Sunday, September 30, 2012

Dallas Morning News Endorses Romney for President

The Dallas Morning News has endorsed Romney for president, and describes in detail why they do.

Some of their salient comments:
Obama’s Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nation’s problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.

We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency — a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt — Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights.

For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.

We see evidence of Obama’s shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters’ patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for “the mess he left behind.”

Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama.
Read it here.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Damn the Polls, Full Speed Ahead!

During the Civil War, some American admiral was warned of torpedoes threatening his Navy ship.  (Torpedoes in the Civil War are what we call mines today.) He reportedly said, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"  (Since he was a damn Yankee, I won't identify him.)

Today the appropriate statement for Republicans is "Damn the polls, full speed ahead!"

Now we are nearing the end of the 2012 presidential campaign and the polls are against us.  There is much evidence that the polls cannot be believed, that they are false, that they are deliberately misstated to depress the Republican vote.  However, we cannot assume that this is true.  We have to have a huge turnout of our voters. We have to show up at the polls and vote!

My belief is that we have a very good chance of winning this election.  William L. Gensert at American Thinker believes this too -- see his post, "It's Over."  (The title is a bit of justified sarcasm.)

Who will win the presidential election of 2012?  We won't know for sure until early in the morning of November 7th, the day after the vote.

After that, it is what it is and there is no use worrying about it.

Friday, September 28, 2012

"The Vision of the Anointed" and Other Stogie Stuff

The Vision of the Anointed
Upon R.S. McCain's advice to readers, I just purchased the PC Kindle version of Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed."  It looks to be a fascinating book, a peak into the assumptions and premises of liberal thought.

Sowell explains how liberals see themselves -- as morally superior and more intelligent than anyone else.  This is why they have such disdain for conservatives, assuming as they do, that their thought patterns and beliefs are the evolutionary apex of thought, analysis and understanding of the world around them.  Working under the assumption that they are just so damned smart, informed and knowledgeable, liberals automatically assume that those with different opinions are neanderthals, rednecks, pickup-driving oafs in tank tops and baseball hats.

I am looking forward to reading this book.

New iPhone 5
Yep, I got one.  This week I retired my four year old iPhone 3 for the iPhone 5.  I am not one of those cell phone aficionados who must have all the latest tweaks, gadgets and features.  However, it was time for a newer phone.  Haven't checked out all the features, but I do like the built-in digital camera (8 megapixels -- that's about as good as my actual digital camera).  Also like the apps available -- I use as well as a bank gadget for making deposits by iPhone, and recently added a couple of apps for Spanish language study -- dictionaries and a verb conjugator.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

C'mon, GOP, Let's Suppress the Vote! (Of dead people, felons and non-citizens)

The GOP has been trying to enact voter identification laws in various states.  The Democrats scream foul and accuse Republicans of trying to "suppress the vote."  They are partially correct:  we are trying to suppress the vote of dead people, felons and those lacking US citizenship.

The truth is that Democrats oppose voter I.D. laws because vote fraud has aided them so much in the past.  Remember those ACORN workers who were registering the same voters several times?  Not to mention the registration of dead people.  Naive fool that I am, I concluded that these registrations were made so the Democrats could steal elections via voter fraud.

Democrats claim that voter fraud is few and far between.  However, the idiot Al Franken won his senate seat in Minnesota through the votes of felons, who are legally ineligible to vote.  177 of these illegal voters have been convicted of vote fraud, with another 66 awaiting trial.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has a post today entitled "7 Examples That Show Voter Fraud is a Huge Problem."  Read it here, and stop taking flak from Democrats who want to preserve their tradition of stealing elections.

Here are some more examples:


Also see a commenter Glen Matlock's list of voter fraud examples at this leftist website for San Francisco Guardian, where he smashed the article's contention that no Acorn-related vote fraud has occurred.

I have reprinted his comments below the fold for those interested in reading them.

The Banality of Liberalism: A Kook in the Subway

Mona Eltahawy Committing Vandalism in NY Subway
A female kook was arrested after defacing anti-jihad ads in the New York subway.  The vandal was Mona Eltahawy, a leftist activist of Egyptian descent.  Apparently, Eltahawy was offended that the ads referred to mass murderers as "savages."  Personally, I think the term "barbarians" is a better description, but savages will do in a pinch.

