update on my Mom's double lung transplant - 7 months later...

January 27, 2012 was just over 7 months ago.

it was a Friday afternoon i won't forget for a long time. i had done a presentation that morning in a graduate class and then skipped out of school early because i was feeling sick.

after i had been home a couple hours i got a phone call from my Mom who had been in Durham for several months waiting on a double lung transplant.

this was the call we had been waiting on for a long time. my Mom called to tell me she had a pair of lungs on the way to Duke Hospital for her!

it was a pretty chill phone call though. we didn't get our hopes up too much. we had already been through this once and it was a "false alarm" because the lungs were no good once they made it to Duke.

but this turned out to be the real thing. my Mom got her new lungs!
after years and years of praying that God would heal my Mom... she just got replacement lungs! crazy. miracle.

but the next days and weeks were scary. we weren't sure if the lungs were going to work or if my Mom was going to make it. those days were the worst. she was in ICU for a really long time.

but then she just kept getting better and better.

and a few weeks ago she got to come home from Durham back to Charlotte!

That is big news and we're so happy to celebrate it. the lungs are working great. she still has more health recovery to go, but she's getting there.

so after a whole year away, she's HOME.

well... sort of home...

she's back in Charlotte, but while she was at Duke for a year, my parents' house flooded. the whole 1st floor got cleared out, but now mold has also been found throughout so my Mom can't move back in until it is all gone.

my Dad has been working like crazy to get all the mold torn out and then to rebuild their home.

thankfully, a great friend of ours lent my parents their RV for a little while. so my Mom would have a place to stay.
& then another great friend has been lending my parents an empty house nearby for them to stay in!

wow. talk about crazy blessings.
now we're just trying to get my parents house ready for my Mom to move back in as fast as possible!

7 months ago these "problems" would have seemed very small. we just wanted my Mom to get a new chance at life. and she has that :)
hopefully her home will be finished soon and be even better than before.

for now, i thought all of you would be happy to know that my Mom is looking good and even playing with her granddaughter Keira! (Who was born just before the lung transplant)

and i literally just talked to my Mom right before i published this! She gave me an update after her latest day of tests and procedures at Duke this past Monday. For the 1st time since the transplant there is NO SIGN OF REJECTION which is GREAT news! hopefully the good reports like that will continue.

*i wanted to say Thank You so much to those of you who have donated, prayed for my Mom, have helped tangibly, or even showed your support via text or Facebook comment. thank you. Thanks to those of you who helped to raise money for her medical expenses and who helped with your time and effort on her home! thank you!

if any of you would like to donate to my Mom's Double Lung Transplant Fund you can click HERE to donate through the National Foundation for Transplants to help with my Mom's ever growing medical expenses. if you would like to donate or help in any way with rebuilding their home please contact me or leave a comment on this post with your info.

it has been a long year. but in the past year my Mom has gained a granddaughter

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!"

surely it's better than nothing?

many times i get caught in a tension.

i have an idea for something good. something to make the world better. something that will add value.

the idea has an "ultimate" or "ideal" goal. that's what i get passionate to create.

but the further i go, the more it looks like that "ideal" may not be possible... at least not any time soon. or it may take a really long time.

so, i get caught in a tension of taking the time to perfect or just launching & going for it although it won't be as great as i want it to be.

i often get paralyzed on the "perfecting" side of the tension, but i REALLY want to shift my life to the other side. just going for it. just putting it out there & maybe perfect it (or make it better) along the way. because then... at least it's "out there."

but then the voices come. the critics. "what are you doing?" "That's not good enough to launch/throw out there/ etc..."
this voice of the critic is so powerful to me because i know they are right. i KNOW that it's not as good as i want it to be. their critique is resonating with my own.

but maybe... maybe instead of letting that critique paralyze me further i should simply ask...

"what are YOU doing?"

something needs to be done. someone needs to do something about this & i'm going to try with this. "remind me, what are you doing, again?"

or what am I even doing if i don't do this? isn't this better than the NOTHING we've both been doing about it?


"wouldn't it be better to just do SOMETHING. even if it's not as good as you think you could do it. but you're not actually doing anything. so, surely my something is better than your nothing."

so, the voices we hear are mainly from the critics who are also doing nothing. nothing to solve the problem or create something that's needed.

that's why i was encouraged by this awesome post from Seth Godin below. (you can also read it here.)
[i finally updated my Pulse app on my iPhone and saw that this was a read that MOVED me back in September 2011... almost a year ago... so i saved it to circle back around. i needed this reminder from Seth today as much as 1 year ago!]
[also thankful that Pulse has synced with my Read it Later (now called Pocket) app to form my combined favorite App in the world!!!]

here are Seth's wise (as usual) words...

“What would you have me do instead?”  [seriously, just give a better suggestion. i'm all ears.]

To the critic who decries a project as a worthless folly, something that didn’t work out, something that challenged the status quo and failed, the artist might ask,

“Is it better to do nothing?”

To the critic who hasn’t shipped, who hasn’t created his art, anything less than better-than-what-I -have-now appears to be a waste. To this critic, progress should only occur in leaps, in which a fully functioning, perfected new device/book/project/process/system appears and instantly and perfectly replaces the current model.
We don’t need your sharp wit or enmity, please. Our culture needs your support instead.

Each step by any (and every) one who ships moves us. It might show us what won’t work, it might advance the state of the art or it might merely encourage others to give it a try as well.

To those who feel that they have no choice but to create, thank you.

& might i add... please continue.

my morning with Shake & Eric

i've had a good morning so far.

i hopped out of bed at 6:07 like usual and went to play soccer with some guys over near Queens University. (not exercising for 2 months REALLY gets you out of shape.)

on the way home i stopped at the gas station by my house to fill up. 2 homeless guys were chillin under the shade tree near my pump and asked if i had any change.

i said "no... (then with a moment of hesitation that seemed like an eternity in my head as i pondered my giant TO-DO list for today and how much behind it would put me if i followed through with what my heart was leading me to do...)

but can i buy you some breakfast?"

