Category Archives: Conservative Philosophy

Billy Graham Endorses Biblical Values

The Reverend Billy Graham is encouraging us to vote based on biblical values.  Rev. Graham placed ads in the Wall Street Journal and Ohio newspapers this week launching a national advertising campaign.

“We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake,” Graham said in the ad. “I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms.”

“The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial,” he continues. “As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”

The campaign comes on the heels of a supportive meeting with Mitt Romney. Romney’s Mormon religion has been seen by Evangelical Christians as a cult and not a true Christian religion.  Last week the GEA website removed Mormonism from their list of cults paving the way for an evolved relationship.

While not a direct endorsement of Mitt Romney Billy Graham’s statements are reflective of a growing concern of the leftist policies promoted by the Obama administration.

For more information or to print your own posters visit the Billy Graham website.

 

Chris Matthews: Conservatives are Haters

Chris Matthew Host of Hardball
Photo courtesy Wikimedia

Following the debate last night Chris Matthews quickly grabbed the race card from his pocket. According to the host of Hardball, those against an Obama second term are racist Southern right-wingers who hate President Obama more than al-Qaeda.

Is this a sign of desperation by a news station that put all its eggs into the Obama basket and his loss will leave them with nothing? Perhaps.

Remember the ‘reporter’ who felt a thrill up his leg when Obama spoke? Can it be that this hero worship blinded Matthews so much that he can’t see the policies and failures of this administration?

Or is this a grasping at straws argument geared toward inciting the left base into action? By calling conservatives racists is this an effort to improve the vote numbers by the minority population?

Maybe all of the above are true.

It is an insult to say that if I disagree with President Obama then I must be racist; that I might have some concocted hate filled agenda that to promote.

Isn’t it entirely more likely that conservatives will be voting with a true concern for the continued faltering economy complete with malaise and despair this country is currently in?

Watch the clip for yourself…the text is below.

 

Chris Matthews speaking about conservatives, “Well, I think they’re more political than either you or I. I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al-Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the south about looking at these numbers we’ve been getting the last couple days, about racial hatred, in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even to the left on some issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”

“Romney went in there tonight with 16 ounce gloves. He didn’t want to look too ferocious, he just wanted to win. And the way he wanted to win was not making himself into the right-winger that the right wing that’s supporting him really are.”

Should We Give Planned Parenthood Taxpayer Funds?

A few friends were talking the other day about Planned Parenthood. For a few minutes please set aside the abortion issue and go through this with me.

Planned Parenthood, as a non-profit organization dedicated to reproductive health, receives money from the federal government that allows them to provide services for low income women.

Fair enough you say.

The government provides a lot of health care funds for those in need. As taxpayers we want to provide a safety net for those who cannot afford these services. But should we be using taxpayer funds at Planned Parenthood? Is this the best use of our money?

Of course, the hue and cry of feminists is the argument that Planned Parenthood is necessary because they do mammograms.

Yes, I heard that just this week.

The president said this very thing the other day while he was trying to push his war on women agenda.

Here’s the truth.

First…because I know you are thinking this. Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms. Instead they offer referrals for a free (or reduced cost) mammo to area clinics for women who need them.

And second, 70 % of Planned Parenthood customers are under age 25. Here’s a risk assessment of breast cancer from the National Cancer Institute in women by age.

  • Age 30 . . . . . . 0.44 percent (or 1 in 227)
  • Age 40 . . . . . . 1.47 percent (or 1 in 68)
  • Age 50 . . . . . . 2.38 percent (or 1 in 42)
  • Age 60 . . . . . . 3.56 percent (or 1 in 28)
  • Age 70 . . . . . . 3.82 percent (or 1 in 26)

In addition, the government Preventative Care Task Force recently offered an opinion to move preventative mammogram screenings to age 50. (Yes, I know this link is MSNBC…go figure.)

So.

The question becomes, how many referrals for mammograms are they actually writing at the Planned Parenthood clinics?

Okay. What else?

Look at the box below. Do you see how much money Planned Parenthood and its Political Action Committees spend on lobbying?

The following is just a short list of money spent by Planned Parenthood and one of its Political Action Committees to lobby for more funding and to campaign for president Obama and against candidate Romney.

Wow.

Isn’t that like a dog chasing its tail?  And where should an agency draw the line between lobbying and campaigning for (or against) a political candidate?

Wait a second.

Do the other agencies also lobby for additional money from the government? The answer in short, is yes. And here’s a whole website dedicated to health care lobbying rules.

Finally.

What do you think? I am all for women getting quality health care. I am pretty sure though that they need more than just PAP smears, birth control, STD treatment and mammograms referrals. Would general women’s health clinics be better suited for all?

It seems worrisome that the company is given all this federal money then turns around and uses a pretty large number of dollars (albeit the PAC funds are separately raise) to campaign and promote their agenda just so they can get a large number of dollars again. It seems in a time when our government is having to cut back programs and spending that perhaps an agency that already is very capable of raising money could manage just as well without taxpayer funds.

P.S.

I know. I said we were going to set the abortion aside.

But.

Planned Parenthood provides 330,000 abortions per year—25-30% of the total in the US.

That’s an awful lot.

Should a Child be used in Vulgar Hollywood Romney Attack Ad

Hollywood Actor Samuel L. Jackson uses Child in Vulgar Romney Attack Ad

When America as a nation is strong its leaders do not have to resort to distortion, distraction, deception, or vulgarity to convey the strength and integrity of the nation’s principles.  Yet, as the election winds down, and Mitt Romney gains political ground, Hollywood and its race baiting actors like Samuel L. Jackson are out pandering to liberals and minorities. Their transparent goal is to convince Obama followers to ignore the reality of President Obama’s economic failures and continuing foreign policy cover up.

The Obama campaign has resorted to using a child in a vulgar Hollywood Romney attack ad to encourage the president’s supporters to vote.  It is using a child uttering profanity in a Hollywood ad called “Wake the F**K UP”, to defend a failed presidency and incite Obama supporters.  Is this the hope and change Obama was referring to in April 2008, when he spoke of a “New America” in his hope and change speech.

It is no secret that Americans are suffering, and have 23 million out of work, underpaid or have given up looking for work.  It is no sudden revelation that upwards of 46 million Americans are on food stamps and the nation’s seniors will suffer from $716 billion being ripped from the budget to finance Obamacare.

The Obama White House refuses to explain to America how the administration has managed to leave the nation abysmally worse off than when it came into office.  Instead, the Obama campaign has decided to sink to an unimaginable low.  It uses a child and an actor to scare voters into accepting this type of low brow presidential incumbent tactics.

Is this how desperate a president will go to depart from the honor and dignity of a President Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Reagan?   Would any one of these presidents ever consider using an actor or a child muttering profanities to defend their record, their work, or their presidency? 

Yet, Obama and his campaign seem to feel quite comfortable at allowing Jackson to use his thug-like bulging eyed persona to inflame voters into action.  Somehow Jackson seems to feel that his well crafted movie hooligan behavior, which he perfected in movies like, Jungle Fever, Pulp Fiction, and Shaft, will encourage his minority audience and guilt-ridden white liberals to vote for Obama.  Jackson’s sham is based upon Obama supporters believing that he’s the real deal when it comes to knowing what’s good for minorities and Americans in general.

