing to bet the Romney boys were quite possibly not buckled up and were in the cargo section of the station wagon. Simply stated, we as a society weren't as safety conscious as we are now.

Let me give you an example: How many of you have seen 1983l's National Lampoons Vacation?  In this famous scene, Clark shares a beer with his young teenage son during a roadside break WHILE DRIVING.  (A lot of modern parents would absolutely flip over giving half a beer to a kid that age.  I don't agree with that, provided this is done in responsible quantities (ie a half glass of beer or wine) with parental supervision is a good thing...takes the mystery away from alcohol.)  There are numerous other examples of films where a dad is driving his family and drinking a beer at the same time.

That was the time, friends. We were less safety conscious. Seat belts were in cars but not required/enforced by law. Drinking and driving was very loosely enforced if at all. Open container laws were nonexistent. People had 900 pound televisions on top of a TV tray.

As far as President Obama eating dog...he was a child. He was eating what he was served. Furthermore, eating dog meat is prevalent in many parts of the world, including nations that would be equally repulsed by the eating of beef. It's a cultural difference, friends. Some of the same people have pet sheep or pet pigs.  We eat those.  Tons of people have pet fish. Ultimately, they are all animals, friends.

I wouldn't want to eat a dog or a cat, don't get me wrong. But that is because I live in a culture where dogs and cats are pets. I have had multiple pet dogs. I have a pet cat now. Amber and Jazz and Buster and Shelby were/are dogs that do or did belong to me or a close relative. Same with my cat Benny. To me they are friends. This is because I am familiar with them and keep/kept them as a pet.  They were all socialized as pets and treated as members of the family.

As I understand it, in the nations where cats and dogs are food, they are not raised as pets then eaten. They are raised like we raise cows and pigs as I understand it. This is a cultural difference, friends, not a crime against canine kind. As I said, animals are ultimately animals, not human beings.

At the end of the day, friends, let's move on and talk about real issues. We have serious problems that require serious solutions. This election needs to be about the health of this country, not 30 year old stories about dogs. So let's move on to real issues. I'm begging you.

Obama Kicks off Re-Election Campaign 3 yrs into Re-Election Campaign

It happened this past Saturday. President Obama "officially" kicked off his re-election campaign. Which is ironic, because the man has been trying to get re-elected since he first got elected. 

Think about it, friends. Obama has been using canned quick slogans like "pay their fair share," (likely in an anticipated campaign against Mitt Romney) and "we can't wait" (to pass my Socialist "reforms" Constitutionally...let's circumvent it).

 

He's told us that his plan is better than "the Republican plan that means dirty air, dirty water, and fewer people with health insurance."

 

Friends, the President has simply made his active campaign official.

So what will this campaign look like? Something completely unlike most incumbent campaigns in recent history. The President is going to try to campaign like a challenger.

• When Ronald Reagan campaigned for re-election in 1984, the focus was "It's morning in America...things are really turning around, so why would you want to go back to where we were 4 years ago." Reagan's recovery was real, plummetting unemployment and seeing inflation drop. He had something positive to run on.  And he won.

• In 1996 Bill Clinton ran again on success. (Granted, the success wasn't really his...he'd just gotten the heck out of the way and let Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution do their thing.) The economy was booming. Unemployment was 5.4%. Deficits were dropping.  He won.

• In 2004, George W. Bush was able to run on success as well. Unemployment was 5.5% and, just as importantly, three years after the 9/11 Attacks we had not seen a similarly large attack on American soil.  He won.

 

Now in 2012 Barack Obama wants a second term. There's only one problem. Unemployment hasn't dropped in any real way, and the only way a drop can even be claimed is because somehow 2 million jobs have up and disappeared from the workforce, thus making the percentage lower so that the same number of people manage to be unemployed but because there are less jobs the percentage drops. Obamacare is as unpopular as ever. The Stimulus did not live up to the sales pitch (unemployment not only went above 8% but it's STILL over 8%).  Really all the President can do is "punt the football" about the capture of Osama Bin Laden, even though he simply (correctly) made the only reasonable decision available.

So he's got to use catch phrases like "Forward." He's got to act like a challenger. We must not let him. If we do not let him run this campaign as if he has no record, he will lose. Period.

Obama's Losing the Youth

Something that you won't see in polls that use "adults" or "registered voters," mind you, but Obama's losing the youth vote.  Don't get me wrong, friends...the youth still support Obama. There's just one key issue...a huge chunk of them AREN'T PLANNING ON SHOWING UP TO VOTE!