"SURE!" they said.

i wanted a shower after soccer + wanted to at least see Crystal and Keira before they took off for the day, so i told them to meet me back at the Hardee's next door in 45 minutes.

we introduced ourselves and i officially met Shake & Eric. i was like "Shake?" and he said, "Yeah, you know, like shake" as he physically started shaking to make sure i got his name.

when i came back they were waiting for me. we hung out and talked at Hardee's for a while.

Shake didn't want any coffee because he had his own drink in a silver container he kept sipping. i couldn't help but think that 9 in the morning had to be too early for that.
Eric looked really really rough. even for a homeless guy. looked like he had a lot of hard life stories behind all the dirt and nappy hair.

Eric looked at me at one point and said "can you do me a favor?"

"these are my only pair of pants and i crapped them yesterday. do you have any shorts or pants i could have?"

this guy had literally crapped his only pair of pants.

i asked them to give me 15 minutes and i would be right back.
i ran home and brought back 2 bags full of clothes. 1 for each of them. thankfully they were both about my size. i made sure to have plenty of pairs of pants for Eric.

when they opened the bags and looked at all the clothes their eyeballs got so big with this look of astonishment. 

then they both teared up and choked up.

they gave me the warmest handshakes + the most heart felt "thank you" maybe ever.

they told me lots of stories as we sat and talked. they told me about the 10 or so homeless guys who all stick together nearby - just off 77.

they also gave me lots of advice as we sat and talked. like don't drink too much because it will mess up my liver.
they were also very keen to give me what they promised was good sex advice. not sure if i'll be trying any of it.

when i took off i had made 2 new friends. i told them maybe we would bump into each other & hang out again some time and they said the same.
i'll have to keep an eye out for Eric and Shake now. should be easy if i recognize any of my former clothes :)

that was my morning & now i'm back to the office. it's hard to know when to interrupt the TO-DO list for something like that.

i haven't accomplished very much this morning, but i think i did the right thing.
i haven't gotten very much done... or did i?

i hope i never get so busy that i feel i have to ignore my heart.

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:

Another Cooked Poll: 3 Swing State Poll with Stacked Sample

Well friends, it's becoming almost comical how frequently the Drive-By Media keeps giving us cooked polls. This one's about a week old, but with so much going on, I haven't had time to delve into it. But today campers, we're going to be doing just that.

The perpetrator this time is a CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac Poll of three critical swing states: Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. One problem that presents right at the start is that it's essentially three polls in one and it only has about 1200 "likely voters" in the poll. If you figure that it's only 400-500 individuals per state, that makes the margin of error ridiculous. The poll claims the following:

                           Obama                            Romney                                    Result

Florida                  49%                                46%                                     Obama +3%

Ohio                     50%                                44%                                     Obama +6%

Wisconsin             49%                                 47%                                     Obama +2%

So all three are pretty close. However, all three polls have oversampled Democrats significantly, especially for a poll of Likely Voters, not Registered Voters. As we've discussed time and time again, Republican voters are more reliable to the tune of about a 2-4% swing in the GOP's favor whenever the poll goes from Registered to Likely voters.

We're going to be a little imprecise due to lack of data on what the samples OUGHT to be, because the best I can find in those three states are statistics of their party registration. We'll then use a conservative estimate from that registration sample of +2% to the Republicans to account for likely voters.

                   Democrat             Republican           Advantage             Adjusted Advantage with Likely Voters

Florida           41%                     36%                   D +5%                                   D +3%

Ohio               36%                    37%                   R +1%                                    R +3%

Wisconsin       38%                     34%                  D +4%                                    D +2%

So friends that's our baseline. Florida with a Democrat +3% Advantage, Ohio with a Republican +3% advantage and Wisconsin with a +2% advantage. We can expect likely a bigger swing in favor of the GOP considering, at least nationally, given that when Independent leaners are added into party registration you end up with an even split.

So let's look at what the Poll used as THEIR party sample:

                   Democrat             Republican           Advantage              OVERSAMPLE vs. Baseline                                                                                                                      (Without Baseline Adjustment)

Florida           34%                     28%                   D + 6%                            D +3%   (D +1%)

Ohio               34%                    26%                   R +1%                              D +11% (D +9%)

Wisconsin       32%                    28%                   D +4%                              D +4%  (D +2%)

The most ridiculous is Ohio, that oversampled Democrats by 11% against our Likely Voter baseline! Even if we don't use our baselines, there's still a 9% oversample of Democrats! That's just plain ridiculous! The rest of the oversamples happen to be JUST ENOUGH to turn the polls in Obama's favor.

So let's go right ahead and adjust that poll, considering that if we added the proper number of Republicans back into the poll, and presuming (and this is a conservative estimate) that 3/4 of Republicans will vote for Governor Romney, shall we:

                          Obama                           Romney                                  Result (vs. Cooked Poll Result)

Florida                  47%                               48%                                     Romney +1% (Obama +3%)

Ohio                     43%                                51%                                    Romney +8% (Obama +6%)

Wisconsin             46%                                50%                                    Romney +4% (Obama +2%)

Now isn't THAT interesting? When you remove the party biases and oversampling of Democrats, now all of a sudden, shock of shocks, Instead of winning these three crucial swing states, now Obama is LOSING these three states! Amazing!

Friends, this exercise we've just performed is by no means intended to be scientific. However, I believe it does do a fair job showing the difference in the Drive-By Media's outcomes with completely cooked samples vs. honest samples based on voter registration and voter probability.

Rest assured on this final note, my friends: The Drive-By Media wants you to think Obama is winning. As we have continued to show you in poll after poll, the facts simply do not show it to be true when looking at a real electorate and not a fantasy electorate that come from the mind of a liberal news manager's imagination.

I leave you with this final thought, from the classic baseball movie "A League of Their Own":

Registered Voter Polls – The Drive-By Media’s Other Favorite Trick

Friends, the election is less than 3 months away. Traditionally, by this time, who is "likely" to vote is fairly well established. Yet the Drive-By Media has managed to generally eschew polls of Likely Voters in favor of continuing to poll all Registered Voters. The problem with that is simple: A significant amount of those registered to vote do not actually show up on Election Day. Furthermore, and this is important, multiple studies show that polling Registered Voters instead of Likely Voters tilts the poll 2-4% in favor of Democrats, since Republican voters are historically more reliable voters. 