Well, if this Hollywood actor, whose own personal worth according to Celebrity Networth is in the neighborhood of $150 million, can feel your economic desperation and daily anguish, why does he hide behind a child?  Why does he need to use a young girl as his vehicle for defending Obama?

The answer is clear.  Liberals and Hollywood’s information-challenged aristocracy love to wield racism as a mallet against republicans.  Obama’s campaign embraces a time perfected Chicago-style smear and fear campaign approach, where using anything and anyone, even a child is permissible.

In fact Obama forecast his own 2012 campaign behavior in 2008, when he said, “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from…You make a big election about small things.”

So enter stage left, Hollywood’s thuggish acting Jackson, who has perfected the art of reading lines which are fed to him. Yet, he like his Hollywood liberal Obama supporters lacks the ability to think, to be critical, and to actually learn the facts.

Well, Jackson, your little foul mouth array of profanity will not sell your brand of racism to America.  Your crutch is based on distortion.  The fact that Obama and his Chicago handlers have no shame in using your brand of uncultured misrepresentation, speaks volumes about Obama and what he thinks of America’s values.

Well, here’s a message for Samuel L. Jackson, Madonna, George Clooney, Jay-Z & Beyonce, and all the others multi-millionaires in the Obama Hollywood stable.  America has woken up!

You have conveyed a warning to American parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and anyone who cares about a civilized society that refuses to submit to your vulgarity as the standard for the nation’s future.  America will tune out your brand of boorishness.  America will reject your vileness, because the nation and its children need real answers, real solutions and real leadership, not uncivil, craven infantile potty-mouth behavior.

Hollywood and liberals may believe in a Democrat Party that will deny God three times at the democrat convention.  But the majority of Americans embrace their faith, their God and their patriotic traditions.  Voters will not falter and hide behind a child to exercise their right to vote for a future free from dismal disappointment and vulgar ineptitude.

Move aside Samuel L. Jackson, stick to your fictional characters, and let the adults in the room work on solutions for this nation, without name-calling and thug-like behavior. 
Before you go into your polling place or send in your absentee ballot, ask yourself one important question.  Do you want your child or any child to represent the image the child in the Obama Hollywood attack ad portrays?  Be the adult in the room and show Samuel L. Jackson and Obama and his handlers to the door out, for misbehavior and conduct unbecoming of the office of the presidency. 

And yes, Samuel L. Jackson, this nation will survive your vile attempt to place a bump in the road to impede America’s decency.  Hollywood, America has woken up!

 

Let me know what you think ( Click )

 

 

 

 

Learn From The Past

Hungarian born businessman Thomas Peterffy grew up in a socialist country. He saw first hand what a government that rejects capitalism does to its people. Fortunately for Peterffy, he managed to immigrate to the United States to ‘live the American Dream.’ Like many Peterffy learned English, worked hard and built a successful life here.

Today Thomas Peterffy has invested a great deal of his personal money to create a television ad. Called “Freedom to Succeed” Peterffy shares what he saw growing up and his concerns for the America he loves. Often the very wealthy put money into supporting causes in which they believe. But more rare is it for a business tycoon to speak out from the heart.

From CNN: Peterffy is not alone in his fear of a socialist America. Some Republicans have launched vocal accusations against President Barack Obama for pushing what they call socialist policies. In part, they’re referring to Obama’s tax proposal that would ultimately raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of the country but maintain tax cuts for households making under $250,000 per year.

Obama and his re-election campaign argue they’re not attacking success, rather they have a different viewpoint on how to create success. At the debate last week, Obama repeated his signature line, saying he wants to make sure everyone is “getting a fair share, everybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.”

In the new ad, however, Peterffy says such policies lead to a “slippery slope.”

“It seems like people don’t learn from that past,” he says. “That’s why I’m voting Republican and putting this ad on television.”

Many today are too young to remember the downside of socialist policies. This one minute video is a good reminder.

A Good Samaritan VS The City

Are you familiar with NIMBY? It’s the ‘Not in My Back Yard’ syndrome that can affect us all. Residents will hear about a fantastic altruistic plan to help others and are all for it…until they see it will be across the street from them. Suddenly, NIMBY takes over as they try to gather neighbors in an effort to stop the activity.

The following news story is one such case. This one happens to be in my home town in Arizona. For the past seven years a Good Samaritan by the name of Millie has run a food bank of sorts in her front yard. Daily she stops at local grocers picking up donations. After all, what can you do with over ripe bananas? Eat them today or throw them away. The food collected by Millie is placed on shelves by the curb (frozen items in a portable freezer) with a sign inviting those in need to help themselves.  Sometimes up to 50 families a day would stop by to pick up the much needed staples.

But now the City of Glendale has decided that Millie broke the rules. Based on a complaint from one of the neighbors the city notified Millie that one cannot place display shelves in the front yard. A spokesperson from the City of Glendale’s Code Compliance Department said residents can’t leave furniture or appliances in public view or they will be cited. As a code compliance issue, she therefore was ordered to stop giving away the food.  However, as of this writing the city has not returned to issue a citation though Millie says this mission of hers is too important to stop and she plans on defying the orders.

In the video it is easy to hear and see the compassion of this Samaritan, helping others, because she strongly feels this is the right thing to do.

On a personal note: While this topic was being discussed on a local radio program a female caller identified herself as the one who initially complained. Her concern was that ‘strangers were coming onto her street’ and she did not feel it was safe. The show host asked if she had talked to Millie about the situation to which she seemed surprised, replying it wasn’t her place. But she just didn’t like having this happen ‘in her back yard.’ The host pressed further asking if it wouldn’t be the neighborly thing to do before calling the police but she had no answer. So instead of working together for a win-win situation the Good Samaritan now has been pushed into a battle with the city.

Could this issue have been prevented? Or should it even be allowed? What do you think?

 

A Friend of the Tea Party. Really?

“…Americans for Tax Reform, its leader is Grover Norquist. The more popular name…is the Tea Party.”

Grover Norquist’s name surfaced recently in a publicized discussion about Islamic Jihadists that have taken root in America. No, he isn’t a Tea Party activist but apparently he’s identifying his 1985-founded ATR group with them and some Tea Parties are falling for it. The quote refers to the pair as a “Trojan Horse.” [Excerpted from The Washington Times, September 29, 2012]

I suggest Grover Norquist is the only Trojan Horse and if anyone’s been ‘Trojan Horsed’ it’s been the Tea Party.

Main stream media cites Norquist as “a conservative lobbyist and activist…responsible more than anyone else for rewriting the dogma of the Republican Party.” Norquist has attributed his successes to Ronald Reagan and whatever similarities Norquists sees there must’ve been left at that door a long time ago.

Norquist’s subsequent and by now renown “Wednesday meetings” at ATR are said to be the “Grand Central station of the conservative movement,” a “must-attend event” for Conservatives who receive an invitation. Operative words being ‘who receive an invitation.’ Reportedly some Tea Parties have and do. Norquist being the successful mind to which so many extend accolades, obviously his ‘invitations’ to the Tea Party are not by happenstance.

The discussion’s records are convincingly well-documented. Its practical facts drew a very scary picture of radical Islamists that few Americans have taken time to recognize; and, particularly, of Grover Norquist and his ATR. These conclusions are drawn from those records and my independent research of them.

