Where Do We Go From Here: Reactions to Election 2012

I hoped I wouldn't have to write this article. I expected I wouldn't have to write it, as a matter of fact. What happened? It's the question I believe most of us are asking ourselves. After all, everything conservative pundits and humble bloggers like myself said before the election was true: undecided voters usually break for the challenger. So why didn't they this time?

I genuinely do not know the answer. Whether the American people have been paying less attention than they should or there are in fact more takers in America than taxpayers, it was enough for President Obama to be re-elected. At this point, it's hard to say what the reasons were yesterday.

I find myself wondering, honestly, if our country as we know it is lost. I believe America can survive four more years of Obama. My concern is whether we can survive four more years of people who would willingly re-elect Obama. I believe we can survive four more years because we have a firewall. The House of Representatives remains in Republican control so we can stop further damaging legislation by the President.
However, Obamacare is here to stay, and that's going to be bad for business. The Bush Tax Rates are set to expire, and the President seems to want to play hardball on this as well. So what we're looking at is big tax increases that are part of Obamacare, taxes being raised at the minimum on small businesses. Friends, I'm here to tell you things aren't going to get better in the next four years. I believe they will get worse unless the President reverses course and applies policies that actually work. 

So what do we do? I mean, short of Benghazigate blowing up into a huge cover-up scandal it is requiring both President Obama and Vice President Biden being thrown out of office, we're stuck here for four more years. What we can do is continue to fight for conservative principles. We can also work to build a big enough majority in 2014 to reverse the President's agenda. With what is likely to happen economically on the horizon, it's not at all beyond the realm of possibility. 

As for Biblical Conservatism, the blog is also at a crossroads. (This was always in the plans post-election, don't worry.) I began writing Biblical Conservatism as a way to collect my ideas before writing a book of the same title on the same topic. First, I'm going to take a few weeks off to rest from the world of politics. Then, Biblical Conservatism will be back, albeit as a biweekly blog rather than a daily, focusing primarily on topical issues rather than news. You may even see a few sneak peeks into the book. 

I leave you, for now, with this: Thank you for your readership through this Election and since I started back in 2010. Election Day was a banner day for Biblical Conservatism with the biggest one day readership since the beginning. Finally, I remind you one immutable fact that all Biblical Conservatives and Christians of all political stripes should remember: God is in control. No matter who is in the White House, we have a living King who sits on the throne and his name is Jesus Christ. God bless you all, and thank you for reading.

Be Prepared for Legal Challenges In Close States

Especially the ones where the swing state polls are using preposterous samples that won't happen on Tuesday.

Quick history lesson: Who remembers 2000? I do. Al Gore held up a decision from the 2000 Election for a full month. While it was required by law for Florida to do a machine recount of votes when the margin for victory for Bush was only 2000 votes. Gore then demanded hand recounts of votes, not only focusing ONLY on three of the most heavily Democratic counties in Florida but also demanding that votes be counted for him where votes that were not clearly cast, as defined by law, for a particular candidate.

Liberals spent years using such methods as exit polls and polls done after the election asking people who they had intended to vote to say that the actual votes were wrong. That's the world of the Left, gang...the actual votes don't matter. Just the polls matter.

How about 2004? In that election, the Exit Polls showed John Kerry winning the Presidency. It wasn't close, in some polls. Then the votes started to be counted. It wasn't close. Bush won. He won by a comfortable enough 3% margin.

The stories came out again: There must have been fraud! The polls said Kerry was going to win! Even John Kerry pondered a challenge like Gore four years before...but ultimately thought better of it. That didn't stop the Left from claiming it was illegitimate. It's not the votes that matter...the polls are the TRUTH...according to the Left.

So now we have these poll that are continuing to use 2008 Turnout as their models...if not far greater Democrat turnout that 2008. I made this point Friday on Biblical Conservatism:

When the turnout in, for example, Ohio, ISN'T +9% Democrat but lets say it's +2% Democrat and Romney wins by 1-2%...don't you think the New York Times might just say "How can this be?! Our polls showed Obama winning by 5%!"

My friends, I want you to be ready. I believe we are going to win. And as history has shown, these attempts to claim fraud doesn't stick. What the ultimate result will be if this happens, however, will be a claim that future President-Elect Romney would be told he has no grounds for a mandate and therefore he has no right to institute his policies. That's what they said about George W. Bush.

Bottom line: BE READY. I believe we are going to win on Tuesday. If it's not a sweep victory for Romney (which it could indeed be...see polls before the Election of 1980), there will be these claims from some if not all circles in the Drive-By Media.

Time for Obama to Panic: Early Voting Favors Romney

That cursing sound you heard near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday? That was President Obama, reading a Gallup poll of EARLY VOTERS.

According to Gallup, 52% of Early Voters who have already cast their ballots have voted for Mitt Romney. 45% of Early Voters who have already voted cast their ballots for Barack Obama. (For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that means Romney is up 7%.)