The standard argument is that six months to a year before elections, who is a Likely Voter is tough to determine, so they continue to use Registered Voters. But now that we're so close, and the polls are so close (usually within the margin for error) it becomes increasingly important to focus on the Likely Voter. Yet Drive-By Media sources keep publishing those Registered Voter polls. 

Even using those less reliable polls, they are only showing President Obama ahead of Governor Romney by a point or two. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means that when we poll those who are actually going to show up to vote, we're looking at Governor Romney tied or winning by about two points. And don't forget, as we've continually established, the same Drive-By Media sources are using fantasy party samples that give Democrats an advantage of anywhere from 6-8% of the sample in the less egregious cases and as much as a +11% advantage in some of the more ridiculous samples. 

Now no political scientist worth their salt is going to honestly predict that the Democrats are looking at a +8% turnout advantage like they did in 2008. Actually, if one is being honest based upon voter engagement, they would predict that the Republicans will see the turnout advantage. So to oversample Democrats is just plain sophistry. 

One might wonder why the Left would be so dishonest in their polling samples. It's a very reasonable question. The answer is actually quite simple. They want to SHAPE public opinion with their polls, rather than reflect it. Especially, as we've discussed, in light of the phenomenon of the Real Clear Politics (RCP) poll average. There are a few reliable polls out there that AREN'T using bad samples and Registered Voters. Rasmussen, for example, was incredibly reliable in 2008, and always polls Likely Voters. Furthermore, Rasmussen does a daily poll of over 1500 people and publishes a 3-day rolling average. Gallup does the same type of daily poll with a rolling average. They do use Registered Voters, but they also use a sample that is triple the 1000 or so voters that most polls do (Gallup uses 3000) so the size of that sample makes the margin for error significantly smaller. (Liberal polls like to use even smaller samples on a regular basis, which increases the likelihood of unreliability). 

These two polls especially along with smaller reliable polls in individual states like Purple Strategies manage to undo a lot of the false reporting of the Drive-By Media polls and bring down the President's less than accurate leads to almost nil. Many many voters use the RCP average as do many news organizations. When Liberal polling agencies skew their own polls they skew the average. It makes it look like the President is doing better than he is really doing.

So what does this do to the electorate? I mean, after all, it's not going to disenfranchise conservatives from voting for Governor Romney, right? That part is correct. But what it will do is reduce their likelihood of CONTRIBUTING to the Romney/Ryan campaign, both financially and with their time. That will make a difference in an election, friends. It's not just the vote, it's the investment of money and time to get OTHERS to vote for your candidate.

So friends, when you see these polls of Registered Voters, I recommend you throw them out the window. It's just the Drive-By Media doing their best to convince you the fight is going badly for our side. And here's the news you need to know: Quite the opposite is happening. Momentum is on our side, and we are on the verge of taking back the White House!

Romney Takes the Lead: Quick, COOK TWO POLLS!

I touched on this on Wednesday: After ten full days of liberal polling organizations not publishing polls (all the while with Gallup and Rasmussen showing Governor Romney taking a lead over President Obama), my suspicions were confirmed by two major Leftist polling organizations coming out with two skewed polls (both with identical skews, by the way, although different results).

The first culprit:  An NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll claims that Obama is leading Romney 48% to 44%.

The second culprit:  The AP Poll has Obama leading Romney by the far more believable 47% to 46%.

HOWEVER, a quick check of the polling samples in both shows that both polls oversampled Democrats by 6%. And if you're wondering, these are "party identification" not "party registration" so, based on what we demonstrated empirically earlier this week, it should be an EVEN SAMPLE of Democrats and Republicans.

Translation: If these two polls were using honest samples, it can be presumed that Romney would be beating Obama by at least a couple points in both polls.

This, friends, demonstrates precisely what I spoke of in my post on Wednesday. The Left is seeing bad news for President Obama, and they need to reverse the Romney momentum. So they put out two polls that give President Obama a 6% electoral advantage. To assume that the voter turnout this election will be anything CLOSE to the 2008 turnout of +8% for Democrats is pure sophistry. 

Considering that the Republican interest in the election is far higher than Democrats and while Democrats are losing interest. I will give you an example. So the idea that there will be a huge advantage in 2012 by Democrats is foolishness.

Time to consider a REAL electorate, not a fantasy one. And with the real electorate, Obama's in deep dog doo.

Poorly Stated: What (I *Think*) Todd Akin Really Believes and Why

It was a terribly bad quote by Missouri State Representative Todd Akin, referring to the instances of pregnancy from forcible rape (as opposed to statuatory rape, by the way) and how the woman's body "shuts down" in the case of rape.

For the record, this is biologically unsound...of course pregnancy can result under the right circumstances (the rapist emits his...errr...genetic material...inside the woman and the woman is ovulating at the time). The idea that anything but this would be true makes no sense.

However, I would like to state for the record what I believe is the root of this argument from with Mr. Akin. (Yes I believe he does genuinely think that "a woman's body shuts down" as incredulous as it sounds.) I believe Mr. Akin is the type of person who only talks to people who share his beliefs. (Before you liberals get started, there are PLENTY of liberals who do this, which is why so many believe such ridiculous statements as "Republicans are declaring war on women!" (by defending the right of unborn children to live).
I believe the idea that a woman's body "shuts down" came from one such circle, this time of well meaning conservatives who are staunchly opposed to abortion, so much so that they believe even in cases of rape, abortion is wrong.

For the record, I agree with the following concept: The unborn baby has DONE NOTHING WRONG. It is still a human being and has the right to life. To do otherwise is to punish the child for the sins of the unfortunate father. It is simply saying, in short "We believe that any unborn child who has been conceived, under whatever circumstances, is a human being. Human beings have, above all other rights, the Right to Life. Ergo, it is not acceptable to destroy a human life, despite the circumstances of how it was created."

When you look at it by THAT measure, all of a sudden the "horrible, terrible" position of not wanting a rape exception to abortion isn't so horrible and terrible, now is it? It's just a lesser of two evils position that holds as it's highest ideal protection of human life.  (Now I am even okay with having some sort of public service to help a woman who is impregnated under such circumstances with the costs involved, along with preferential adoption for the child.)

For those of you who don't think I get what this means to a woman, it turns out I do. I'm going to be a little bit graphic here, so if you're easily offended you may want to stop reading and come back tomorrow.