Mona used a can of pink spray paint to deface the poster, claiming that it was her version of "freedom of expression."  A brave lady named Pamela Hall courageously blocked Mona's access to the poster while trying to discourage Mona's criminal act.

It was quite satisfying to see this kook handcuffed and frogmarched out of the subway, hopefully on her way to a nice cozy jail cell.

 See video and article here.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

So Long Andy Williams...See You on the Other Side

One of the many problems with aging is that you see "your world" slipping away.  The heroes you admired are dying off, and the world that was "yours," that was normal and known and comfortable, is dissolving like that airport in Stephen King's novel "The Langoliers."

When someone like Andy Williams dies...a part of you dies with him.  The memories flash, of dancing to his music, cheek to cheek with girls at a high school dance; of Edsel cars and drive-in burger joints with chocolate malts and french fries.  My 50th high school reunion is next month.  Ah, yes, the the Class of 1962.  How many of us are still on this side of the grass?

My high school was torn down after the Class of 1980 graduated, because rising home prices in Silicon Valley made it unaffordable to families with school age children.  Dropping enrollments caused many schools to close and mine was one of them.  Only a small section of the classrooms survives, along with the dilapidated gymnasium, now used as a community center.  A shopping center sits where the school once stood, and a deluxe condo development  has replaced the football stadium.  As time goes on, I get the feeling that the world I once inhabited is being erased.

Andy Williams was a great singer of ballads and love songs, with his warm, smooth voice.  When I think of him, I think of 1958.  I was only in the 8th grade then; most people hadn't yet read "Atlas Shrugged" (or even heard of Ayn Rand).  Eisenhower was president and Nikita Kruschev was pounding his shoe on the desk at the United Nations.  Beatniks were swarming over North Beach in San Francisco, writing and reciting bad poetry in funky little coffee houses, sporting beards and berets.

Today the neat cars on the streets back then are called "classic cars" and their modern replacements ugly and alien to me.  Elvis is dead.  Rock and Roll and Rhythm and Blues have been replaced with hip hop and rap, and modern pop is garbage, the anthem of the underclass, of drugs and drive-by shootings, gangs and kids born out of wedlock in increasing numbers.  Marriage has become obsolete, along with traditional families.  Hell, I am obsolete, and I do not fear my departure from this world.

Andy Williams sang many famous ballads during his career, like "Moon River" and "Born Free," but the song I loved best was "Are You Sincere?"  For me that song (released in 1958) captures the innocence of my youth, as well as the essence of Andy Williams.  Here it is, in the video embedded below.

New Polls Show America Carrying Obama to Victory on the Shoulders of Admiring Throngs

Some more polls are out showing that Obama has already won the election by acclamation, and there is really no need of a vote anymore. Romney should simply give his concession speech now (why wait til the last minute?), then go home and count his millions.

The New York Times/Quinnipiac/CBS poll shows Obama now leading Romney in the key swing states Ohio and Florida by ten points and nine points, respectively.

 Don't believe it. The New York Times and CBS are completely in the tank for Obama and the Democrat Party, and with the ethics of the left, are not above skewing polls with dishonest or unrealistic sampling techniques.

Rush Limbaugh today said the poll badly over samples Democrats and under samples independents. He also said this poll was shown to be highly inaccurate in 2008, where it finished around 15th in accuracy.

 Could it be that the folks in Ohio and Florida have suddenly started loving poverty, $4 a gallon gas, skyrocketing food prices, bankrupting federal deficits and continuing high unemployment? I doubt it.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Elizabeth Warren's Awesome Credibility as a Serious Candidate! (Photoshop)

After hearing this "Cherokee-descended" fake speak at the Democrat convention, one can only wonder at the dearth of brain cells among those who support her candidacy.  Warren is running against Scott Brown for the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.  Warren is allegedly a "bankruptcy expert," which may come in handy for Massachusetts should they be foolish enough to elect this rabid leftist.

Warren has incurred widespread contempt for her fallacious "Cherokee heritage," a meme she created to make herself more palatable to her leftist employers at Harvard, as a "non-white" on staff employee.  Cherokees have examined her lineage and deny that she is of Cherokee descent, and have asked her to stop pushing the fraud.

What a specious, insubstantial fool.