Friends, the Democrat Party thinks of early voting as their bread and butter. Some might suggest it's because that makes voter fraud easier.  According to this train of thought, fraud takes time, early voting gives time: Think Ryan Seacrest on American Idol with "Vote Early, Vote Often." (Except for the fact that on American Idol it's perfectly fine to vote as often as you like, in American Elections you cannot.)

So now here we find that Early Voters are favoring Romney, and we can expect that if Early Voting favors Mitt, so will Election Day voters.Combine that with states like Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Pennsylvania; previously considered deep blue states, are now tossups, the fact that the gender gap is gone, and the fact that Governor Romney is leading heavily with Independents, it's time for the President to panic. Big time.


My friends, I've said it over and over again: We're going to win in a week. Six more days. Game on.

Benghazi Should Be a Huge Scandal (But Media has Covered it Up)

I've waited a few weeks to discuss in full detail what happened six weeks ago in Benghazi. Oh, I've mentioned in here and there, but due to a host of issues in my personal life I've waited until now. But I believe the time has come to talk about what has transpired over the last six weeks.

What we have seen, friends is both a complete and utter tale of lies from the Obama Administration and the most inept cover up in political history.  Yes, we all know what the President said the day after the attack...he used the word terrorism. Yes, we got that. But then what happened? He went on the View, he went on David Letterman, he sent various surrogates out on Sunday talk shows; and blamed a video.

They said it was spontaneous. They said it was just a protest that got out of hand. (People usually spontaneously protest with rocket propelled grenades and rocket launchers, right? Right? No?)

Then that story blew up in the President's face. So what did the Drive-By Media do? They've engaged in the cover up. It's the equivalent, as Rush Limbaugh has said over the past couple weeks, is the equivalent of "Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate."

The dominoes keep falling, by the way. The President claimed he didn't know about the attack. Except if he didn't know, that would make him the single most incompetent President in history.  Not mentioning the fact that, if the President did know and did nothing, he's also been the most UNCARING President (given that he has run on how much he cares, this is especially poignant) in history.

My friends, here's the reality that the Drive-By Media is scrambling to cover up: In my opinion, the Obama Campaign made a calculated decision that admitting that Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack affiliated with Al Qaeda (who, according to the Obama Campaign is supposedly dead, since we killed Osama Bin Laden) would be akin to losing the President's best argument for his Foreign Policy strength. So they covered it up. They pretended it wasn't real. They blamed a video.

This President, according to many people in the intelligence community, the military, and other individuals in the know, had the opportunity to send in fighter jets and scramble the crowd. Or they could have let the ambassador have United States Marines guarding him instead of local anybodies from Libya. (Heck, our Ambassador to France has Marines guarding him!)

The bottom line is this: President Obama has failed in his first duty; protecting Americans. It's yet another reason why we must elect a new President next week. Period.

Letter Bag: No, Incumbents Do Not Historically win Close Elections

It's time for another fun Letter Bag post! Today's response is directed at an anonymous poster, who we shall hereby refer to as Malakali the Rancor Keeper (look that up so you can see how clever I am).

Before having his comment deleted because he violated Biblical Conservatism's Rules for Commenting, Malakali claimed that in close elections the incumbent wins, historically.  Clearly the only history Malakali knows is 2004. Let me correct our dear rancor keeping friend:

Election 2000 there was no incumbent although incumbent VP Al Gore lost the election (he won the popular vote by .5% but lost in the Electoral College by 5 votes).

Election 1996 was a comfortable 9% victory for the incumbent Bill Clinton.

Election 1992 was a comfortable enough 5% victory for Clinton, but if we want to call 5% close, the incumbent lost.

Election 1988 had no incumbent, but the incumbent VP George Bush won by 8%.

Election 1984 was a landslide victory for the incumbent Ronald Reagan.

Election 1980 shortly before the election several polls had Carter winning by about 3-5% only a few weeks before the election. For example, on October 20, 1980, a New York Times Poll had Carter winning 45% to 43% (Remember there was a strong 3rd Party candidate, a Republican, John Anderson, who was at 10% in this poll). On October 27, 2008 the Times had the race at Carter 42%, Reagan 39% (Anderson 8%.) Reagan won.

Election 1976 Jimmy Carter won by 2% over incumbent Gerald Ford.

Election 1972 Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide defeating George McGovern by 23% (which as a side note makes the Watergate Break-In one of the stupidest acts of cheating ever. It's like Major league ballplayers corking bats to play a junior college team.

Election 1968 there was no incumbent but Richard Nixon defeated the incumbent VP Hubert Humphrey by 1%.

Election 1964 Lyndon Johnson won handily with a 32% margin of victory.

Election 1960 there was no incumbent but John F. Kennedy beat the incumbent VP by less than 1% of the popular vote.

Election 1956 Dwight Eisenhower won by over 15% in landslide.

Election 1952 there was no incumbent nor did the incumbent Vice President run. For the record, Eisenhower won in a landslide.