I know a woman who, it is speculated, may have been conceived from her believed grandfather having incestually raped her mother as a teenager. This woman (the child, not the mother) is one of the most wonderful, loving women on God's green Earth. She is, in fact, my own personal Rock of Gibralter and a wonderful mentor to me and many many other people. She is my grandmother. The incestually raped teenager was my great-grandmother, and the man in question was my great-great grandfather.

All of this is speculation, of course, especially because my great-grandmother (the teenager from the story above) passed away when I was a baby. This theory is the product of my mother, a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's Degree in Social Work from Syracuse University. Mom has spent more than thirty years in family social work, including fifteen years of working with children in foster care. So she has a solid basis of expertise for her theory.

The bottom line of this true illustration is this: Irregardless of how my grandmother was conceived (whether our theory was correct or if we're entirely wrong and my great-grandmother was simply impregnated out of wedlock by some high school boyfriend), my unborn grandmother was and is a human being. She had the right to live.

Today, my grandmother is less than a month shy of her 80th birthday. She married a wonderful man, my grandfather, and had three children (including my mother). She also has today eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren (so far). Three of those grandchildren and one great grandchild are through marriage, but even so, a total of NINE living, breathing people between the ages of 8 years old and 56 years old would not exist (including me) if it was for a "rape exception" to abortion laws, had my great grandmother made that "choice." Even setting aside the NINE PEOPLE who have, to-date, sprung from Gram's branch of the family tree, had that "choice" been made, one of the single most wonderful people I have ever known would not have been born.

Thankfully, back in 1932 when Gram was born, abortion WASN'T legal in Maryland, where she was born (or any other state, I think). Thank God Gram WAS born, married my grandfather, lovingly conceived and raised my mother along with my aunt and uncle; all three each got married and in agregate conceived five children, including me, and one of those grandchildren, my cousin, now has an eight year old son of his own. 

Now, what I have just done is given a GOOD explanation for the conservative position that says abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. I want this to be contrasted with what Todd Akin said. Both my story and Representative Akin's had the same goal: to protect unborn children, irregardless of if they were conceived under highly unfortunate circumstances. My story explains the realities of the the abortion discussion; specifically that it's not JUST about the woman (although please don't understand me, the rape victim deserves to be considered)...it's also about the child!

Representative Akin's story, on the other hand, comes with both a bad, unsubstantiated argument AND a poor explanation of the real crux of the matter. And THAT is the problem with what Mr. Akin said. His position is more than defensible, it is admirable. He wants to protect human life. There's nothing wrong with that. Lots of conservatives think that way. However, it's time conservatives learn how to articulate our perfectly reasonable point. It's either that or continue allow liberals to present complete straw man arguments. It's our choice.

Why Aren't Liberal Polls Publishing?

Like so many other political junkies, I like to check polls in Election Season on a daily basis. Specifically, I check the Real Clear Politics Average, since it shows multiple polls in one easy location.  And I noticed something: Since Paul Ryan was picked as Mitt Romney's running mate, the only new polls published* are the reliable Gallup and Rasmussen, who each publish a daily tracking poll.

Other than those two who are as reliable as the tides in their daily polls, do you know how many other polls have been posted? ONE. And that was published yesterday.  As of the writing of this post (on Tuesday, August 21st, for the record) it has been ten days since the Ryan pick and only one poll aside from Rasmussen and Gallup has been published. Just over two months shy of election day. Intriguing, no?

What Gallup and Rasmussen show, as of the writing of this blog is Romney beating Obama 45% to 44% (Rasmussen) and Romney beating Obama 47% to 45% (Gallup)...certainly a happy trend for those who share my ideology. 

The only other poll, noted is a Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun poll that shows Obama beating Romney 46% to 45%. All three are within the margin for error. The sample on Monmoth is indeed slightly skewed to Democrats, as well, friends, giving them a 6% advantage. As we showed here on Monday, even if this is based on party registration not party leanings, the Democrats have only a 4% advantage. Which is intriguing because if we, for the sake of argument, assume that subtracting 2% Democrats and adding 2% Republicans to be at the party registration line alone, you could reasonably expect that Governor Romney would gain AT LEAST 1-2% in the poll, putting him again above Obama in THAT poll.

So why would the liberal pollsters not be polling? You can rest assured they're conducting polls, friends. There's no way you can believe that this close to an election they aren't conducting polls. So my guess is their polls are bad news to Obama. It may also have to do with the Real Clear Politics average that is published daily.

Now, for the record, Real Clear Politics is not to blame for what I am about to note. Their average is based on the last half dozen or so polls. (Perhaps it would be better to go with the last 7 days worth of polls, no matter how many there are, but I will give RCP the benefit of the doubt and guess that they feel three polls isn't enough to give a fair average.)  So the current average, instead of including polls from the last ten days, includes polls from the last seventeen days.

Included in that average are polls that have polling samples skewed beyond the believable 4% Democrat advantage...and remember, that's only if you go based on party registration, not party identification, since party identification is statistically tied between Democrats and Republicans. They also do not include the gains made by the Paul Ryan pick as running mate.

So why would this be happening? Answer: Real Clear Politics is continuing to use these outdated polls in their averages, making it look like the President is still leading Governor Romney. They can continue to report a slim lead for the President "In the RCP Average" while not noting that the polls are sadly outdated. They can continue to pretend the President is winning, when he is, in fact, not. The more then can dishearten conservatives, the better the chance Obama has to win. Disheartened conservatives won't financially support Governor Romney, after all.

* Post Script: As I mentioned I wrote this article on Tuesday, August 21st. As if the Internet was trolling me, both NBC and the Associated Press published polls today (August 22nd).

- The NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll claims that Obama is leading Romney 48% to 44%.

- The AP Poll has Obama leading Romney by the far more believable 47% to 46%.

HOWEVER, a quick check of the polling samples in both shows that both polls oversampled Democrats by 6%. And if you're wondering, these are "party identification" not "party registration" so, based on what we demonstrated empirically earlier this week, it should be an EVEN SAMPLE of Democrats and Republicans.

Translation: If these two polls were using honest samples, it can be presumed that Romney would be beating Obama by at least a couple points in both polls. More on these two polls tomorrow.