Another Hollywood Has-Been For Obama: Madonna

Ah, by their supporters ye shall know them.  Madonna, a shock and sleaze performer and alleged singer, has come out for Obama.  This week this aging has-been went into a profanity-laced rant about how wonderful it is to have "a black Muslim in the White House" and how everybody better damn well vote for Obama.

Madonna apparently threatened the public with severe punishment should we fail to vote for the "Black Muslim," i.e. that she will strip naked in public if Obama fails to be re-elected.  In spite of that threat, many plan to vote for Romney and take their chances.

In the picture herein, Madonna simulated suicide to a London audience by putting a gun to her head.  Obviously, she isn't content to off herself (symbolically speaking), but wishes to take Obama with her.

Never fear, Madonna, mistress of mediocrity, boring bearer of banality, talent-less tutor of tasteless twaddle,  dubious diva of the deaf and dumb, passé proprietress of pugnacious prattle:  Obama doesn't need your help.  He can fail completely on his own.

Correction:  My bad.  Madonna has promised to strip naked IF Obama is re-elected.  I thought her promise was an obvious threat to force us to vote for Obama, but the deluded diva seems to think this awful eventuality would be a reward, not a punishment.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Politico: Romney Takes 14 Point Lead Among Middle Class

Politico, a very Democrat-loving website, has conducted its own poll (just what we need, another poll) and claims that Romney has taken a big lead over Obama with the middle class.

Politico says the race will remain close until the last two weeks of the campaign, but that the dynamics are already in place for a Romney win.  Read the article here.

There's another website worth your attention, and it is This is a site that attempts to remove the skew in political polls due to oversampling of Democrats, undersampling of Republicans and Independents, as well as correcting unrealistic predictions of voter turnout. The site claims that, when the skew is removed, the polls indicate a Romney route of Obama. Let's hope these unskewed polls are real, and not just another skew in the opposite direction. Still, worth your consideration if you are feeling down about the polls.

Right now, I am feeling quite optimistic about Romney's chances for election.  As the author of says, don't join "the Legion of Gloom."  Don't blog about how the GOP is doomed and Obama is unstoppable.  Not only is that meme unlikely and untrue, it does nothing but depress and demoralize our base.

Romney is winning this election.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Personal Post: Fall Is Here; New Rickenbacker Baptized; Losing Weight

Stogie With Rickenbacker Bass Guitar
Yesterday was the first day of fall.  The temperatures are falling and there is a new chill in the air in the morning.  Our persimmon tree is loaded with fruit, which will be fully ripe sometime in November.  I love this time of year.

Yesterday, wifey and I were invited to a band party by a musician friend.  A band party is where a bunch of musicians come together to jam, even though they may never have played together before, with non-musician friends and family as the audience.  There is a lot of food and drink and conversation.

I brought my new Rickenbacker bass guitar and my Fender bass amp, and sat in with the host's personal band.  His band is quite good, very strong both vocally and instrumentally, and it was a privilege to play with them.  I was pleased with the sound of my new Ric, as you can't really tell how a new instrument will sound with a band until you play it with one.  The new Ric purrs through ballads and growls through rock, and I love the fast neck.  (Thanks again, son, for buying it for me.)

The son who bought me the Ric has also shown me a new way to take off weight (and keep it off), and it's not that hard.  He has lost 50 pounds with this technique, seeking to regain his Army weight.  It's a program called Lose It, at  There's also a smart phone app for it, so you can use it whether or not you are in front of your computer.

To lose weight you need a system of feedback, a way to monitor the calories you take in daily.  Once you determine the maximum number of daily calories you need, Lose It allows you to log in whatever you eat, and the program supplies the calories for hundreds of common foods, including restaurant dishes and supermarket foods.  With one of the newer smart phones, you can also read the bar code on any packaged food to determine the calories per serving, and Lose It will then log that in for you.

Lose It provides categories for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks, and keeps a running total of calories consumed for the day, with a second total for calories remaining before you reach your limit.  It also provides a graph of your weight loss and predicts the date on which you will achieve your goal weight.

When you know you have to log in everything you eat, you think twice about reaching for that bag of chips, or unconsciously munching on junk food.  The program helps you to stay focused on your weight loss goal.

I have lost about 10 pounds, just getting started -- but I have dropped a waist size and look and feel better, so I know it's working.  I highly recommend this tool for those who want to take off some weight.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Dick Morris: Why the Polls Understate the Romney Vote

Dick Morris has posted an article this morning that dovetails the one by Perry Drake of yesterday.  Basically, his message is that the polls overstate the Obama vote and understate Romney's.