Until the early 1990s Norquist seemed to be on the right track and that’s what pole-vaulted him into the powerful acclaims of Conservative standing that he enjoys today. In 1993 Norquist used those successes through ATR to launch “Wednesday meetings.” That’s about when Norquist appears to start wielding power in less than desirable directions.

Indications of Norquist’s fall from the graces of ideological good can be noted by his involvement in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Today a number of Republican Congressmen, rightly so in my opinion, take other serious exceptions to the distasteful nature of Norquist’s political maneuverings.

Norquist’s Libertarian response to Republican concerns more closely mimicked Democrat demagoguing of self-interest than those of a respectable Conservative. Using the powerful influence and resources that, ironically, Conservatives bestowed on him, Norquist has threatened their Left media character-assassinations if he doesn’t get his way. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

In the 1990s Democrats and the Clinton-Gore administration saw the Muslim community as sources of funds and votes. They began an outreach program through which Islamic Jihadists saw easy entrée into various aspects of American government and, more importantly, into one political Party. What Jihadists probably didn’t expect was easy access to Conservatives through confidences that someone like Grover Norquist could afford them.

Relying on Norquist‘s Conservative clout the ATR “Wednesday meetings” became a means of introducing Conservatives and ‘trusted’ Islam Influence Operators to one another. Perhaps not surprisingly by 1998 Norquist had joined with Adbulrahman Alamoudi, an Islamic-adherent operative, to found the Islamic Institute (II) aka the Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation. In that same year Alamoudi was reported announcing:

“If we are outside this country, we can say, ‘Oh, Allah, destroy America.’”

Dare we ask, what were you thinking Grover? This appears symptomatic of Grover Norquist’s 1990’s about face.

Alamoudi was Clinton-Gore’s liaison, serving as their Goodwill Ambassador to the Muslim community. He’d also worked as an Advisor for the Clinton administration’s Middle East process and was subsequently delegated a variety of highly sensitive duties. One of those duties was placing Muslims – who‘d received little to no vetting – in positions within the U.S. military.

In 2000 Alamoudi spoke in Lafayette Square, Washington D.C., at an anti-Israel event sponsored by none other than Norquist’s ‘Islamic Institute’ front (among others) and announced amid cheers of the spirited crowd:

Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are ALL supporters of Hamas, Allahu Akbar! I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hizballah.”

Maybe Grover Norquist and his co-founder Alamoudi support Hamas & Hizballah Jihadists, but I doubt Americans looking to ATR for tax relief do. I’m confident the Tea Party doesn’t. I know I don’t.

Alamoudi came to be imprisoned on terrorism charges, admitting he gave $1-million to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Qeada. Alamoudi is connected with and/or directly assisted in developing a variety of other Jihadist  Influence Operations in America, see ‘short list’ at the end of this article.

It’s a given and perhaps wrongly so that the American People understand just what a critically serious threat the Muslim Brotherhood is to America. Sometimes I wonder given the absence of outcries against Muslim Brotherhood’s highly irregular number of visits to our White House during this administration.

The Trojan Horse is unloading. This ‘unloading’ period does have an expiration date. What then, if we do not give this necessary attentions now?

Norquist’s cofounder buddy, Alamoudi, created a particularly effective Muslim Brotherhood organization in 1990: The American Muslim Council (AMC) headquartered in Chicago. All 911 terrorists were reported members of the AMC with one of its groups cited as “the violent Wahhabi branch of Islam.” AMC spins-off into a variety of affiliations as all Muslim organizations seem to do.

For every new Jihadist lead recruit they appear to create another organization to fund him; and the same for their lead recruits and so on. They’ve implanted Sharia-adherent law firms and bank and financing arms. The pot of money thus radical Sharia-adherent influence spawned by these groups keeps compounding itself and all of the money goes to the workings of more infiltrating Jihadists. One can only speculate how much money comes from one form or another of the billions of dollars in Taxpayer funded “foreign aid.”

Reportedly in 2001 Norquist’s Alamoudi co-founder participated with 400 other top Jihadists in an International Terrorists’ strategy session in Beruit. According to Fox News:

“This meeting brought together the world’s most extreme Islamic terrorist groups to set aside their differences and unite for Jihad and against Israel and the United States.”

This hasn’t scratched the surface of Norquist & Alamoudi’s radical Islam connections and handiwork. Any Conservative worth their salt is cautioned about connecting themselves – or their Tea Party – with Grover Norquist and his ATR.

The only way to kill a cancer is to starve it. Watch activities in your area and government’s foreign aid spending; contact your Congressmen with your voices; and be sure – wherever you’re donating – your money doesn’t go to the wrong place for what you only think are the right reasons.

This is a short list of Norquist’s associations through his Alamoudi co-founder. The last is Suhail Khan, a comprehensive background to be separtely addressed. Look them up and be willing to read past initial link displays of innocent nursery rhyme propaganda that this administration has spent the last four years rewriting. All of these are said to have direct affiliation with radical Islamic-adherent Jihadists aka the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abdulrahman Alamoudi

  • Grover Norquist’s Co-Founder of Islamic Institute (II)
  • Founded American Muslim Council (AMC).

Sami al-Arian

  • Member American Muslim Council (AMC).
  • Formed National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms aka Defending Dissent Foundation
  • Board of Directors & Officer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
  • Abolished ‘Secret Evidence’ that Government could use against Terrorists.
  • Connected to Jeff Abramoff & Jamal Al-Barzinji

Khaled Saffuri

  • Long time Palestinian friend & collaborator of Almoudi.
  • Executive Director & President of Almoudi’s Islamic Institute.
  • Founder & Executive Director of ‘Muslim Council’ front group.
  • American Task Force for Bosnia (top Jihadist recruiting vehicle)

Janus-Meritt Strategies

  • Grover Norquist Law Firm
  • Represented Alamoudi 2000-2001
  • Later declared it represented Jamal Al-Barzinji.

Jamal Al-Barzinki

  • President of Muslims Student Association
  • Founder of North America Islamic Trust (NAIT)
  • Past Leader of Islamic Society of North America
  • Vice President of International Institute of Islamic Thought
  • Major Contributor to Dar al-Hijraj Mosque in Virginia

Islamic Institute

  • American for Tax Reform (ATR), Grover Norquist
  • General Council for Islamic Banks & Financial Institutions

Alamoudi’s Military Endorsement Agent

  • Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

Khaled Saffuri

  • First Executive Director of Islamic Institute (II)
  • President of Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation (FMIF)
  • Collaborated w/Almoudi on American Task Force for Bosnia

Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation

  • Held Series of Conferences beginning 2002
  • Institute Foundation International Islamic Finance Conference, Washington D.C.
  • General Council for Islamic Banks & Financial Institutions

Nihad Awad

  • Leader of Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
  • Executive Director of CAIR
  • Long Record of Service to Hamas
  • Muslim Community Leader under Saffuri/Alamoudi Team
  • Included on Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ Memorandum
  • Helped form Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
  • FBI wiretapped for involvement with The Palestine Committee

The Palestine Committee

  • Established by International Muslim Brotherhood Resolution
  • Attributed to “The Islamic Resistance Movement” by Federal Court
  • Evidenced in The Holy Land Foundation Trial.