Biblical Conservatism Officially Endorses Romney/Ryan Ticket

It's been a long time coming, friends. I spent a good deal of time in the primary season promoting different candidates. I had endorsed Newt Gingrich as my first choice to run against Barack Obama. Once Governor Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee, I found myself willing to back him because honestly, we need to stop the Obama agenda.

Then something happened. It was Saturday, August 11th, about 9:30 am. I strolled into my favorite barber shop for a haircut. The news was on. The headline read simply "Romney Announces Paul Ryan as Running Mate." I won't lie, friends, I did a fist pump in the air. "Game on!" I thought to myself. Governor Romney did it! He picked a running mate that told me what he really intended to do as President: Govern as a conservative.

It meant he wasn't going to run a pastel campaign. It meant he was on board with real reform. It meant he wasn't going to be a wimpy moderate like some other recent Republican nominees (looking right at you, John McCain.)

So now we've got a candidate with legitimate business experience whose successes don't require the moving of the goalposts to be considered actually successful. (Not "It would've been much worse if we didn't act" baloney, real results.) We're talking about a man who actually created jobs. A man who actually made payrolls. A man who made real world decisions in the private sector, rather than working in liberal Academia and being a professional protestor. Moreover, I took a look, and it turns out Mitt has, as he claimed, genuinely lived his life as a conservative. Which means more to me than fancy speeches!

We've also got a Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan, who wants to actually DO something about our problems with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security...not just band-aid it for a few more  years but actually make it sustainable. We've got a serious man who wants to actually make our entitlement programs sustainable.

Together, friends, we've got America's comeback team. We've got two men who have real plans and real ideas to bring America back to prosperity. I'm proud to officially endorse the Romney-Ryan Ticket in 2012. When you've gone in one direction for four years and things haven't improved, isn't it time for a change?

Or let me word it as a great American once put it: Are you better off than you were four years ago? If the answer is no, then vote Romney/Ryan on November 6th.

Biblical Conservatism is responsible for the content of this message.
It was not paid advertising and is not open to equal time requirements.

Numbers to Back Poll Cooking Accusations

It's a common topic here at Biblical Conservatism: Showing where Drive-By Media organizations have used polling samples that are skewed to favor Democrats in an effort not to name public opinion but to shape it, specifically by making discouraging conservative and Republican voters.

For as long as I've made this posts, I've been told I was wrong, that Democrats outnumber Republicans in voter registration, and that therefore these polls do in fact reflect the electorate. Well, it turns out there is data to point out how ridiculous the claim of Democrat superiority is in reality.

It is true that, in terms of party REGISTRATION, the Democrats maintain a slight lead of 4%. According to Gallup's poll, 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrat while 27% consider themselves Republican. A whopping 40% consider themselves independents.  HOWEVER, when you add in Independent leaners, it becomes a dead tie: 45% Democrat, 45% Republican.

In addition, this takes into account the fact that a) many states have open primaries so party registration does not matter at all or allow Independents to vote in their choice of primary each time and b) states like Kentucky (19% Democrat registration advantage) Arkansas (10% Democrat registration advantage) and Louisiana (26% Democrat registration advantage) are not only Red States but they are DARK Red States. Each of the three have not gone Democrat in sixteen years (the last time these were blue states was 1996).

You may find yourself asking yourself "Self, I wonder if there is corroborating evidence for this poll?" Well, it turns out there is indeed corroborating evidence!

According to Rasmussen Reports most recent poll asking individuals not "with what party are you registered?" but rather "with what party do you most closely identify?" the party indentification breakdown is basically tied. So once again, precisely as I have told you, it is ridiculous to claim that "Democrats have an inherent advantage." It's simply not true. Their 4% advantage in party registration is made up by the fact that more Independents lean Republican than Democrat (which explains how adding Independent leaners evens out the party lines). The most plausible explanation to this phenomenon is states where registered Independents can vote in primaries (at which point, as I said above, I would consider it a good decision to register as an Independent).

So friends, the next time you see a poll that gives a polling sample that is not even split of Republicans and Democrats, or perhaps +4 in Democrats if you're being generous, you might want to throw away that poll's results. You can rest assured your intelligence is going to be insulted by the outcome of the poll.


 Primary Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#References

Predicting the Liberal Hypocrisy on Paul Ryan

All this week we've been talking about Governor Mitt Romney's great pick of Congressman Paul Ryan. The first move from the Left and the Drive-By Media has been to rehash the same silly lies about the Ryan Budget (which we discussed yesterday).

But we also know that the Left loves to by hypocritical (especially when they know the Drive-By Media won't call them out on it). Who can forget "Sarah Palin doesn't have enough experience to be Vice President!" Even though Barack Obama had similar amounts of political experience and far less private sector experience. (Apparently it takes less experience to be President than Vice President.)

So I'm going to go out on a limb here (a very very sturdy limb, only a foot from the ground) and predict some of the great hypocritical claims the Left is going to make about Congressman Ryan:

- Ryan has little to no Public Sector experience! Neither did President Obama. I guess it didn't matter then because...ummm....

- Ryan doesn't have enough experience to be President! Paul Ryan is currently serving his seventh term in the House of Representatives (this is his 13th year in office). Barack Obama, by the way, had only 11 years of political experience, only 4 of which were on the national leve.

- Ryan doesn't have any executive experience! You know how many years Barack Obama has of executive experience? Three and a half. You know, since he was ELECTED PRESIDENT.'

- Ryan is a "Radical Extremist!" One, no he isn't. Conservatism is the most prevalent ideology in America. Two, Obama is what, exactly if not radical?

- Ryan's Plan will "fundamentally transform Medicare!" Yes, it does. So will Obama's LACK of a plan, because Medicare will be bankrupt in two decades. Even if you believe the Obama claim that Obamacare pushed back the fall date a few years, IT'S STILL HEADED FOR BANKRUPTCY!

- Ryan's budgets are extreme! As opposed to Obama's budgets, which have yet to get a SINGLE VOTE in the Senate. And the Democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama took office.

- Ryan is a divisive running mate! Have you SEEN who Obama's running mate is, friends?'