The reason is that the 2012 polls assume the same turnout as for 2008, and that is highly dubious.  Morris writes:
All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.
The 2008 vote was no ordinary election.  Blacks, college kids and Hispanics increased their participation beyond their traditional percentages, and were enthused by the novelty of voting for the first black president. This time around, almost every voting class is less enthusiastic in light of continuing high unemployment, energy and food costs.  The 2008 percentages will not be repeated, and polls who rely on them are bound to over represent the Obama vote.

Morris goes on to say that Rasmussen's poll is generally more favorable to Romney because it uses a variant of both the 2008 and 2004 turnout.

The real vote turnout will probably be closer to 2004 than 2008.  Morris says:
If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.
Further, the undecided voters at this point generally break for the challenger, and that means a Romney win.

Read it all here. 

Friday, September 21, 2012

Four More Years! (Photoshop)

See Curmudgeon's photoshop here: Obama: The Day I Am Elected, Muslim Hostility Will Ease

Now see my followup Photoshop below.

Conservative Black Blogger: "Why Romney Is Going To Romp Over Obama In November"

Perry Drake, aka "The Drive-By Pundit," has written a great article at the American Thinker.  He believes that Obama will lose big in November simply because two million blacks, who voted for Obama in 2008, won't go to the polls this time.   Blacks have lost their enthusiasm for Obama.  Perry writes:
Book it: Romney's going to win this election in a romp come November. I'm certain of this because there is a key factor that's being overlooked this time around -- blacks have lost their passion for Obama.
And this:
But most of all, I see blacks' loss of passion for Obama in their eyes. Before, when blacks spoke of Obama, they looked you square in the eye with confident, euphoric gazes, much like a cat eying a cornered mouse. But the reality of double-digit unemployment, diminishing household incomes, and soaring gas and grocery bills sank in long ago in the black community. Now when blacks talk about Obama, their eyes are listless and dull, almost despondent.
And the polls?  Forget them.  Perry says:
Which brings me back to polls, and why Romney will be our next president. Polls are largely not picking up on blacks' massive loss of passion for Obama. All of their turnout models assume that in November, blacks will vote for Obama in the same numbers as they did in 2008 -- 13 percent of the national vote versus 11 percent in 2004, which is more traditional. No longer motivated by passion, you can expect 2 million fewer blacks to pull the lever for Obama this time around, spelling doom for his re-election prospects.
I like this guy. Read his article in its entirety here.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Pamela Geller Schools Erin Burnett of CNN on the Meaning of Jihad

Pamela Geller of the blog Atlas Shrugs has been fighting in San Francisco and New York to have her anti-jihadi ads approved for the bus systems there.  Anti-semitic and pro-Muslim ads are accepted, but Geller's ads were rejected.  Pamela sued both cities and won the right to run the ads.

Lawrence Auster comments on this important victory at View From the Right:
A victory for truth

Pamela Geller has won her fight to post the following advertisement on New York City subways and buses:

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.

The first sentence is a paraphrase of something once said by Ayn Rand. We discussed the battle over the same ad in San Francisco mass transit here.

Geller’s attorney in these important court cases is David Yerushalmi, who was one of the speakers at Geller’s conference last week.
 The Other McCain has run a video of Geller being interviewed by Erin Burnett of CNN on the controversy. Burnett is an infuriating, liberal tool, and like most useful idiots, she runs interference for evil, all while posing as a pillar of wisdom, morality and rectitude.  Burnett's attitude seems particularly asinine, considering all the Muslim violence that has been directed at the west since 911, including the murder of our ambassador to Libya only last week.  But what's more important, really -- whether Erin Burnett gets invited to the next snobby liberal cocktail party, or whether more Israelis, Americans and others are murdered by Islamic jihad?  Ah, those of us who know the ethical and moral depth of liberalism don't even have to ask.

Human Nature and the Path of Least Resistance; or Why So Many People Are Democrats

Both Romney and Rush have this week discussed human nature and its effects on human freedom.