44%, to be specific, of registered voters 18-29 years old, do not necessarily plan to vote, according to a Gallup Poll from last week.  The same youth who flocked to vote for Obama have apparently lost interest. It turns out actually political concepts and policy ideas are not as attractive to young adults as "Yes We Can" and "Change." It also turns out that you can't wax intellectual about "change" when you've had three years and things haven't changed...at least not for the better.

Make no mistake about it, friends, Obama NEEDS the youth vote. Mitt Romney, in kind, needs the senior citizen vote. Good news on that front: 86% of that group (registered voters 65+) intend to vote...and plan to vote for Romney by a 12% margin over Obama. The type of people who are likely to vote for Romney are reliable. Obama's base...not so much.

This of course demonstrates why polls of adults and registered voters are less reliable: Not everyone will show up to vote. The more one leans toward a Republican candidate, the more they are likely to show up. If you look at the polls where Obama does the best, it's a poll of adults, or registered voters. He loses more and more support the more likely the voter gets.

It's early, friends, and Romney has barely started his campaign against Obama. But Obama is already looking very weak in this election. Losing the youth vote just proves it further.

Obama's Supreme Court Faux Pas Shows his Narcissism.

Last week I, and so many other individuals who understand the Constitution, took the President to the political woodshed on his attacks on the Supreme Court, essentially saying if they declare Obamacare Unconstitutional (which I believe the Left is telegraphing that they expect it to happen) it would be "judicial activism."  Last Tuesday I explained actually, no, that's the Supreme Court DOING IT'S JOB.

Now the President is backpeddling after realizing how much of a fool he made out of himself. Aside from that, however, the President has once again shown his most prominent character flaw: The man is a narcissist.  He believes the rules don't apply because he's so special. He believes himself to be some sort of political messiah. (For the record, I've got a Messiah already...the REAL Messiah...His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and my Savior and Lord). He believes his own PR.

This is honestly the best explanation for why a Constitutional Law professor would think it's perfectly fine to enact a law forcing people to purchase ANY product/service as a condition of living. It's the best explanation why a Constitutional Law professor would think it was "Judicial Activism" for the court to overturn a law as Unconstitutional when it was "passed by a democratically elected Congress."

This President has an attitude that "nobody would DARE overturn MY law, I'm Obama!" Now that reality is setting in, the President has thrown a tantrum. He's kicking and screaming and using terms that don't apply even a little bit like "Judicial Activism."

This isn't the first time the President has thrown a tantrum against the Supreme Court. Who can forget this moment in his 2010 State of the Union Address:

                    

This is who we elected President.  (Actually, not we...personally in 2008 I voted for the Sarah Palin/Her Boss ticket because I saw through Obama even then.)  In 2012, we must not make the same mistake. I firmly believe Obamacare is going to end in the hands of the Supreme Court this summer. The Obama Administration must similarly be ended at the ballot box in November

Stop Discussing the Left's Misdirection Narrative

For the last few months, the Left has been trying to change the conversation.  They want to talk about social issues.  They want to convince women to hold their nose and vote for Obama again due to a falsely created fear that some horrible, evil Republican wants to take away their birth control.  They want to make this election about something...anything really...besides the economy.

Do you know WHY they don't want to talk about the economy?  BECAUSE IT'S LOUSY!  Oh sure, the Drive-By Media is doing their darndest to convince you that it's actually improving...even though we've sat above 8% unemployment for years now...even though the number has only dropped as low as it has because there are 2 million fewer jobs to be had, and not because more people are working.  Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate has gone back above 9% again, to 9.1% in Gallup's February report. We went up .5% in a month, friends. 

The Left doesn't want to talk about gas prices, either.  Obama once called prices of $2.50 a gallon unacceptable when Bush was president. Now we're heading back for $4 a gallon. Does Obama have a solution?  I mean a real solution, and not more phantom "green energy?"  Like, oh, I don't know, getting the oil we have out of the darn ground and refining it?  Or reducing the ridiculous regulations that stop new refineries from being built?  Or how about a pipeline from a nice, friendly nation like Canada to pump their oil to refineries in Texas making it easier for us to purchase their oil (instead of OPEC nation oil) and raising huge revenues?  Nah...let's just pump millions into making algae into fuel.