Holy Land Foundation Trial

  • Shut Down for Funding Hamas Terrorism
  • Prosecutors Named CAIR as an Unindicted Co-Conspirator
  • CAIR, ISNA & NAIT upheld in appeal as Hamas Affiliates

Muzammil Siddiqi

  • Radical Imam
  • President & Current Director of Islamic Society of North America
  • Chaired North America Islamic Trust
  • Executive Council of The Fiqh Council of North America, an
  • Affiliate of the ISNA
  • Selected to hols 911 Service in Washington D.C. on Septemebr 14th

Suhail Khan

  • Former Staffer for Rep. Tom Campbell of California
  • Most Accomplished of Muslim Brotherhood’s Current Young Recurits
  • Inside the Highest Reaches of Government
  • His Success is Attributed to 14-year Association with Grover Norquist
  • To Be Continued …

And the beat goes on … stay tuned.

For background information and revealing videos about this issue go to my last article: Know Your Enemy & You Probably Don’t.

Credit for making sense of and for the bulk of information in this article goes to Frank Gaffney & Center for Security Policy.

 

I Thought Voter Fraud Didn’t Exist

Some on the political left have been rambling about how voter fraud isn’t an issue for months.  They say it’s a new poll tax.  It’ll disenfranchise voting, especially amongst those in the minority community who cannot obtain a government issued ID. Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post opined that “what did happen in 2008 was that African Americans, Hispanics and poor people — traditional Democratic Party constituencies — voted in unusually large numbers. And what happened in 2010 was that Republicans took control of more statehouses and set out to reshape the electorate and make it GOP-friendly.”  His column, which was published on September 24, claimed that:

Not coincidentally, this voter ID campaign has been particularly intense in swing states such as FloridaOhio and Pennsylvania. Invariably, advocates cloak the restrictive new measures in pious-sounding rhetoric about “the integrity of the voting process.” This sounds uncontroversial — who’s against integrity? — until you weigh the laws’ unconscionable costs against their undetectable benefits.

‘But you need an ID to do a lot of things, like board a plane,’ advocates say. Unlike commercial air travel, however, voting is a constitutionally protected right. To infringe or abridge that right — for no demonstrable reason — should be considered a crime against democracy.

[…]

Minorities, poor people and seniors are less likely than other Americans to have government-issued identification such as a driver’s license — and more likely, for various reasons, to have difficulty obtaining an acceptable ID. They might live far from the nearest motor vehicles department office, for example, and lack transportation. In the case of some older African Americans born in the South under Jim Crow segregation, they might not even have a proper birth certificate of the kind needed to obtain a driver’s license or state ID card.

For Hispanics, perhaps more important than voter ID laws are purges of the voter rolls — which are being conducted in some states, allegedly to make sure that non-citizens do not vote — and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

What could be more innocent, right? But proponents of these measures know that some naturalized citizens, who have every right to vote, will see such challenges as intimidating. The Advancement Project claims that up to 10 million Hispanics could be deterred from registering or voting, and while this is a very high estimate — the assumption appears to be that Hispanics, absent the intimidation, would be much more likely to vote than other groups — it seems clear that there will be some impact on participation.

Oooo spooky – those damn Republicans are out to suppress voter turnout – or maintain the legitimacy and integrity of our elections.  However, that hasn’t stopped some members in the liberal media from trying to use this issue to slam the GOP as racist.

David G. Savage of the LA Times wrote back in July about an elderly Philadelphia woman:

 Viviette Applewhite, who cast “her first vote [was] for President Franklin D. Roosevelt.”*  and [sued] the Commonwealth over its new voter ID law.  At no point in his story, however, did he mention Ms. Applewhite may be eligible to vote by absentee ballot.”

“[T]he outcome of the lawsuit could affect not just the voting rights of several hundred thousand Pennsylvanians but also who wins the presidential election,” Savage melodramatically insists. Applewhite’s “ record of faithfully voting for Democrats will be more difficult to maintain, thanks to a strict voter identification law adopted this year by Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled Legislature,” he added.

Applewhite is among more than 186,000 registered voters who lack a valid driver’s license in this heavily Democratic city. Many of them are minorities. And to vote in Pennsylvania in November, they will need to produce a government-issued ID or driver’s license. That could have national implications. Obama almost certainly needs to win in Pennsylvania to be reelected, and political analysts say the Democrat cannot win the state without piling up large margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the two cities where the new voter ID rule would hit the hardest.

However, according to Gateway Pundit, 9,000 dead people are still on the rolls in Dallas County.  Missouri has become a center of attention since the Todd Akin fiasco and to add to the controversy – the elections boafrd cannot purge those dead people less than 60 days before an election.

Dallas County could have as many as more than 9,000 dead people registered as voters, but the county’s election supervisor says they cannot be removed until after the November election.

Federal law forbids changing the voter roll within 60 days of a federal election, a deadline that has already passed, said Election Supervisor Toni Pippins-Poole.

Pippins-Poole said the Texas secretary of state did not provide the list of possible deceased voters from Social Security records until late August.

The election office must send a letter to each name on the list to be sure person is not alive. Pippins-Poole said the state did not allow her office enough time to complete the process.

Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Wade Emmert said it creates an opportunity for voter fraud.

If you think 9,000 dead people on the rolls is insignificant enough to influence an election, just look at Florida’s results from 2000.  Furthermore, James O’ Keefe has been exceptional in exposing how easy it is to commit voter fraud.  Erika Johnsen posted on Hot Air’s main blog September 10 about Wendy Rosen – who withdrew as the Democratic candidate in Maryland’s 1st congressional district due to voter fraud.

Wendy Rosen, a small-business owner running as a Democrat for Maryland’s 1st Congressional district, quit the race today after her party reported to state officials that she is currently registered for, and has recently participated in, the elections of both Maryland and Florida. WaPo reports:

“Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make,” Rosen said [in a statement.]

Rosen’s announcement came the same day the state Democratic party released a letter to state Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state prosecutors reporting the allegations against Rosen.

“The Maryland Democratic Party has discovered that Ms. Rosen has been registered to vote in both Florida and Maryland since at least 2006; that she in fact voted in the 2006 general election both in Florida and Maryland; and that she voted in the presidential preference primaries held in both Florida and Maryland in 2008,” wrote Yvette Lewis, the state party chair. “This information is based on an examination of the voter files from both states. We believe that this is a clear violation of Maryland law and urge the appropriate office to conduct a full investigation.”

Someone voting in two places at the same time – not a problem at all.

Why The Tea Party Matters

Tea Party principles are based on a belief in the U.S. Constitution.  Across America, a huge natural constituency exists for the bread-and-butter American issues of lower taxes, reduced government, a strong national defense, secure borders and a return to the traditional American values of: E Pluribus Unum, Liberty and in God we trust.

E Pluribus Unum means from many, one. It does not mean unquestioning acquiescence to multiculturalism and diversity.  Liberty means opportunity for all, not equality of results.  In God we trust means reliance upon the Creator of all things.  It does not mean passive acceptance of secularism, atheism or submissive surrender to “progressive” statist mandates.

The Tea Party movement began as a peaceful protest against big government, reckless government spending, high taxes and oppressive regulations. The Tea Party’s Contract From America expressed principles held by its members. The most basic being that “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.”