I too have thought about this, and here it is:  The Stogie Theory of Human Nature

Human beings have a tendency to take the path of least resistance, to do what is easiest in the short run, to indulge now and let tomorrow take care of itself.  Consider:

1.  You're fat as hell and know you should go on a diet.  You encounter a banana cream pie in the fridge and the wife's out of town.  You have two choices:  (A) ignore the pie and keep trying to lose weight, which is hard and painful and awful, or (B) say to hell with it and pig out, which is delightful, fun and thoroughly enjoyable.  Scratch one pie.

Approximately 8 of 10 humans will take the path of least resistance, which is choice B.  They're known as "fat slobs."

2.  You have health problems and your doctor prescribes an exercise regimen.  You can do one of two things:  (A) Get up 5 AM, put on your jogging suit, and run a mile before getting ready for work, but that is clearly not fun, the bed is so warm and comfortable, and what do doctors know anyway? Or, (B) Say to hell with it, pull the covers over your head and go back to sleep.

Around 7 of 10 people will choose Option B. They're known as "victims of heart attack."

3.  You're an alcoholic and know you should "go on the wagon," but man, you really need that martini or three after work.  For stress and all that.  You can do two things:  (A) Join Alcoholics Anonymous, admit you have a problem, hide your shaking hands, and walk the painful path to recovery, or (B) Highjack a Jim Beam truck and swallow the evidence before the cops arrive.

Around 8 out of 10 problem drinkers will choose option B.  They're known as "drunks."

4.  You would like more money, benefits and goodies, and there are three ways you can get them:
(A)  Take night courses to improve your job skills, work longer hours, and delay gratification until you can find a better job; but that's difficult and painful and no fun at all (B) Rob a liquor store, but you might get killed in the process or sent to prison if caught; (C) Vote for "progressive" politicians, who will steal the money, benefits and goodies from more productive citizens and give them to you; and you won't feel guilty because the "progressive" politicians will also supply the rationale for why this is just and "fair."  (Heck, if the politicians do it, then it's not theft at all.)

Approximately 5 out of 10 Americans will choose option C.  They're known as "Democrats."

Summary:  Human nature is to always take the easy way out, to live for the moment and let tomorrow take care of itself.  When offered two or more choices, people will invariably choose the one that is easiest, cheapest, or has the most calories -- and in politics, many if not most will generally vote for the guy who promises the most "free" stuff.

For Sale: The New Obama American Flag

I got this Photoshop idea from The Other McCain.

McCain writes OMG! I Thought The Obama Flag & Blood On The Wall A Tasteless Joke. . .

Tasteless?  Yes.  True?  Yes.  Vote Mitt Romney November 6.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Charlie Hebdo Mocks the Prophet; French Embassies and Schools to Shut Down; We Translate the French Cartoons

Charlie Hebdo is a French magazine of satire and politics.  It is a leftist magazine whose goal is to offend as many people as possible, no matter what their politics, religious beliefs or lifestyle.  Their offices were firebombed by angry Muslims about a year ago, and the magazine retreated to the web, where they continued their iconoclastic publication.

Now the magazine is back in hard copy publication, and isn't backing down in the face of Islamic threats of violence.  Today their publication features Muhammad (see below) inside, pictured as naked, as he poses for a movie.  Fearing violent protests, the French government has ordered twenty of its embassies closed as well as some schools.

Here is today's Charlie Hebdo cover.  The caption reads:  "Untouchables:  you must not mock us."  The figures on the cover appear to be a Jew (on the right) pushing a Muslim in a wheelchair.  Charlie Hebdo is very hostile to religion, any religion, and regularly mocks the Catholic Church and Jews as well as Muslims.

Blazing Cat Fur has images of the nude prophet here.  (However, I found a better image of the same thing, now posted below).  I have translated each of the cartoons into English below the fold.  View if you like.

There is little doubt that Charlie Hebdo's new cartoons will enrage the Muslim world.  More bombings and bloodshed will be the result.  However, free speech must be upheld, even irreligious, insulting and crude speech.  Without it, this blog (with its crude content) would soon disappear!  Not to mention western civilization.  Freedom of inquiry, freedom to question, criticize and mock, all are absolutely necessary to maintain a free society and an informed populace.  However, most of these cartoons are in very bad taste and seem designed for no purpose other than to provoke Muslims.  The purpose of "Innocence of Muslims" was to point out some unsavory facts about the "prophet" Muhammad, so it had a purpose beyond merely giving offense.  Hebdo's cartoons, on the other hand, are really over the top.  Probably not as over the top as murdering an ambassador, setting fire to his embassy and rioting like screaming madmen on speed, however.  So even though the cartoons are in bad taste...that's just too damn bad.  Welcome to the west, Muslims.