Friends, here's a dose of truth that you won't get from the Drive-By Media: The Obama Administration has failed. He's spent and spent and spent and we've got nothing.  Sure, Activist and Neighborhood Liberals alike are telling you that "it would've been worse."  Yeah, that's a logical argument.  If I guy punches me in the face, it's like telling me that I shouldn't be upset, because he could've punched me in the groin.  No, Obama has failed, by his own measure.  So let's not let the Left change the conversation and talk about the real issue of this campaign. It's the economy, stupid, and it's terrible.

Mr. Obama, Your Values aren't "American Values"

It's one of President Obama's newest catchphrases: "American Values."  He tends to bring up in the same sentence as phrases like "pay their fair share" as it pertains to the wealthiest Americans.  This of course displays the real problem with Obama talking about American Values.  The President apparently believes that his values ARE American values. He's very, very wrong.

Last week I outlined that, once again conservatives are still the political center in this country. Conservatism is the largest group ideologically in America, followed by moderatism and then way back in third place is liberalism.  Can anyone argue that Obama is anything BUT a liberal?  Only if one is arguing that the President is too far left to qualify as a liberal.

Redistribution of wealth via high taxes and welfare spending is not a conservative value, now is it?  No.  It's a liberal value.

Massive Healthcare laws that require people to purchase a certain product on penalty of law is not a conservative value or a moderate value, now is it?  No.  It's a liberal value. 

Saying that the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who already pay 40% of the income taxes in this nation, aren't paying "their fair share" is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  (It's also not mathematically logical.) It's a liberal value. 

Requiring faith-based institutions and individuals of faith to perform abortions and other proceedures that they consider personally reprehensible is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  It's a liberal value.

This is a small sample, of course, but it's also very descriptive of the logical failing of this catch-phrase by the President.  Mr. Obama, you are not pushing American values, because 75% of Americans are conservative or moderate.  You are pushing LIBERAL values. You are pushing your own values.  And your values are not American values.

Obama Wants You to Ignore His Record

President Obama is now in 100% campaign mode.  He’s trying a little misdirection play.  He’s telling you it’s everyone else’s fault, that he inherited everything, even the policies that he put into place.  Three years in, the President keeps telling us that it’s all Bush’s fault.  (Even though the President as a Senator voted for the same policies under the Bush administration…at least when he wasn’t voting “present.”)  Here’s the reality that President Obama is trying very hard to make you look away from:  He has had plenty of time to genuinely turn this economy around (not a pathetic “recovery” with 8.5% unemployment two years after the recession supposedly ended) and he has failed. 

The President wants you to pretend he didn’t spend over $1 Trillion in various “stimulus” packages and subsidies that have not resulted in jobs.  President Obama promised Americans if we passed his Stimulus package, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%.  The unemployment proceeded to go above 8% and still has not fallen below it.  The President has then called for more and more spending every chance he’s gotten.  None of it has worked.  The President has spent billions on subsidies for “Green Energy” that absolutely is not ready to even be a medium sized player in the energy market.  (The truth is government cannot force the market to develop new energy solutions.  Once a need is on the horizon, believe me, the Free Market will come up with an answer toot sweet.  We simply don’t have that need yet.) This was also supposed to create jobs.  Nothing like promised. 

Then of course there is the President’s signature piece of legislation: Obamacare.  What was the last time the President actually talked about this accomplishment?  Oh that’s right, he can’t talk about it…a solid majority of Americans still want it repealed nearly three years later.  The law is incredibly unpopular, just like when the President and the Democrats crammed it down our throats.

Here’s some cold, hard facts, friends: President Obama inherited unemployment lower than today, and by the way the unemployment rate is being propped up by some fudged accounting.  According to economist John R. Lott, there are 1.2 million FEWER people in the workforce than when Obama took office, so basically the unemployment numbers have dropped because the Labor Department decided to shrink the workforce, not because more are employed.  As I just noted, nearly 60% of Americans want Obamacare repealed, so he can’t claim it as a success.  He’s borrowed and spent $5 Trillion that we do not have.  He just now proposed a budget that spends most of the projected revenue of the 2014 budget as well, because he hasn’t failed enough yet.  There is absolutely nothing Obama can say to America to say “give me four more years, I’ll give you more of what I’ve given you thus far.”

This is the very record Obama is trying to get us to ignore.  He knows that his record is going to be the end of his Presidency.  So now he’s asking us to pretend that he hasn’t been President three years.  He wants to run the same campaign as he ran in 2008…you know, where he could be a blank slate that people can project their own perfect ideal President onto.  We conservatives, we in the Tea Party, and (I hope) the eventual Republican nominee cannot allow him to perpetuate that lie. 