So basically the incumbent lost in close elections in 1976 and 1980. The incumbent Vice President lost in close elections in 1960, 1968, and 2000. (In both 1960 and 2000, the incumbent Vice President lost in close elections as they attempted to succeed the highly popular term limited Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.)  Counting incumbent VPs with incumbent Presidents, that's five losses for incumbents in close elections to one win, and the 2004 Election wasn't as close as you'd like to believe (Bush won by 3%).

You see, Milakali, despite what the biased Drive-By Media is telling you, incumbents historically have LOST close elections. Especially when those incumbents are continually below 50% in the polls. Undecided voters this late do not break for the incumbent. That isn't history. The Left can keep talking about 2004 but I've just shown you FIFTY YEARS of history to argue your point. Even if we toss the incumbent VPs, that's still two losses for the incumbent to one win in close elections.

As Mitt Romney said in the 2008 Republican debates, quoting President John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things." And those facts just don't back what you desperately want to believe, Malakali. History has shown us that you will feel as crushed on Election Day as the original Malakali did when that gate crushed the Rancor.

Obama was Petulant, Romney was Presidential

Yes, I know, the Drive-By Media is repeating the meme that "Obama won on points" in last night's debate. However, it also seems to be the consensus by the Drive-By Media that Romney won the debate season.

Joe Trippi put it this way last night on Fox News: "Romney scored six runs in the first debate. In the second Obama scored one run. In the third, another one run. Final Score: Romney 6, Obama 2." (I am paraphrasing.)  Personally, I do not think Obama scored a run.

Rather, I think Obama was a pretentious jerk last night (which, by the way, comes naturally to him).  He acted like a small child who knows everything (even when he doesn't) and talked down to both Governor Romney and the American people. He's so much smarter than everyone, you see, so we should just tryst whatever drivel comes out of his mouth.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, was Presidential. He spoke like the President. He spoke like a leader. He sounded confident in himself. He didn't have to talk down to his opponent to make his points. He didn't have to act like he was smarter than everyone to be perceived as intelligent. He simply WAS intelligent. He passed the Commander-in-Chief test.

"“I think Mitt Romney did something very important to his campaign tonight,” former presidential adviser David Gergen told CNN. “He passed the commander-in-chief test." (Newsmax: Pundits Proclaim: Romney Passes ‘Commander-in-Chief Test’)

Furthermore, even though Drive-By Journalists are saying, once again, that "Obama won on points," focus groups after the debate in swing states stated overwhelmingly they are voting for Romney after this debate. This was the case in the last debate as well.

Frankly, I'm fine with letting Obama win two debates on points, especially since as a whole Romney won debate season (as the Drive By Media is proclaiming). More importantly, I believe Governor Romney has established himself as a reasonable option for American voters. And given their lack of satisfaction with the President, I believe that's all it will take to convince them to vote.  

Rumors of an Obama Debate Win Have been Greatly Exagerated

Rush Limbaugh said it on his show yesterday (October 16, 2012):

If Obama shows up tonight and successfully breathes, he's going to be declared the winner tomorrow.

Rush was correct. Obama showed up and didn't flounder. He at least managed his talking points. He even had a few good rhetorical decisions. (The one that made me say "SONOFA!" was waiting to bring up the 47% non-story until Romney couldn't respond, using his final statement in the debate.)


What Obama didn't do was he didn't successfully present Romney as a a bad candidate or, more importantly, himself as a good one. At all. He told more tales about "increasing oil production," but Governor Romney pointed out (and Obama ducked the question) that it was entirely on private lands, which the government has zero say over.  He lied about the Libya crisis and refused to answer the direct question asked by a voter of what happened. He just blamed Romney for giving a statement.

The Drive-By Media is predictably hammering Romney's strength in the debate. Their spin is "Romney was a bully" or he was "disrespectful." These are the same people who glossed over Joe Biden being a legitimate bully a week ago, by the way. If you doubt media bias, pay attention to the difference between how Biden's legitimate bullying was presented vs. Romney refusing to let Obama lie. They are telling you what you saw, but let's stop and think about what we ACTUALLY saw, shall we?

What we actually saw was President Obama having to lie to cover his tracks or just ignore questions. For example, why is he telling a college student who has asked about his job prospects after college about increased manufacturing jobs. (Please tell me the President realizes that the goal of a college degree is not to be a knob turner at a factory.) He also refused to answer Governor Romney's point about his "increased drilling" coming not from public lands but private lands.

I also still heard stammering and stuttering from the President in a lot of the debate. He wasn't quite as bad as last time. But he still was searching for the truth throughout the debate. The only thing is he seemed LESS ridiculously incompetent, so he looked better by comparison. Like Rush said, it's all about exceeding expectations.

So what precisely happened, in terms of this debate? Well, I'll tell you. I watched a Frank Lunz focus group from Nevada after the debate.  The lion's share of the people in the group were Obama voters in 2008. The lion's share of those same people said they had now decided to vote for Mitt Romney.