It's not hard to predict the hypocrisy we'll see from the Left. Some of these predictions have already come true (a problem that comes with a three day lag between writing and posting). But when your liberal friends break out these bumper sticker slogans, remember what we've learned in class today.

Some of this hypocrisy has started. Some is yet to come. Either way, it will be as hypocritical as the day is long. Par for the course for liberals.

having a little girl 1st

i thought i wanted a boy.

Crystal and i both did.

we wanted a boy 1st & then a girl. no doubt about it. no questions asked.

i can't understand what i was thinking? this is the only way to roll. i can't imagine not having Keira 1st. she's the most amazing 1st child ever.

we're loving every second of this vaca with her & just today Crystal and i were talking about how we didn't even know what we were thinking wanting a boy 1st. girls are the best :)
(still want a boy 1 day though, of course.)

i seriously cannot even count how many of my close friends also had a girl 1st around the same time as we had Keira.
SO... when i read this, i figured i would post it here. good advice for me and all my new dad friends who had little girls 1st.

(from Carlos Whittaker's blog... i only left out #3 to make it shorter...)
"I know lots of guy friends want that little boy first and may be a little let down when they don’t see that little pecker on the ultrasound image.
I just want to say, all will not only be fine, but you will soon be over your “I wanna play catch in the front yard” phase because…
Girls can actually throw and catch a ball as well…
Go figure.

1. The Diaper Changing Phase.
Using the 3 finger and wipe tactic, you can literally clean the nastiest poop in one swoop.
No lifting poop ridden appendages. No fear that a little pecker will spray urine in your mouth.
Just 3 cracks and 3 fingers and one wipe.

2. The Princess Phase.
This will come on as quickly as it will leave.
There is nothing quite like having tea with a princess with your best British accent and knowing that she quite literally thinks you are the King of the castle.
And the look that lands on her face when she meets Cinderella for the first time at Disneyland is a look you wont soon forget.
That is unless Cinderella just got back from a smoke break and she looks at you and says…”Daddy. Why does Cinderella smell like Grandma?”

4. The Mommy Doesn’t Do It Like That Phase.
Although this may seem like a phase you will want to skip, trust me it isn’t.
Once one of your daughters decides that she wants to be exactly like her mother you are in luck.
At this point you can devote some of the brain power you had to parenting back to sports radio or something better.
The reason is because they will know everything you don’t.
Like where the vanilla extract is.
Where mom keeps the ziplock bags.
How many vegtables and fruits must accompany the pizza slice you give them when mommy is out at her Book Club (Wine Night).
They will let you know what time to pick up the kid at preschool.
They will own you.
And although this phase comes with it’s negatives like self doubt and proof of your spouses DNA being stronger than yours…
The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

5. The How Do I Raise A Girl? Phase
This phase never leaves.
But it also places you on your A game.
One bad move and she could end up working at The Cheetah instead of a better animal like Buffalos Wild Wings or DogHouse Grill.
We are dudes. We have penises and are self centered and play Xbox in our 30′s.
We know exactly what kind of man we want our daughters to end up with.
So if you are smart, you will quickly become that man.
And when you are not that man, let your little girl know so that they know we are human and are trying.
Tell them that they are beautiful on a daily basis.
Tell them in different ways not just with your words.
Paint them a picture.
Write them a love letter.
And never stop holding them.
Even when they get boobs and stuff.

They will always see themselves as your little girls and you will always be the King of the Castle.
Even when that 15 year old guy is staring at their 14 year old body.
There will always be room for you as long as you keep the pursuit of their heart above the pursuit of your heart.

So guys.
Don’t fret at the thought of panties and pretty.
They wrestle just as hard as the boys do.
And their kick to the face as you are suplexing them on the bed hurts just as good.

And the main reason why is… boys are just easier and we are already lazy enough.
It’s better that way.

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!

blogging break - am i back?

i've been on a blogging break lately. AND IT'S KILLING ME!

i'm dying to write again.

it's just been one of those seasons where i simply haven't had time to write.

so, i've known i was on a blogging break. i just haven't had time to tell you all.

i still have TONS to write about & i love writing. i just haven't been able to.

now i'm on a glorious vacation. doing absolutely nothing but REST on a beautiful island with my beautiful family.

writing/blogging is a hobby. something i love to do for fun. so i have a feeling after a few days of resting on the beach i may be itching to write so bad that i pump out a ton of blogs these next 2 weeks.

that's "the dream", right? to have a house on the beach you go away to so you can write all your books while overlooking the ocean. :)

we'll see.
but if i don't feel like writing i won't. if i do feel like writing, i will.
simple as that. it's my theology of sabbath & vacation.

after not writing significantly for 2 months... i have a feeling i won't be able to hold it inside. hopefully some good stuff coming back to renown soon.

for now, i'ma see if i can't read all of the NT in this new translation called The Voice.

The Left Would've Attacked Any Republican VP This Way

I can hear it now, primarily from wimpy moderate Republicans, bemoaning how Governor Mitt Romney picked a "lightening rod" like Paul Ryan for his running mate. I'm hear to give you a newsflash, friends: The Left would've attacked ANY Republican this way! It's what they do.

Don't believe me? Remember how the Drive-By Media treated John McCain BEFORE he was the Republican nominee? He was their favorite Republican, on account of what a wimp he was on many important issues. They loved the McCain-Feingold Law and it's restriction of Freedom of Speech.  Then he became the Republican nominee, specifically running against the Drive-By Media darling and liberal "Messiah" Barack Obama. They ramped up the same laundry list of attacks they always pull out. 

The reality is the Left has no new ideas. It's always some form of "The Republicans are mean spirited! The Republicans want old people to die! The Republicans want to take away your XYZ!"

The only advantage the selection of Paul Ryan gave the Left was about a ten minute head start. That's it. Fact of the matter is Governor Romney could've picked Santa Claus and liberals would similarly bemoan the choice. I can hear it now:

"The Romney/Claus ticket is biased against non-Christians!"  (Because, remember, atheist liberals are laboring under the ridiculous impression that Santa has anything to do with Christianity for some reason. Don't look for logic. They're liberals.) 

Bottom line: Mitt made a good choice. Don't let panic set in.  In fact, be excited! Governor Romney made a bold choice to actually be strongly conservative!  He didn't chicken out as I feared he would!  Remember back in July when we talked about the running mate potentials (The Good, the Bad and the Wild Cards)? He actually picked someone from the Good List!