Friends, President Obama wants you to ignore his record.  We cannot, we will not, let Americans forget the truth.  It’s time for the truth to be shouted from the rooftops:  President Obama’s record is an abysmal failure. 

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: No, Jesus Wouldn't Support the Buffet Rule

It's campaign season, so President Obama's ridiculous rhetoric has gotten something of a pass recently from me. Then he tried to claim Jesus supports liberalism, and it was time to dust off the old "dissecting the liberal talking points" header.

On February 2nd, if you haven't heard already, President Obama claimed that Jesus would support the Buffet Rule, quoting Luke 12:48b, "To whom much is given, much is required."  Unfortunately for the President, like most of his theology, he is incorrect in this false use of scripture.

For one, this passage is about salvation and the requirements of believers to behave as believers, specifically saying that we as Christians ought to behave as followers of Christ, always ready for Jesus to return so that our Lord will find us about His business when he comes back:

And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? ⁴³ Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.  Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.  - Luke 12:42-48

This passage specifically is saying that Christ expects more out of Christians because we have been blessed to know the truth and we should walk in it.  It has absolutely nothing to do with taxes, or government.

Secondly, God did have a tax system.  The Tithe.  It was a FLAT TAX not a progressive tax.  As I wrote in my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism:

 God requires the tithe of all your increase (that's money gained for those of you from Palm Beach) of all his people.  He does not require 10% from the poor, 15-20% from the middle class, and 35% from the wealthy.  Here is what God says in Deuteronomy.

"You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always."  Deuteronomy 14:21-23
There was no "millionaires surtax" in the Bible.  There was not an increased requirement for giving from the wealthiest.   The rate was the same for all.

Furthermore, there is a major issue with Obama's entire logic.  Nowhere in the Bible is there any statement that the government should take care of the poor.  Rather, it was clear that it was up to the individual to do it.  Again, from my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism:

In Deuteronomy, we are given instructions on giving to the poor:

If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. Deuteronomy 15:7-8

The instruction here is clear.  If there is someone who is in need and you are capable of providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus gave the same requirements for providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus also made it clear that He would reward His children for caring for the poor THEMSELVES:

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;  I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?"

And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."  Matthew 25:34-40

Nowhere in here does Jesus say "you paid taxes and your government cared for the people."  He says "YOU fed me" and "YOU clothed me."  YOU DO IT.  As a matter of fact, Jesus told us in Matthew that He sees caring for the poor as precisely the same as caring for Him!  Again, Mr. President, it's not about government caring for people.  Compassion exists in more than just government spending.  There are better, more efficient ways to take care of the needy.  Like private charities.  The conservatives that you rip as being evil and heartless have consistently out-given you supposedly compassionate liberals.  That's because conservatives are compassionate with THEIR OWN money. Let's compare Obama's charitable giving to the "evil, greedy Republican" Mitt Romney. 

According to the Obama Campaign, President Obama gave about 6% of his income in the two years before he became President to charity. Vice President Joe Binden gave a pathetic .15% of his income in 2006. 

Now according to the Romney Campaign, In 2010 and 2011, Romney gave an average of over 16% of his income to charity. 

Finally, let's take an average, middle-class conservative, hardworking single adult. Me.  Without diving into too much detail because I do believe my giving is between myself and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I will say unequvically that I also gave a larger percentage of my income to charity (primarily via my church, which uses that money to give to missionaries and Christian charitable organizations throughout the world) than candidate Obama did.

So, Mr. Obama, who is the compassionate one?  I say it is the person who gave nearly 3 times as much of his own money away as you did, not the one who wants to be generous with everyone else's money.  Then again, I personally believe that "to whom much is given, much is required," with my own money, and not other people's money.

Why Are Obama’s Media Supporters So Clueless?

Just in case you’re actually steel willed enough to ignore anything that comes out of Newsweek and therefore have managed to block out the ridiculous article that graced the cover of that disgrace of a publication: the cover story of Newsweek recently asked the question “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” 

Apparently Newsweek, a Drive-By Media anchor, has decided to turn away from page one of the Democrat Playbook (aka Republicans are cruel and want old/poor people to die) and have turned to page two (aka Republicans/Conservatives are dumb).  The claim is always that Democrats and liberals are brilliant and Republicans and conservatives are stupid.  The author of the article is the supposedly conservative (but only in a world where conservatism is synonymous with being anti-Israel, promotes redefining marriage to shoehorn in gay couples, supported Barack Obama in 2012 and one who calls himself a faithful Catholic yet lives a lifestyle that the Bible refers to as a “detestable sin”…these are traits of strong conservatives right?) Andrew Sullivan.  (Sadly, this is what passes for a conservative at Newsweek.)