Friends, here's what really happened at the debate: Obama couldn't answer legitimate questions. He couldn't answer Governor Romney's legitimate questions. The Drive-By Media is telling us that Obama "won on points." Let's make pretend that it matters if someone "wins on points" in a debate. Debates are not reflected on points. This isn't high school Debate Team. This is a Presidential Election.

Obama did not move the meter. Even if the Drive-By Media brings out skewed polls that claim it did, trust me, it won't matter on Election Day.  Mitt Romney is about to win the Presidency in three weeks. And that's what really matters.

Ambassador Stevens is Dead, Al Qaeda is Alive, and Obama Lied

I've generally stayed away from talking about the attack on September 11th of this year. It's an election year and my focus has always been politics. But this is something that needs to be said. You've heard Joe Biden's favorite "Bumper Sticker" for the campaign:

Real Obama Bumper Sticker

Well, given this story, I'd like to tell you the bumper sticker I would like to create:

Sketch created by Biblical Conservatism with MS Paint

So what did Obama tell us after this attack? It was a You Tube video. That's what caused the attack. Also it was SPONTANEOUS! It was a spontaneous attack...apparently using rocket propelled grenades, by the way...and just so happened to occur on 9/11. 

Then we found out that it wasn't the video. It was simply 9/11. We also learned it wasn't a spontaneous attack. It was a planned attack. And it wasn't a protest. It was Al Qaeda. Whoops!

Now that this fact has been proven, the story is "we had bad intelligence!" Yes. That story was absolutely accepted by the Drive-By Media when it was the global intelligence community from our nation and others agreed basically universally that Saddam Hussein had WMD, right? Oh.

More news comes out and we learn that Ambassador Stevens had legitimate threats prior to the attack. We find out the embassy essentially begged the White House for more security. They were told no.

So why is it that the Obama Administration lied to us immediately after the attack? Simple. The President has spent months upon months spiking the football about killing Osama Bin Laden (see the above real Obama bumper sticker). The insinuation is "with Bin Laden's death, so died Al Qaeda." Except, that's not what happened.

So, and this is with all due respect to our late ambassador: Ambassador Stevens is dead. Al Qaeda is alive. Vote Romney-Ryan 2012.

Biden Makes a Fool Out of Himself

Last night was the Vice Presidential Debate. We expected Joe Biden to be...well...Joe Biden. What I didn't expect was for Biff Tannen to show up and try to turn Paul Ryan (unsuccessfully) into George McFly.

To get into a little bit of Rhetoric Nerd-speak, what Vice President Biden used was Proof by Verbosity. Essentially this is a rhetorical fallacy where one shouts down his opponent instead of allowing his ideas to stand for themselves.  Joe Jessup-Biden showed up. He sat there and railed at someone who deserved respect as if that would win him points.  In the process, while being verbose, Biden also spread on the lies nice and thick.

- Biden repeated statements that their intelligence after the Benghazi attack said that it was a spontaneous response to a video, and then later their intelligence was updated. Not so. The State Department officials who testified to congress have said they knew within ONE DAY that it was a terrorist attack.

- Biden repeated the lie that "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" for "millionaires" would not hit small businesses. Actually, Biden's "millionaires" include couples that earn a total of $250,000 per year. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $250,000 does not equal $1,000,000.)

- Biden repeated the lie that no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, would be forced under Obamacare to provide contraception.

- Biden claimed he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Actually, he voted for them.

There were many more, and you can read about them on Breitbart.com.

All Biden did was make a fool out of himself. So let's talk about the other two participants in the debate. First, the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She was clearly in the tank for Biden. She allowed Biden to interrupt Paul Ryan 82 times in the debate, often allowing Biden to trample his opponent's attempts to respond. Raddatz herself interrupted Paul Ryan 34 times. She also clearly failed, and it is my contention did so intentionally, did not reign in Biden.

Liberals are claiming that this was the liberal response to Governor Romney's intellectual trouncing of President Obama in the first Presidential debate. However, Governor Romney did not shout down President Obama and did not interrupt him 82 times. Romney simply let Obama talk and then explained why he was wrong.

Then there was Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan was confident. He was packed with facts. (Liberals will of course argue this point, because they love to break out liberal fact-checkers who always call out conservatives but rarely do liberals. They will say "They are nonpartisan!" ignoring the fact that so is MoveOn.org calls themselves nonpartisan too.) Congressman Ryan's performance reminded me of watching the fight at the end of Rocky II. Joe Biden was Apollo Creed, punching and punching and punching (albeit with far less skill than Creed did) and Ryan managed to take the hits then hit back. At the end, it was Ryan who hit a knockout blow with his closing statement. He ultimately explained the difference between his that Biden failed to do.

Ultimately, the debate seems to have been received by a whole lot of  people including Independents and women as the mean old geezer beating up the nice young man who lives next door and snow blows your driveway in the winter.  One article worded it this way: "Angry Joe and Martha vs. that nice Ryan fellow from Accounting."