The principles of the Tea Party were clearly expressed in the Contract:  Protect the Constitution, reject Cap & Trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutionally limited government in Washington DC, end runaway government spending, defund, repeal and replace government-run health care, pass an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy, stop the pork, and stop the tax hikes.

The American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that We The People can govern ourselves.  By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God we are entitled, by virtue of our humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for ourselves.  These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a Constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.  This is a distinctly exceptional American idea.

These are the Tea Party’s principles, which today are largely viewed as being Conservative or “right wing”.  Adherence to these principles are shared by members of many political Parties, but rejected wholesale by the institutionalized “progressive” left movement, which has co-opted today’s Democratic Party.

If you are in the Tea Party, you believe in America.

If you believe in America, you belong in the Tea Party.

In an election where a decision will made between the American way of life and a nanny state “entitlement” society based on a European idea, the Tea Party Matters.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/why-the-tea-party-matters/

Should Cleveland Boy Scouts cave In to United Way gay rights agenda

United Way of Greater Cleveland strips Greater Cleveland Council of the Boy Scouts of America $97,251 funding

When President Obama decided to announce in May his embrace of gay marriage he opened the gate for his political sideline gay supporters and liberal like-minded non-profit funders to weed out organizations that support traditional family values. They zeroed their targets on the Boy Scouts, because of its refusal to cave in to the demands of liberals and gay activists to change their traditional values and biblically-based beliefs.

This was not unique for the organization to stand firm on its 100 plus year-old legacy. In fact it took a June 28th, 2000 “Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale” decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Boy Scouts of America’s right of freedom of association . The decision sanctioned the group’s right to set its own standards for both membership as well as leadership.

But with a wink and a nod from President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage in May of this year, the liberal gay activists were emboldened to decimate the Boy Scouts’ legal Supreme Court constitutionally supported rights. They moved with all deliberate speed to defund organizations, and set their eyes on Cleveland, Ohio’s 100 year old plus organization.

On Tuesday, September 25th, the United Way of Greater Cleveland notified the Greater Cleveland Council of the Boy Scouts of America (GCC) that their $97,251 funding was going to be stripped. This vindictive action would affect 16,000 youth that are served in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties in the Cleveland area, according to the GCC.

Not only that, but, this defunding would critically and adversely, affect the lives of 1,500 at risk low income children in the City of Cleveland, admitted Boy Scout program aide Wardell Cooper, to WKYC-TV News, on Tuesday, September 25th. Cooper, himself, has increased Boy Scout participation in his area of Cleveland from 9 scouts to dozens. That translates into dozens of kids with new hope, who are off of the street and involved in constructive community activities.

The overriding mandated objective of the gay rights agenda is crystal clear to parents of boy scouts and to their supporters. To receive funding, the organization must both abandon their moral principles and adopt the new liberal order or the funder will decimate the children’s future… constitution or no constitution. So there you have it, As of June 30th, 2013, the United Way of Greater Cleveland will eliminate and potentially decimate the opportunity of children, and especially those in many Cleveland urban neighborhoods.

Where are the civil rights advocates from the churches and from the neighborhoods and from the state or the nation who will fight for the children who were engaged in decent law abiding activities? Certainly no support will be forthcoming from the NAACP.

The NAACP has already been bought and sold and peddled their credibility down the river. This summer the organization’s 64-member board adopted a resolution to support gay marriage and tie it to rights guaranteed blacks by the 14th Amendment. So as one can see, the children do not have an advocate in an organization that has sold the children’s future out for 30 pieces of silver from Obama and his gay rights supporters.

But this is the time for parents and advocates of constitutionally protected freedom of association to stand firm! They have to support not only these young boy scouts, but all children who are being forced to subjugate their rights for a political morally challenged purpose.

Ignore the president’s abandonment of the rule of law. Ignore the wails and the ridicule of the LGBT side which seeks to openly delegitimize your embrace of America’s tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. This is one nation under God and not one nation under Obama!

Where do you draw the line for your family or your children’s future?

Do you draw it at the state border? Do you draw it at the city gate? Do you draw it at the neighborhood line? Do you draw it at your neighbor’s fence? Do you wait until your child no longer has a future? Founding father Benjamin Franklin said in 1759 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Your children deserve better!

Cleveland’s Boy Scouts are not the first nor will they be the last group to come under the steel jack boot of gay rightist assaults. This should not be a fight to discriminate, rather it is a fight to support founding principles, and not be bullied, threatened, assaulted and stripped of your selfhood.

The red line in the sand is in Cleveland, and it is in any and every town where United Way non-profit funders and their like organizations work to tear down America’s traditional values. When they move to defund a Boy Scouts group, move to defund the funders. Withdraw from their automatic payroll deduction fundraising drives. Examine their big money donors and withdraw your support for their businesses, organizations and services.

When tyranny from any corner of this nation rears its head, it must be met with resistance and not apology, with strength and not appeasement, and with moral discipline and not abdication. This nation’s future is based upon protecting America’s national treasure: its youth.

The Cleveland Boy Scouts and similar Boy Scout organizations around the nation do not need sympathy nor do they need empathy; they need your financial support to continue to assist their stand on principle.

You can support the Greater Cleveland Council of Boy Scouts of America by going to www.gccbsa.org or make checks payable to Greater Cleveland Council, BSA, at 2241 Woodland Ave, Cleveland, Ohio 44115.

This is not the end. Parents, you are the first line of defense for your children’s future. As President Abraham Lincoln said in his address to Congress, December 3, 1861, “The struggle of today is not altogether for today — it is for a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence, all the more firm and earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolved upon us.”

Do not let these current events control your children’s future. Join the struggle to insure that there is a tomorrow for your children!

Let me know what you think:  ( Click )

 

 

MSM Twits Distort a Tweet

Replacement ref throws up hands in disbelief. NFL rules a touchdown.

When reading MSM stories concerning the hypocrisy of Republicans or conservatives it is often difficult to decide whether the reporters are actively dishonest or just stupid.

An AP story by Scott Bauer and a Washington Post effort by Brad Plumer are prime examples. Both concern a tweet sent by Republican Gov. Scott Walker (R–WI) after the Green Bay Packers were robbed of their victory by a high school level replacement referee who was unable to distinguish between an interception and a touchdown.

Tuesday morning Walker tweeted, “After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs.” If you are a liberal journalist working for the Associated Press or the WaPost (I know that’s redundant) this is obviously an example of conservative hypocrisy.

The Post headline was: “Wisconsin governor fumbles on Twitter: Walker sees collective bargaining in a new light after the Packers’ loss.” The headline over the AP story was: “Union–busting Wis. governor calls for return of NFL’s union refs after call seals Packers loss.”

Both headlines reek of hypocrisy on Walker’s part and the Post even claimed a change of heart that existed only in the reporter’s fevered mind. But not all unions are alike, just as not all reporters are equally biased.

Both writers overlook the obvious fact that Walker’s fight in Wisconsin was against public employee unions and his tweet was about private sector unions. There is no hypocrisy involved in supporting one form of union and opposing the other.

Public employee unions are a conspiracy against the taxpayer. Union officials bargain with elected officials. The elected official wants union support in his next election. The union official simply wants more. They come to an agreement. The taxpayer, who picks up the tab, is not represented at the table. There are no market constraints on public employee unions. As long as taxes can be raised to cover salary, insurance and pension costs, the benefits keep rolling along.