As far as attack ads? Well, the Left would've done this anyway, whether we picked a wimp or a solid conservative. So be glad we now have a solid conservative.

Romney Knocks It Out of the Park with VP Pick

Paul Ryan.  Bam!  With one fowl swoop, Governor Romney picked the perfect running mate.

Now I know the Obama people and their willing counterparts in the Drive-By Media are going to act like they’re thrilled with the pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate. They’re going to say that this is a gift to Obama.  They’re going to act super confident. But here’s the reality of what was said by the campaign behind the scenes:

News Report: Mitt Romney announces Paul Ryan as his running mate!
Obama Campaign: Crap! Double crap!  Crap crap crap crap! Crapapalooza!
You know WHY the Obama campaign is genuinely concerned, no matter what they tell you publicly? It’s simple. Mitt refused to pick a wimp. The Drive-By Media would’ve called a pick like a Rob Portman “serious.” Rest assured, friends, when the liberal media calls a candidate “serious” they mean “wimpy moderate.” They called Jon Huntsman a serious Presidential candidate, remember?
Governor Romney showed with the pick of Paul Ryan that he wasn’t going to run a pastel campaign. He picked the man whose budget plan sent the Left into spins of ridiculousness in rhetoric that was last rivaled only by their panicky ridiculousness when Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America passed Welfare Reform.  At that point the cuts were “draconian” and the Republicans were “mean spirited.” With Paul Ryan, the Left started claiming that the Ryan Plan, quite literally, wanted to “push Grandma off a cliff.”
Friends, when the Left gets ridiculous, you know you’ve hit a nerve. You know you’ve upset them. You know you’ve hit a nerve and really, really worried the Left when they start to pull out cartoonish bumper sticker slogans. It’s because liberal Democrat’s ability to hold on to power is entirely predicated on one thing: buying the votes of one group of people with someone else’s money, either taxed or borrowed.  It was modern liberalism that changed the focus on taking care of “taxpayers” to taking care of “voters.” Specifically, liberals take money from taxpayers to give different government services (some genuinely needed, most not needed) to “voters” who don’t pay taxes.  If we ever get our finances really in order for good, then their jig is up. (And for the record, the reforms of the 90s were not from President Clinton. Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, into those reforms. Then he took credit for it. Stupid reality always goes against liberal talking points.)
Paul Ryan scares the living crap out of the Left.  He’s intelligent and articulate. He’s got a real plan that will work that includes real, reforms that aren’t “draconian” or “mean spirited.” They’re just logical reforms to preserve Medicare and Social Security and balance the budget.  This is the man who is about to be our Vice President, friends.
This is the precise sort of pick Governor Romney needed to make. He’s a strong conservative who can effectively communicate conservatism. He’ll take it to Obama and his record of abject failure. He’s also, as conservative commentator S.E. Cupp noted on Twitter, is the only pick that would make both the conservative base and the Republican establishment happy. The guy who is officially the next in line politically is the exact type of person we need.
Friends, trust me when I say, no matter how much the Obama campaign pretends they are happy about the pick of Paul Ryan, they aren’t happy. Not one bit. Bottom line: Mitt Romney knocked it out of the park by picking Paul Ryan. Game so very on!

Obama Super-PAC Ad Shows How Little the Left "Understands" Business

In yesterday's blog, we discussed the ad that the Obama Super-PAC put out entitled "Understands," specifically how the ad was completely packed with lies. Today, I want to examine something else important about the ad: It shows how ridiculous the liberal mentality is about employment and business.

Buried deep within the ad is a liberal mentality: People are OWED a job and OWED health insurace from their employer, and if you lay off an employee due to perfectly legitimate business reasons, you are denying that person the paycheck they are owed just for breathing and denying them health insurance they are owed just because they work for you which they are owed because they are breathing.

Friends, as I stated repeatedly, I am not without sympathy. I am very sorry Mr. Joe Soptic's wife Ranae died of cancer. I really do feel bad. However, to blame Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, or pretty much anything besides CANCER is absolute ridiculous.

Just as importantly, this attitude that Bain Capital failed Mr. Soptic by laying him off in any way is absolute baloney. Here's how employment works, for you liberals out there: A business starts producing a product that people either need or desire that they can sell for more than it costs them to produce. Business is going well, so now they have more demand for the products they sell than they can keep up with...so they hire more people! So a job is created! The employer then finds a person they want to hire. They agree to a contract. The contract is this: The employee sells his labor to the employer. This labor can be purchased in currencies that include both monetary compensation and other benefits. One of the most popular benefits is Health Insurance. 

This contract can be terminated by either party, pretty much at any time. The employee can decide they want to go sell their labor to another company at any time. The employer can also terminate the employment, whether it be because the employee is not fulfilling his end of the contract or because the employer no longer needs to purchase labor because the demand for the product has dropped. That, my friends, is known as LIFE.

But liberals like Mr. Soptic believe he was OWED a job and health insurance.  Honestly, that's the only reason you could legitimately blame Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for a woman dying of cancer; theoretically due to lack of insurance; is if you believed Bain or Romney OWED Mr. Soptic a job. And frankly, friends, that's just not how life works.

In addition Being in Poor Taste, "Understands" Ad is Packed with Lies

For the record, this is not an Obama campaign ad, it's a Super-PAC ad.

The commercial, entitled "Understands" includes a man named Joe Soptic, worked for a company that was bought by Bain Capital and ultimately lead to the man being laid off, losing his health insurance. Shortly thereafter, at least according to the ad, his wife Ranae was diagnosed with advanced cancer and died. The insinuation of the ad is that Mitt Romney is somehow responsible for the death of this woman because his company had to lay off this man which caused him to lose his health insurance and therefore they couldn't afford proper medical care.

This ad is in INCREDIBLY poor taste. First and foremost, one cannot blame an employer for daring to lay off an employee due to business reasons for a medical condition that the employer did nothing to cause. Furthermore, Mitt Romney WASN'T RUNNING BAIN when this happened, so even if you bought the baloney chain of causation argument, you STILL couldn't pin it on Mitt with an ounce of truth.