At the end of the day, this is not helpful for the Obama campaign. Governor Romney remains in the lead. President Obama isn't able to successfully go toe to toe with Mitt Romney and his calm, adult facts. Make no mistake about it: In terms of public perception, Paul Ryan won the day.

Liberals Panic After Pew Poll

In case you missed it, the liberal Pew Research Center published a poll showing Governor Mitt Romney taking a 4% lead over President Barack Obama. Combine that with ties in Rasmussen and Gallup's tracking polls on Monday, Obama's lead dropping to 1% in the Politico Battleground Poll, you've got a full on panic from the Left.

Do you remember when the Drive-By Media and liberal pundits were ridiculing those of us who questioned such polls as...oh, I don't know...Pew Research Center's September poll sample which had a +10% Democrat sample. Then, when the same Pew Research Center publishes a poll with a +5% Republican sample. Now, given the climate in this country, what's more likely, do you think? A +10% Democrat turnout or a +5% Republican turnout? (2004, for example, saw a +4% Republican turnout, and Republican engagement is at least as strong this election as 2004.)

(Dramatized Liberal) POLLS ARE COOKED!  (All of a sudden!) HOW DARE THEY! No, don't remember how we trumpeted Pew's accuracy. That's not important! It's like Rasmussen now! (No, don't pay attention that Rasmussen and Pew were tied for most accurate polls in 2008.) It's not fair! Wah wah wah!

Friends, you who read Biblical Conservatism every day know I've been telling you for months upon months that Romney was going to win and these polls with oversampled Democrats were just hiding reality. Now, after Governor Romney went and hit a home run in the first debate, Pew can't hide the reality. So now, we're seeing the real electorate being predicted. And Obama's lead has disappeared. Now Romney is winning.

And now, the Left is in a pure panic. They don't know what to do with themselves! They're talking about Big Bird. That's what they're reduced to, friends. That and saying Governor Romney lied in the debate. That's what they are reduced to doing.

We are about to win, gang. Get ready for it. WE'RE GONNA WIN!

Swing State Polls are as Cooked as the National Polls (Part 2)

The Drive-By Media spent last week telling us it was absolutely over. Obama has a commanding lead in the Swing States. He's going to win, they tell us. The current Real Clear Politics average shows Obama with 269 electoral votes either strongly, likely or leaning his way. So they say.

There was a day they would get away with this. We talked about a few of these cooked Swing State polls last week:

Biblical Conservatism: CBS is Now Cooking Swing State Polls

So let's continue to look at where other polls are being cooked, shall we?


Wisconsin - RCP Avg: Obama + 6.7% - Avg Democrat Oversample D+6%

Wisconsin Voter Registration: +4% Democrat

- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +7% they had to oversample Democrats by +3%

- For NBC to get Obama to +5% they had to oversample Democrats by +5%

- For CBS to get Obama to +6%, they had to oversample Democrats by +8%.

(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)

Virginia - RCP Avg Obama +3.7% - Avg Democrat Oversample +3% Democrat

Virginia Voter Registration: +3% Republican- For NBC to get Obama to +2%, they had to oversample Democrats by +4%.

- For Suffolk to get Obama to +2% they had to oversample Democrats by +3%

(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)


In Wisconsin, to get Obama to a +6.7% average lead they had to oversample Democrats by an average of 6%. Again, assuming 90% of undersampled Republicans reweighted will give you a much smaller Obama lead of 1.1%, well within the margin of error.

In Virginia, when you take that 3.7% lead and the 3% oversample of Democrats to get to even (or 6% oversample of Democrats against

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.

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

Unemployment "Improvement" is a Facade

August unemployment numbers were released on a couple weeks ago, and even the Drive-By Media was admitting the numbers are terrible, especially for Obama. According to the numbers, 96,000 jobs were created. What isn't being trumpeted, however, is that 368,000 people dropped out of the workforce. So nearly four times as many people left the workforce as found work.

Here's the reality, friends: the only reason the unemployment dropped is because there are now far fewer people in the workforce according to the numbers. Fact is if the workforce was the same and so many hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans have officially left the workforce and therefore do not count in the unemployment numbers.

It's been said countless times, friends, if there were the same number of people in the workforce looking for work, unemployment would be over 11%. The idea that 9 million unemployed Americans simply do not count is preposterous.

Here's the real skinny, friends. The President is in deep trouble. His small convention bump will evaporate as quickly as the bump in his approval when the Navy SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden under the weight of Mitt Romney's new ability to spend his campaign cash.

It will be impossible for Obama to tell people they are better off than they were 4 years ago because they are living the reality. When you drive a 4-cylinder car that's only 3 years old and it costs you over $60 to fill your gas tank, no amount of political spin will change your perception of the economy. When the same groceries that cost you $100 in 2009 now costs you $150, guess what...no amount of political spin will change it.   When you've been looking for work so long that you've dropped out of the workforce, no amount of political spin will make you believe you are better off than you were four years ago. Friends, we are still on the verge of victory.