This is not how it works in the private sector. Plumer attempts to graft the American Airlines’ labor dispute onto the Wisconsin controversy when he writes, “the referee feud is fairly representative of modern labor battles playing out in Wisconsin and elsewhere.”

This is simply false. Wisconsin labor disputes involved public employee unions and although flying American Airlines in many ways resembles a visit to the DMV, it is still a private sector entity with a private sector union.

Walker, as opposed to the two reporters, knows there’s a difference.

Another distinction is American Airlines declared bankruptcy because it could not survive in the private sector with the cost structure imposed on it by declining revenue and union contracts. Taxpayers and public employee unions are not involved.

The NFL referee’s union is obviously a private sector dispute being played out in public. And as a customer of the NFL and a supporter of the Packers, Walker is both intellectually consistent and within his rights to demand the NFL solve the problem by retuning the “real refs.”

Evidently this obvious distinction escaped the two “journalists” who thought they had a gotcha story.

On the other hand, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is the one with the political problem. He has manifestly failed and lost this strike. He has committed the cardinal firing offense for a business leader: being unprepared for a crisis he knew was coming, while debasing his product.

Goodell better hope he can keep 17 votes in his favor among the 32 NFL team owners. Otherwise he might be biggest casualty of this strike.

We’ve Been Robbed $2.8 Billion – By The AARP

Grey Dawn!

As polling shows, seniors and white Americans over the age of 65 generally don’t support PresidentObama or his health care reform bill.  They are appalled at the $716 billion in Medicare cuts, which will be used to expand coverage (and dependency) for lower income Americans – so why does the AARP support it?

Avik Roy, an advisor to the Romney campaign, penned a column in Forbes over the weekend detailing how AARP will gain almost $3 billion from Obamacare “according to an explosive new report from Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), [stating the] same Medicare cuts will give the AARP a windfall of $1 billion in insurance profits, and preserve another $1.8 billion that AARP already generates from its business interests.”

Roy explains that AARP “in 2011…generated $458 million in royalty fees from so-called “Medigap” plans, nearly twice the $266 million the lobby receives in membership dues.  Medigap plans are private insurance plans that seniors buy to cover the things that traditional, government-run Medicare doesn’t, like catastrophic coverage. Medigap plans also help seniors eliminate the co-pays and deductibles that are designed to restrain wasteful Medicare spending.”

However,  AARP blocked reforms for their insurance plans during the health care fiasco –which would have saved $415 per senior in premiums.  However, the organization fought incessantly to keep those reforms out of Obamacare because they receive a 4.95% royalty on every dollar a senior spends on Medigap.  The cost of reform would have been $1.8 billion over ten years.

Courtesy of Forbes

In another case of the dependency agenda at work, “not only did AARP succeed in getting Democrats to balk at Medigap reform. Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage will drive many seniors out of that program, and into traditional government-run Medicare, which will increase the number of people who need Medigap insurance.” Furthermore:

 …AARP Medigap plans are exempted from most of Obamacare’s best-known insurance mandates. AARP Medigap plans are exempted from the ban that requires insurers to take all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions. The plans are exempted from the $500,000 cap on insurance industry executive compensation; top AARP executives currently make more than $1 million. AARP plans are exempt from the premium tax levied on other private insurers. IPAB, Medicare’s rationing board, is explicitly barred from altering Medicare’s cost-sharing provisions, provisions that govern the existence of Medigap plans.

And AARP Medigap plans are allowed to have twice the administrative costs that other private insurers are allowed under Obamacare’s medical loss ratio regulations. This last point is key, because AARP’s 4.95 percent royalty is a significant administrative cost.

Democrats routinely excoriate private insurers for supposedly putting profits above people. “No American should ever spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies,” President Obama told the AARP yesterday. But the typical private insurer gets by on a profit margin of about 5 to 6 percent. AARP’s 4.95 percent royalty, on the other hand, doesn’t do anything to make a health plan operate more smoothly: it’s just pure profit for AARP.

Additionally, AARP – which is suppose to be an independent and non-partisan organization, was actively supporting Obamacare from the beginning.  Roy uses Kim Strassel of The Wall Street Journal and her 71 pages of emails  she uncovered to show that AARP worked on issues relating to seniors before it was “relevant” in the debate.  Strassel said the AARP had “long lambasted cuts in fees to Medicare doctors,” but, like the wind, reversed their position.  This is obviously a compromising position for the lobby – which is why a senior AARP official said they’ll “try to keep a little space between us [referring to the White House]…[our] polling shows we [AARP] are more influential when we are seen as independent, so we want to reinforce that positioning…The larger issue is how best to serve the cause’ of Obamacare.”

Yes, AARP had their little convention in New Orleans last week – whose audience booed Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan when he dared to utter the words “repeal” and “Obamacare.”  Roy aptly says this a “small wonder” since the AARP’s phone log reportedly had “seniors registered 50 to 1 against the law.” In all:

Obamacare…saved the AARP from $1.8 billion in Medigap reforms, while potentially earning the group an additional $1 billion in royalties from seniors who are forced out of Medicare Advantage. That’s a swing of $2.8 billion over ten years, all thanks to Obamacare.

[…]

It’s a testament to AARP’s political power—and our broken health-care system—that the lobby is allowed to carry on a half-billion-a-year business that’s based on increasing the premiums that seniors pay, and draining money from the taxpayers who get billed for wasteful Medicare spending. Sen. DeMint has done a public service by bringing these problems out into the open.

So, we’ve been robbed.  It’s wrong. It’s unjust. Although, that’s usually the case for any organization that has a conflict of interest operating in the public sphere.

Originally posted on Hot Air.

Keeping the Faith

Dukakis was up 17 points over Bush in ’88

It’s over! At least, that’s what the liberal pundits are saying 24/7. Romney is lagging behind in key states and since Barack Obama is awesome – this whole election is over.  In the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over, til’ it’s over.”  We’re 41 days away from Election Day and some on the right are convinced that the Romney campaign is being eaten away by aflesh-eating virus.

Better yet, being undercut by your own (or supposedly your own) team by being labeled “incompetent.” At least, that’s what Peggy Noonan wrote on her blog with The Wall Street Journal on September 18.  She implied that it’s time for an intervention a la A&E style.

It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. ‘Mitt, this isn’t working.’

She wrote a follow-up in her column on September 21.

How did we get here? What can turn it around?

1. Mr. Romney came out of the primaries ‘a damaged and flawed candidate.’ Voters began to see him as elitist, rich, out of touch. “Here the Democrats’ early advertising was crucial.” Newt Gingrich hurt too, with his attacks on Bain.

2. The Democrats defined Mr. Romney ‘before he had a chance to define himself.’ His campaign failed in ‘not doing a substantial positive media buy to explain who Mitt Romney is and what kind of president he might be.’

3. ‘Perceptions of the economy are improving.’ Unemployment is high, but the stock market has improved, bringing 401(k)s with it.

4. Obama’s approval ratings are up five to six points since last year. He is now at roughly 49% approval, comparable to where President Bush was in 2004.

5. ‘The president had a strong convention and Romney a weak one.’ The RNC failed ‘to relaunch a rebranded Romney and create momentum.’