Yes, the same guy who spent months obsessing about Sarah Palin’s uterus and asserting that Trig Palin wasn’t really Sarah and Todd’s child, throwing out such outlandish possibilities as “he’s really Bristol Palin’s son “ (even though Bristol was pregnant with her son Tripp at the time, and we can clearly see both children).  This is what the Drive-By Media considers a real journalist.

I’m not going to dignify this article with an analysis.  It’s a the typical baloney the Drive-By Media uses to prop up their candidates.  They used to get away with it.  Not anymore.  There is a Conservative Media now.  Back in the early 1990s when the Right-Wing Media consisted basically of Rush Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, the Heritage Foundation and a few local talk shows, they got away with this baloney.  Now there’s not just Rush but Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and so very many others on radio; Fox News; podcasts galore, and of course, lowly bloggers like yours truly.  There are people by the tens of thousands rebuking the Drive-By Media’s attempt to cover up the Obama Administration’s absolute failure. 

So here’s the truth, friends:  Obama’s signature bill, Obamacare, is so wildly unpopular the President won’t even talk about it.  Anyone remember how George W. Bush never talked about his signature tax cut, or how Ronald Reagan never talked about his tax overhauls, or how Bill Clinton never talked about Welfare Reform?  Me neither.  Yet the President won’t mention his Healthcare law, because he knows it’s toxic.  Economic recoveries don’t take the form of a hundred thousand jobs a month, and don’t take two years for the unemployment to drop .5%...unless they are so horribly mismanaged that business is unwilling to hire for fear of liberal punishment of success.  Successful presidents don’t get thrown out of countries that they’ve liberated and they don’t back the overthrow of a maniacal government that is friendly to our country in favor of a maniacal government that is equally repressive and also unfriendly to our country. 

Obama is a failure.  Pure and simple.  And yet his supporters blindly back him.  They can’t accept their own stupidity in backing a man who was brought to power on promises of Hopey-Change and has only made changes people don’t want that have not helped the country.  And yet his supporters blindly back him.  Obama has failed.  But rather than admit their mistake in voting for him, Obama’s supporters instead call those of us who saw through Obama in the first place stupid. 

So I must ask the question: Why are Obama’s Media supporters so clueless?

Obama Again Blames Someone Else for Debt Deal

Please click the link above before reading this post:



On Tuesday, the Congressional Super Committee announced that it had failed to come to a deal to avoid automatic cuts in Entitlement and Defense spending as part of this summer's Debt Ceiling deal.  Tuesday evening, President Obama took to television and blamed...you guessed it...Republicans!  Yes it's the Republicans fault for not letting Democrats raise taxes!

It's like dealing with a spoiled child, my friends.  They won't do anything unless they're allowed to raise taxes and pretend that the problem is lack of revenue.  The Democrats want the borrow and spend game to continue so they can keep buying votes.  They know for a fact that raising taxes 5% on "millionaires and billionaires" won't be but a drop in the bucket, as would raising taxes to 60% on those top 1% (which, by the way, the floor isn't $1 Million, it's actually just over $300k in annual income). 

It's just another example of the tin ears of these Democrats...one has to ask "What part of CUT SPENDING was so difficult for you to understand???  The problem isn't revenue...you cannot raise taxes enough to cover the over $1.6 Trillion in deficits we have.  The problem is we spend too much.  Period.

But Obama wants to blame Democrats.  Democrats had no offer except "raise taxes."  Republicans offered "new revenue" solutions by repealing loopholes in exchange for lowering overall rates, a plan that historically works.  So now Obama blames the GOP...it's all their fault for not allowing the Democrats to do more damage...life is just not fair.  That's like complaining that the kid being bullied won't let the bully hit him...they won't compromise with the bully...the bully was willing to compromise and give the kid a juice box after he punched him after all! 

Sorry, Mr. Obama, the blame for this is on the Democrats.  The GOP should not have compromised and let you do damage in a bad economy by raising taxes on job creators.  There is more than enough revenue.  What we have is a spending problem.  Now fix it or get out of the way.