There are more huge lies of ommission in this ad, as well. According to the liberal Washington Post's fact-check page:

In the ad, Soptic says: “When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare, and my family lost their healthcare. And a short time after that my wife became ill.”
The operative phrase is “short time.” The plant closed down in 2001. Politico first reported that Ranae Soptic died in 2006—five years later.

Wait just one darn minute...you're telling me she died FIVE YEARS after the plant was shut down? And what, pray tell, was Mr. Soptic doing for five years? For that matter, was Mrs. Soptic possibly working and insured?

Well, as a matter of fact, she was, according to the above Washington Post fact-check page:

CNN reported that, from speaking with Soptic, it had learned that his wife had continued to have her own insurance after the plant was shut down. She later lost the coverage in 2002 or 2003 when she left her own job because of an injury.

So wait a minute...Mr. Soptic losing his job DIDN'T cost Mrs. Soptic HER insurance?  She had her own for another 1-2 years?  So Mrs. Soptic wasn't even covered by her husband's insurance in the first place?

Bottom line is this, friends: Even the liberal Washington Post gave this ad Four Pinocchios. What does that mean? Well according to the Washington Post Fact Check Page's explanation of their ratings:

One Pinocchio:  Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios:  Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios:
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios:  Whoppers.
(That would be outright and complete lies, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL. Also a hamburger served at your local Burger King.)

So basically even the Liberal Washington Post is pointing out that this article is laced with blatantly false conclusions that attempt to paint Governor Romney as somehow culpable in the death of Mrs. Soptic. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't back it up.

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.

Letter Bag: Government's Job Isn't to Create "Fairness"

Recently, I received the following comment on the post "Understanding Infrastructure in Government Of, By and For the People."

He paid more money because he makes more money. I don't get your point. We all pay our share of taxes. Unfortunately, the wealthy pay less in proportion to their income than the middle class and that is not fair. - Anonymous (Henceforth referred to as Trogdor - you might want to google it before reading on so you get a lot of my included jokes.)

Dear Trogdor:

Your entire comment is illogical on two fronts. Let's start with the obvious one: Despite what you're being spoon fed on MSNBC or CNN or whatever Drive-By Media source you're regurgitating, it turns out the wealthy pay more in taxes both proportionally and in terms of dollars than those with less.

You see, Troggy, we have a progressive income tax system. Those in the top tax bracket pay 35% of their income in taxes, while those in the bottom bracket pay 10%.  There are also three additional brackets in the middle. Each one has an income level associated. The more money you make, the higher percentage of taxes you pay. Furthermore, the top 1% of wage earners pay 35% of all taxes, so they are paying a significantly larger percentage of the burden than their proportion of the population.

Then we come to your statement about what's "fair." By your logic, the government should take money it doesn't need just to make life "fair."

Now I'm not sure where your Mommy and Daddy were when they were supposed to be teaching you these things, Troggy, so I guess I'll step in.  (I assume they were out burnanating something.)  Please pay attention: LIFE ISN'T FAIR.  Moreover, it isn't the government's job to ensure some arbitrary definition of "fairness." It's job is to a) protect our God-given rights from all threats to our liberty, both domestic and foreign and b) For THE PEOPLE to co-op together to handle services we all need like roads and police departments (the latter falls under "a" as well).

Despite what President Obama wants you to believe, that wealthy person with a business pays significantly more in taxes toward that infrastructure. Furthermore, a business person does not use those roads and other infrastructure to even a relatively proportional degree more than the average consumer. Sorry to keep bursting your liberal bubble, Trogdor, but roads don't actually incur more wear and tear when a business vehicle uses it over a regular consumer vehicle. And while you can argue that a business vehicle is on the road more than the consumer vehicle, I'd like to once again repeat: THE BUSINESS OWNER PAYS MORE IN TAXES!

I know, I know, I'm asking you to think about taxes instead of buying a bumper sticker slogan that sounds smart, Trogdor, instead of just repeating an Obama catchphrase that validates confiscating money from those who have earned it and giving it to you in the form of free goodies. But you see, it's no more just to burninate the money of the wealthy as it is to burninate the money of the peasants.

3 kinds of influence

yesterday i was thinking driving in the car. (about the only chance i ever have to think anymore.)

i was thinking about leadership and influence. more specifically i was thinking about WHY people get stuff done/do stuff for other people. like at a job... WHY does an employee do something for their boss. OR even another peer leader within the organization.

or really why does anyone do anything for anyone else.


we influence other peeps to do stuff for us.

but there seems to be to be 3 different kinds of influence. (i bet there are more than 3. this is just as far as my thought got as long as my drive was to the next place.)

influence #1 - FEAR. fear of something negative happening if you don't do whatever the boss or whoever wants you to do. Fear that you will lose your job if you don't do it. or fear that the other person will be mad. fear that if you don't do what they want you to do then they will nag you to death until you do it. fear that if you don't do what they need/want then they can make life miserable for you.

yeah, i guess this is a kind of influence right? you do something for someone because you are worried about the outcome if you don't.

influence #2 - LIKE. i do stuff for people because i just straight up like them. i believe in them or what they're doing or i'm just bought in to who they are. could still be a boss or peer or just someone you know. if you like them they have won influence with you. so when they ask you to do something you do it because you like who they are. they have won you over so you are in.

influence #3 - NONE. it feels like a lot of leaders get stuck here. they want #2 but they don't quite make it. they reject #1 because they feel like those peeps are jerks and they want #2 but they get lost and flounder somewhere in the middle.
these are the leaders and bosses who try to be nice, so they don't influence peeps to do stuff just out of fear... but they don't quite win anyone over either.
no one fears them and everyone likes them well enough... just OK. but not enough to bend over backwards for them and do what they ask.

#1 influencers get people to do stuff because they wear people down or scare them into doing it.
#2 influencers get people to do stuff because people love them.

but the #3 people... don't really get anyone to ever do anything for them. these kind of leaders can't get anything done in the organization. it almost seems like they would be better off to go ahead and be jerks and lead with fear than to flounder in the middle.

of course nobody wants to stay around those people for very long.

obviously #2 is where it's at. win people over to who you are. be someone they can believe in. be someone they want to "do stuff for".

seems like that's the only real kind of influence.