6. Team Romney has been ‘reactive,’ partly because of the need for damage control, but it also failed to force the Obama campaign to react to its proposals and initiatives.

7. The ’47%’ comment didn’t help, but Mr. Romney’s Libya statement was a critical moment. Team Romney did not know ‘the most basic political tenet of a foreign crisis: when there is an international incident in which America is attacked, voters in this country will (at least in the short term) rally around the flag and the President. Always. It is stunning that Team Romney failed to recognize this.’

No wonder Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan said conservative punditry had an inherent whiney personality.  We’re never going to find the perfect candidate.  We just the one who is best to defeat Obama in November.  As such, Mitt Romney came out on top.  Some conservatives still need to make peace with this.  I was never on the Mitt Romney train wholeheartedly since Rick Perry was my number one choice – but he blew it and Romney destroyed his rivals.  The war is over.

Second, many feel that the 47% comments were wrong. I couldn’t disagree more.  For all the bellyaching over his robotic disposition, at least we caught Mitt articulating his true feelings about the entitlement mentality brewing in this country.  There was a scintilla of truth in what he said and it was within the confines of conservative principles.

Third, no one with sense believes that the stock market going back up above 13,000 is an accurate gauge on the stability of our economic situation.  We have almost 1/3 of all houses in this country in serious financial trouble concerning the financing of their mortgages – which is one of the largest impediments to our recovery.  We have 8% unemployment for over 40 consecutive months and the lowest labor participation rate in 31 years.

Concerning the Obama’s bounce in his approval ratings, it’s a different cycle.  It’s not 2004.  One thing Barack Obama did change  was the way Republicans were elected president.  George Will aptly said that the strategy used to be win the south, the Midwest, parts of the Pacific Northwest, and then spend the equivalent of the GNP of Brazil to win Ohio to be elected president. 2008 changed all of that.  Furthermore, unemployment wasn’t nearly as high in 2004 under Bush and his tax cuts created 8 million new jobs and 50 months of uninterrupted economic growth.

As for the weak convention, the Democrats defining Mitt, and Team Romney’s pervasive sluggishness – I blame the first two on the media coverage of this campaign, which, to no one’s surprise, is grossly skewed towards the president.  Team Romney has very smart people running his campaign; they just need to be more aggressive.  It’s time to take off the white gloves.  They can start by giving Paul Ryan a little more breathing room on the campaign trail.

Last week, on The Ed Morrissey Show, Ed had a rather prolonged and in-depth discussion about polls and detailed which ones were salient and which ones were worthless.  Liberals will use any poll giving Obama a lead to continue their sophomoric high school cheering concerning the outcome of this race.  Even, if the polls are D+13 and are based on 2008 voter turnout – which we know is not going to be duplicated this cycle.  Yesterday,Morrissey wrote that Politico reported that:

President Barack Obama has opened a national lead in a tight race that’s been static for much of the year.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll of likely voters finds little good news for Mitt Romney but a race that remains competitive.

Obama leads 50 percent to 47 percent, which is within the margin of error. His 50 percent job approval rating puts him at a crucial threshold for an incumbent seeking reelection. It’s an uptick from the spring and summer, but 48 percent still disapprove.

Romney, meanwhile, finds himself sliding in the wake of two events — the choice of his running mate and the Republican national convention — that were supposed to buoy his candidacy. His unfavorable rating ticked up from 46 percent to 49 percent over the past seven weeks, as the share viewing him favorably held steady at 46 percent. Personal likability boosts the president, who is viewed favorably by 53 percent.

Ed said the poll was “decent.”

The D/R/I is 34/31/33 without leaners, 43/40/15 with leaners.  That’s a defensible turnout model for the election; D+3 would be just about in the middle from 2008′s D+7 and 2010′s even turnout.

Otherwise, there are a few interesting points from the extensive internals published from the survey.  First, Romney is leading by 2 among independents, 46/44, which Obama won by 8 in 2008.  The gender gap favored Obama by 14 in his last election (+13 among women, +1 among men), but he’s down to a +4 in this poll; Romney wins men by 6, 51/45, while Obama wins women by 10, 53/43.  Romney wins married voters by 14 points, 55/41, and wins married women by five at 51/46, but trails among the single and divorced in both genders by wide margins.  Romney is doing better in McCain states from 2008 (60/37) than Obama is in states he won in 2008 (54/42).  Romney’s also winning ticket splitters by 10, 48/38.

Furthermore, Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster Morrissey used in his post, stated that:

All of this data make clear that Romney has won the strong support of middle-class families and is leading the president on an overwhelming majority of key measurements beyond just the ballot.  In fact, when respondents were asked who, Obama or Romney, would best handle a variety of issues, Romney led on all but one including the economy (+9 percent), foreign policy (+3 percent), spending (+15 percent), taxes (+7 percent), Medicare (+2 percent), and jobs (+10 percent).  Ironically, the one measurement Obama led Romney on was ‘standing up for the middle class’ (+8 Obama), reinforcing that often the Democrats win the message war with the middle class, but not their hearts and souls.

In all, it’s a dead heat.

Townhall’s Guy Benson reiterated this point in his post published yesterday as well.  Additionally, Benson reported that Purple Poll Strategies’s new poll, which gauges likely moderate and right of center voters, also backed up the claim that this race is still deadlocked.  Benson noted “the data largely confirms findings from USA Today/Gallup last week…look at some of the key numbers.”

 (1) Mitt Romney holds a very narrow one-point lead in Florida, at 48/47.  A new Miami Herald poll also shows the race tied, with Romney pulling even on the Medicare issue, and most Floridians saying they’re worse off than they were four years ago.

(2) The race is within the survey’s three-point margin of error in several states, including North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado.

(3) Obama is ahead by four points in Ohio, where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are set to begin a multi-stop bus tour this week.

(4) Romney’s favorability has taken a significant hit in recent weeks (now 14 points upside-down overall), a trend his campaign will have to reverse to pull of a victory.

(5) In all six of the poll’s highlighted states, President Obama’s job approval rating is underwater.  His disapproval rating is at 50 percent or higher in three of them.

(6) Obama has not hit the magic 50 percent threshold in any of these states, despite enjoying small leads in four of them.  The portion of voters who say they may still change their minds ranges from six to nine percent.

Lastly, he cited Pollster Jay Cost who wrote in the New York Post on September 23 that:

It’s only September. For political junkies, this statement makes little sense. They’ve been paying close attention to the campaign for months now, and are giddy over the fact that Election Day is quickly approaching. But political junkies don’t swing elections. In fact, something like 25 percent of voters make their voting decisions after September, and anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent will make their final choice in the last week.

This is why the polls have often swung wildly in the final weeks of a campaign. It’s how “Dewey defeated Truman” in 1948. It’s how a blowout Richard Nixon victory in 1968 turned into a squeaker. It’s how Gerald Ford closed a 10-point gap and actually had a lead in the final Gallup poll in 1976. It’s how a toss-up race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan finished with a GOP blowout in 1980. It’s how Bill Clinton went from being up 9 in mid-September, 1992 to a tie with George H.W. Bush by the end of October. It’s how George W. Bush went from being 10 points down in September 2000 to the 43rd president in January 2001. And it’s how the very same Bush “blew” the 11-point lead he enjoyed in late September 2004, defeating John Kerry by just 2 points.