Keep fighting and keep believing. Game on.

Source: Are you better off? Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak employment report dealing blow to Obama re-election hopes.

A quick note to my regular readers: Have you Liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook yet? You're missing out! The page is now more than just links to the website. Monday-Friday I link many of the articles and polls I read as well as some fun political cartoons and memes! If you haven't Liked us yet, click here to find out what you're missing!

This ad was not paid for by any political campaign. It has been included as part of this blogger's
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.

Why are Polls Still Using 2008 as their Turnout Measure?

Liberal polls are continuing to use their bad polling samples to claim Obama is winning. It's officially ridiculous. They are continuing to use samples that show a Democrat turnout advantage that, by the way, didn't exist in 2010 and shouldn't be expected in 2012.

We've got Democracy Corps that used a polling sample of 41% Democrat, 30% Republican and 28% Independent (Democrat advantage +11%) to achieve an Obama lead of +5%.

Then we've got a Reuters poll that used a sample of Democrat 47%, Republican 38%, Independent 15% - the sample included Independent leaners. (Democrat advantage +9%) to arrive at an Obama lead of +3%

Earlier this week we had a Washington Post-ABC Poll which used a sample of Democrat 32%, Republican 26% and Independent 37% (Democrat advantage +6%) to achieve an Obama lead of +1%

Even a Fox News poll has Obama up +5%. I know liberals are out there saying "HA! EVEN FOX NEWS says Obama is winning!" Except one problem: In Fox News' latest poll is oversampling Democrats by +6% (which baffles me) in THEIR poll, using a sample of  Democrats 42%, Republicans 36%, Independents 19%.

Rasmussen remains the only grownup in the room with their polling sample. They are predicting a turnout in 2012 of +1 in favor of Republicans (a conservative estimate). Now, and here's the shocking fact (sarcasm) this reflects the 2010 election turnout within 1%! (Source)

Gallup was using a similar polling sample to Rasmussen, and was showing Obama and Romney neck and neck. That was, until the Obama Administration began to pressure Gallup behind the scenes to change their sample to make it more favorable to Obama. 

Fox, to be honest, I think is spending too much time trying to get the liberal media and liberals in general to stop making fun of their "lack of balance." (Which is the most hilarious example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen!) which leads them to use samples that the Left would approve of this time around.

Now friends, I think the polls that will really matter will be within 1-2 weeks of the election. Because that's when the Media is going to have to worry about their reliability ratings and they'll stop using bad samples. Remember that in 1980 only a few weeks before the Election of 1980 Gallup had Carter beating Reagan (Reagan won in a landslide).

Friends, the only polling sample that is making a reasonable guess at the real election turnout for 2012 of +1 for the GOP is Rasmussen (the same poll that was rated most reliable in 2012).  And that poll has Romney beating Obama by 3%.

Fact of the matter is the Drive-By Media isn't using polls to show public opinion. They are trying to shape it. We must not let them. We are headed for victory in November, both in Congress and the Presidency. Game on.

Reactions to the Republican Convention

If someone asked me to describe the Republican convention in one word I would say: HOMERUN!

The Left has gone absolutely crazy after this convention. They are screaming as loud as they can how conservatives are racist and inventing new ways to define racism. Apparently now it includes making jokes about Obama trying out for the PGA (that's the Professional Golfer's Association)...because CLEARLY saying Obama is trying out for the PGA is a reference to Tiger Woods and Tiger Woods had a very public fall from grace over his affairs with many women and therefore it is CLEAR that the Republicans are comparing Obama to Tiger Woods which means they are calling him an "oversexed black man" which is a classic racial stereotype HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS???

In all seriousness friends, you know you've hit a nerve when the Left can't use anything real to attack us and instead start becoming absolutely ridiculous. I see it regularly. I see it when someone starts posting every silly thing a random conservative who does not speak for all of us as if that one nutjob DOES speak for us. (These people also tend to ignore far more ridiculous statements from people like Vice President Joe Biden.)

The fact of the matter is the Republican Convention WASN'T packed with crazy statements. In fact, it was packed with good old fashioned American values. It was about saying "Yes, YOU DID BUILD IT!" You did work hard and build your business! You worked hard and succeeded! It wasn't the government who did it...as a matter of fact there wouldn't be roads and bridges if you hadn't built that business because it's TAXPAYERS who pay for roads and bridges and those taxpayers are either the business owners themselves or the employees of the business owners.

It was a celebration of what makes America great. We talked about the American dream and those a generation or two behind us who are seeing the dream happen for their children. It was talking about the son of Cuban immigrants whose father was a bartender and whose mother worked for K-Mart...and their son became a United States Senator. Or the woman whose husband died and she started her own business at age 50 to support her family...and saw her son become a 7 term Congressman, and that son is now running for Vice President. Or a man who took his family away from a war-torn nation and brought them here to America...and saw his son become Governor of Michigan and his grandson become Governor of Massachusetts...and that grandson is now the Republican Nominee for President.