In other words, September polls are extremely volatile. And this year’s volatility is compounded by the late date of the Democratic National Convention. It was, in fact, the latest party convention in US history. And when the polls are bouncing around a lot, the chances are much greater that they will disagree with one another — which is exactly what we’re seeing right now … So sit tight, politics fans: There’s plenty more to come.

Gallup has swing state voters in a dead heat as well – but it’s not gauged by likely voters, which is far more accurate.  Yesterday’s ”Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll… show[ed] President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.”

Dead Heat.

 

Granted, there are other factors that could derail us.  Ronald Brownstein of The National Journal wrote on September 21 that Romney’s primary decisions have come back to haunt him.

Romney’s inability to dent Obama’s support among Hispanics (or other minorities) means the GOP nominee probably can’t win without attracting at least 61 percent of white voters. Yet a second early decision has greatly compounded that challenge. Through the primaries, Romney embraced an unreservedly conservative social agenda (such as defunding Planned Parenthood and allowing employers to deny contraception coverage in health insurance plans), especially after Santorum emerged as his principal rival. That positioning helps explain why polls consistently show Obama drawing a majority of college-educated white women—not only the most socially liberal sector of the white electorate but also the fastest-growing. If Obama can hold a majority of those women and match his 80 percent with all minorities in 2008, Romney would have to carry two-thirds of all other whites to win—as much as Ronald Reagan won among those remaining voters in his 1984 landslide.

Now, that’s an obstacle.  Nevertheless,  these polls are a good indicator that the 47% remarks weren’t a catastrophic gaffe a la Todd Akin or Minister Samuel Burchard.  The latter of which cost Republicans the Catholic vote for 100 years after the election of 1884 for his brash remarks about the Democratic Party.  Burchard’s responsible for labeling them the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”  Grover Cleveland consequently won the election.

However, gaffes won’t be Romney’s downfall.  It now all rests with the debates – which isn’t Romney’s handicap in this race.  Stay the course, keep the faith, and have confidence in our ideals.  Gov. Michael Dukakis left the Democratic Convention in 1988 with 17 points ahead of George H.W. Bush.  In the end, Dukakis – the tank man – only won ten states and lost the popular vote by 8.  We –  on the right – need to stop overestimating the threat.  As Hugh Hewitt remarked at RightOnline in Vegas last June, the left is”Papier-mâché.” Press them hard enough and they’ll inevitably fall apart.

Obama Embraces Keeping Blacks Stuck on the Democrat Plantation

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized.

Hate, fear and smear!! “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”Feb 23, 2008

This is the legacy of the Democrat party and one which President Obama embraces and actually appears to relish. He is quite familiar with the hate, fear and smear art form practiced by his fellow democratic leaders. He uses it with adept frequency. The president flies into crucial swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia with his practiced hanging drawl. He then enchants the black locals with notions of sugar plum government programs that will make their life better, if they give him the same chance they did in 2008.

This is done with no reflection upon their own increasing misery index which just happens to coincide with Obama’s increased abandonment of any job, education, or community safety-net promises made. Instead, it is only through continued black misery indexing upward can Obama and democrats continue their titanium plantation grip upon over 90 percent of America’s black electorate.

Where’s the beef? Where are the jobs?

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized. Republicans are that target group, which unions, democrat community organizers like Obama, and democrat political machine leaders have made their primary election year goal.

Of course with the compliance of the NAACP, as their contracted plantation house servant, the nefarious and typically highly emotionally charged negative rhetoric rings off of church and community center walls every election season. But what are universally missing are the facts of Republican misdeeds. Emotional sing song rhyming rhetoric is the bait democrat plantation leaders ply to submerge common sense or biblical principles and values learned in the church.

President Obama not only knows this but he is absolutely banking on black mothers and fathers, grandparents and families to not look under the sheets and discover they have been hoodwinked and short-sheeted by Obama and the democrat plantation care takers. To borrow from Obama’s own 2008 words which blacks on the democrat political plantation would do well to remember, “Instead, they’re betting on amnesia. That’s what they’re counting on. They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you.

This is what Obama said to blacks in 2008 about Republican, but look at the facts, and see how the bamboozle practices applies to the plantation democrat caretakers.
First, joblessness in the black community has skyrocketed from 12.1 percent during the last month of the Bush presidency, to as high as 16.3 percent according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July it was reported that black families were hit hardest by unemployment. The rate increased from 13.6% in May to 14.4% in June. In fact, mainstream and black media artfully avoided holding Obama’s hope and change feet to the fire for the abysmal unemployment rate increase of 39.3%, up from 36.5% in June, among black youth 16-to 19.

Instead, Obama and the plantation overseeing democrats came into Ohio and other crucial battleground states diverting attention away from murder rates in Chicago, escalating joblessness in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio and hopelessness in Detroit, and the increasing black poverty 20 percent rate in Virginia from 2010.

Black Americans have to truly take a serious look at themselves, and come to the realization that this nonsensical embrace of plantation charlatan practices by Obama and the democrats is a death sentence for their children’s future.

Think about this, as blacks, you have been told to discard their own misery index which continues to shackle the hopes and dreams of your family. Instead you are spun a myth with no facts. If one were to ask a black democrat plantation resident, what is wrong with a Romney or President Bush, or even a President Reagan or President Nixon, they cannot give one specific fact-based reason. The only practiced response uttered is “They… said he or they hate blacks!”

Did Republican President Lincoln hate blacks when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free black slaves? Did Republican President Eisenhower hate blacks when he sent federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the lives of young black school children or support civil rights bills? Did Republican President Nixon hate blacks when he supported and promoted funding for historically African American colleges, minority-owned businesses, and supporting ill-advised affirmative action programs?

So where is this disconnect in the black community coming from? Why the hate, fear and smear campaigns against republican presidents and candidates?

Democrats truly believe that black people should be handled as if they are less capable of getting voting identification than whites. The democrats believe that blacks would rather listen to emotional fictional tripe from Obama’s cleverly crafted Chicago campaign message makers. Democrats want blacks to ignore their personal pain and anguish that the facts bear out. Democrats want blacks to subdue their misery index; while the outcome of Obama’s failing policies have cost them their homes, their jobs and their children’s future.

Getting free of the chains of the Democrat’s plantation politics is crucial. Instead blacks must reject the withering racial divisiveness of Biden and Obama, and seek solace in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s vision to not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. They must head towards and not away from King’s devotion to a new national colorblind heritage.

So before Blacks walk into that voting booth or fill out that absentee ballot, they have to have to ask themselves one crucial question. Are you willing to trade continued enslavement of democrat plantation politics for a chance to own your own destiny as an American in a colorblind nation?

On November 6th, what destiny are blacks willing to choose? Will the choice be one of freedom, or one where their freedom and their destiny are planned, government funded, and government determined for them?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stressed, “Man is man because he is free to operate within a framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives.” Blacks should not let the democrats racial divisive plantation politics determine their destiny.

Reject hate, fear and smear. “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”

The decision is yours as to which dream and future you are willing to risk!

 

Let me know what you think: http://tinyurl.com/8kyw39s

« Older Entries Recent Entries »