We Republicans; despite the best efforts of the Left to call us racist or out of touch or whatever other ridiculous slander they are currently perpetuating; we are about the American Dream. We don't care what color your skin is and we don't care if you're rich or poor...we want you to have opportunity and freedom! Not equality of result because that can only happen by guaranteeing POOR results for all. But equality of opportunity and freedom? Well THAT we can guarantee you.

This convention made me proud to be a Republican and proud to be a conservative. That's why the Left has to demonize! They have nothing better to do! They cannot win a fair fight on ideas with us. What the Republican platform is about is American ideals, freedom, and opportunity to succeed. It's not about government government government it's about FREEDOM! So the Left is going to demonize. They're going to cry racism, bring out their phoney fact-checkers that repeat the falsehoods for them as if putting "non-partisan" on a group's label makes it so, they're going to talk about phoney wars on women and try to make Mitt Romney seem like a horrible person.

The truth is we are the party of American values and friends, after our convention, I am convinced that we are going to take back the White House this November! Game so very on!

Obama Should Be Very Concerned (InfoGraph)

Quick note: Some of you may be wondering why I haven't posted any analysis of the Republican 
Convention. This will be coming early next week as I have decided to wait and give that analysis as a whole, rather than as a day by day breakdown. Tune in next week for a more timely post! For now, though, courage...

As many of you know, I spend a good deal of my time reading political articles and blogs.On my daily read list is the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls. I noticed something very interesting in yesterday's polls. Take a look:

Image a Screen Shot of RCP average on 8/30/12 Note Abt Poll Sample Added by Blogger

Did you notice it? No, not the super-obvious thing I added about polling samples. Something else. Still no? Well, lets add a bit of emphasis to help you:

Image a Screen Shot of RCP average on 8/30/12 Note Abt Poll Sample and highlight of Obama Numbers
Added by Blogger

Do you get it now? No???

OBAMA STILL ISN'T ABOVE 50%, even in the four polls that use samples ridiculously stacked in Obama's favor using a fantasy Democratic skew, President Obama cannot get above 50% in any poll.

Friends, I'm usually not one for conventional wisdom but I do know that incumbents who cannot get above 50% in ANY POLL (at least without a ridiculous sample skew) are in deep trouble. If I was the Obama campaign, I'd be very worried. Especially since, now that Mitt Romney is OFFICIALLY nominated, he can start spending money. And he has plenty of it. Game so very on.

Note to my regular readers: If you are not already a fan of Biblical Conservatism on Facebook, you might want to Click Here and like us. In addition to posting each day's blog, I'll now be posting a selection of the many news articles I review daily for you to peruse on your own! It's my version of Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff!"

Obama IS NOT a "Nice Guy"

The Republican establishment wants you to hear them saying "Obama is a nice guy...he's just incompetent!" There's only one problem: There is no evidence that Obama is this sweet guy with no clue.

Jimmy Carter is a nice guy who was an incompetent President. President Carter is a man who I personally admire but politically could have never supported if I had been around to make that choice. I wasn't, of course, even born yet, but you get the point.

Nice Guys don't claim that their opponent is somehow responsible for the death of a man's wife due to cancer because the company he owned (and was not running at the time, mind you) laid off this man years before his wife contracted cancer. (Ignore the fact that she had her own insurance for about 18 months after the fact.)

Nice Guys don't claim that their opponent "wants to push Granny off a cliff" with a Medicare reform package THAT DOESN'T EVEN EFFECT CURRENT SENIORS!

Nice Guys don't say that the Republican plan is for "'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance."

The fact of the matter is President Obama is most definitely not a nice guy. He is in fact a bully. He is a man who will lie about his opponents to win. He is a man who will demagogue his opponents to win. He is a man who refuses to accept that anything is his fault but always, in his narcissism, blames someone else, no matter what the truth of the matter otherwise shows.

Obama is most definitely incompetent, as his record shows, but to say he's "nice" is to prove that one is not paying attention. Period.

Note to my regular readers: If you are not already a fan of Biblical Conservatism on Facebook, you might want to Click Here and like us. In addition to posting each day's blog, I'll now be posting a selection of the many news articles I review daily for you to peruse on your own! It's my version of Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff!"

Obama is Losing in a COOKED WaPo-ABC Poll!

You read that right, my friends! Even with a fantasy electorate, Obama is still losing in a new poll.

According to a Washington Post-ABC Poll released on Monday, Governor Mitt Romney is leading President Obama by 1%. The poll found Governor Romney receiving 47% of the vote with the Likely Voters they polled and President Obama receiving 46%. While this is reason enough to be cheerful, then one should look at the polling sample. Are you ready?

Democrat: 31%  Republican: 22%  Independent: 39% 

Now let's remind you of reality, shall we? According to Gallup's most recent poll of party affiliation 
(not registration), 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrats (so the Democrat sample is fine) but 29% consider themselves
Republicans and 38% identified as Independents (so the Independent sample is just fine).

So why THIS poll is claiming is that 9% of Americans identify with a third party?  Why are Republicans
undersampled? Even with a ridiculous undersampling of Republicans, once again, Obama is losing!

While we're at it, let's talk about the breakdowns of ideology (as opposed to party). According to THIS poll their 

ideological sample was:

Moderate: 41%   Conservative: 34%   Liberal: 21%  

So let's once again look at the Gallup poll of personal ideology (since once again Gallup is the only game in town

to poll this topic).

Conservative: 40%   Moderate: 35%   Liberal: 21%

So this poll undersampled conservatives by 6% and similarly oversampled moderates by 6%! So now the Drive-
By Media, instead of oversampling Democrats, is now undersampling Republicans and conservatives! You want 
to know how ridiculous the Washington Post-ABC numbers are? The lowest conservative rating in recent memory
was 36%...in 1992. The last time self-described moderates hit 40% was 1996. (Source: Gallup)

Either way it's just a new little trick from the Drive-By Media. Instead of living in an imaginary world where there are 
way more Democrats than Republicans, now they're imagining that Republicans and conservatives either don't
exist or won't vote (which is even sillier, since Republicans and conservatives are the most reliable voters groups!)

Friends, this is yet another telegraph of how worried the Drive-By Media is and how worried the Democrat Party
is...and that those of us who are pointing out that there won't be an 11% Democrat turnout advantage, or an 8%
Democrat turnout advantage, or a 5% Democrat turnout advantage...or likely a Democrat turnout advantage AT
ALL in 2012. So now, they're trying a new tactic. They'll undersample Republicans. They'll pretend the electorate 
is in terms of ideology looks like it did TWENTY YEARS AGO. 

The bottom line is this: The Democrat party is in deep, deep dog doo in 2012, both in terms of the White House
and in terms of Congress. The Drive-By Media's poll cooking proves it. This is our year, friends. I'll once again 
quote the same video I used yesterday:

Let the Liberal Lies About Ryan Plan Continue!

Why not? It doesn't matter how many times it's disproven! Liberals in general and the Obama campaign in specific are absolutely committed to repeating the lie that Paul Ryan's Budget cuts traditional Medicare and takes it from senior citizens, etc.

The truth, of course, which you can say until you're blue in the face and not be heard, is that a) The Ryan Plan doesn't affect anyone currently in the Medicare System or anyone who will enter it in the near future and b) IT DOESN'T END MEDICARE OR EVEN CUT IT!

Here's a big bowl of Truth which the Drive-By Media is completely loathe to repeat: The Ryan Plan won't affect anyone who is currently in the system or anyone who joins the system for the next ten years. Then, in ten years, the plan will open up the OPTION of going to a private Medicare program through a premium support payment program, wherein a senior may CHOOSE whether or not he or she wants to stay in the current public program of Medicare (which is fully covered by the premium support payments) or they may choose to look at other private programs and take their Medicare money to those private programs.

Let me give those of you from Palm Beach County, FL a quick and simple explanation of how this would work.  Let's make pretend that the cost of public Medicare is $1000 per month (I picked this number out of the air because it's nice and round.) Mrs Senor Sit-Essen (say it out loud so you can see how clever I am) now has the following options:

Option A) Opt for the traditional public Medicare program

Option B) Opt for a private Medicare Insurance Plan like Blue Cross's (fictional made up) Medicare Insurance Plan Alpha, which that costs $1000 per month. Mrs. Sit-Essen still will pay $0 out of pocket, just like if she chose public Medicare.

Option C) Opt for private Medicare Insurance Plan Beta (I made that up too) which is run by (oh lets say) Blue Cross. Blue Cross' Insurance Plan Beta which costs $1005 per month and comes with a free toothbrush, package of floss, three rolls of basic toilet paper and spanking new plastic kazoo each month as an added benefits (none of which comes with Blue Cross' Insurance Plan Alpha, hence the extra $5 per month).

Now, if Mrs. Sit-Essen picks Options A or B, NOTHING CHANGES! She doesn't have to write a check or collect cans or cliff dive in a wheel chair or anything! She has simply chosen her plan and her allotted Medicare money goes to either A) the traditional government Medicare plan or B) Blue Cross for Plan Alpha.

If Mrs. Sit-Essen picks Option C, she will be billed by Blue Cross for the balance. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that DOES NOT MEAN she now has to pay $1005 per month!  Rather, she will be billed for the very reasonable amount of $5 each month (not a bad deal for a new toothbrush, a pack of floss, 3 rolls of basic toilet paper and a spanking new plastic kazoo - actual retail value $6).

This is the truth that the Drive-By Media continues to ignore, including the facts that A) Traditional Medicare continues to be a perfectly available option and B) Medicare WILL BE BANKRUPT in a matter of a few years if we don't act. But it does take willful ignorance to maintain liberal mentalities on the Budget.

So let the liberal lies about the Ryan Plan continue!