The news is that the new Hebdo issue is very popular and has been sold out, but Muslims are tearing them up wherever they are found.  Blazing Cat Fur says the Charlie Hebdo site has been hacked and out of action, but I was able to log on by trying several times in a row.  I think the site is not down, but simply overwhelmed by many people trying to log on.

The site is here.  To view the cartoons and my translations, click on the link "Read More" below.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

What's the Matter With Telling the Truth? Mitt Romney on Obama Supporters

Mitt Romney told the truth while speaking to some supporters back in May.  Someone filmed it, and the leftist site Mother Jones is displaying the video.  Omigod!  Romney's in trouble now!  He told the truth!

Romney said 47% of American citizens will vote for Obama, no matter what, because (1) they pay no income taxes and don't care about tax cuts, (2) they see themselves as victims that the government is obligated to support.

Actually, per Rush, the figure is really 49%.  However, Romney might have an an  opportunity to win some of these voters by giving them a choice.  Do they want to live in a society divided between the Makers and the Takers (with them in the latter category), or do they want to live in an Opportunity society where they have a chance to create a better life for themselves?

If Romney's truthful statement is a big GOTCHA, then let's have more of them.  This political campaign needs truth, even unpopular truth, so voters can make informed decisions.

And so we do have some more political truth.  Romney also said the Palestinians have no desire for peace with Israel.  He is completely correct.  The Palestinians, by way of their hateful, violent and intolerant religion, want Israel to disappear, along with all of its Jewish inhabitants.  All of these political machinations in which our leaders pretend to "broker peace" or find a "two state solution" are just games, played for their political effect.  They have no chance of succeeding and never did.

The middle east violence will never cease unless Islam reforms itself, and that won't happen without some serious the threat of nuking Mecca and Medina.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Truth About Islam

Nick at Patriot's Corner has a most righteous rant today on the true nature of Islam.

All I could say upon reading it was YES!  There are some who are willing to speak the truth about this nightmare ideology that masquerades as religion.

Read it here:  The Truth About Islam - A Rant

What a Jackass: Young Liberal Blue-Eyed Blonde Tells Muslim Rioters "I Love You"! AWWWWWW!

I stole this picture from View From the Right.  It shows a young poser in an act of moral exhibitionism, more to shower herself with liberal glory than to bring peace and understanding between us and the Islamic world.

And what would the "peaceful" Muslims (who burned our embassies, desecrated our flag, and killed our people) do to this unveiled female infidel?  Mass rape her and then stone her to death for fornication?

What a total jackass.

Note to the Muslim world:  this idiot does not speak for me.  I hate your religion and mock it every chance I get. Screw you AND the camel your rode in on.

Note to airhead college student below:  Anders Behring Breivik is also a "fellow human and inhabitant of this Earth" -- do you love him too?  How about Ted Bundy?  Or the "Batman Killer," James Holmes?  Or Jared Loughner?

Friday, September 14, 2012

What Will the Polls Reflect Tomorrow? Will Anyone Notice that Obama is a Disaster on Foreign Policy (With Everything Else)?

With many of our embassies under Muslim attack throughout the world, you have to wonder if the public will connect the dots.  Obama + Foreign Policy = Burning Embassies and Dead Americans.

Further, it appears Muslims have created a lot of bomb scares throughout the US today, with some universities and other facilities being temporarily evacuated.  Nice folks.  Let's allow more to immigrate here. Islamophobia is so irrational, after all.

No matter what catastrophes happen, the mainstream media will either not report it at all, or report it as a minor event, or spin it so it appears completely unconnected to the leadership of Barack Obama.  Thankfully, a lot of the viewing public watch Fox, where it will definitely be reported.

All the leftist sites and blogs will be trying to spin it, of course.  New fake polls will be taken showing Obama surging to an easy win.  However, I am wondering what serious polls (like Rasmussen) will show.  It should be interesting.  By any logic, Obama should be descending in the polls.  Politics, however, isn't always logical.

Emerging Evidence Shows "Innocence of Muslims" Film Not the Cause of Ongoing Attacks on US Embassies

A number of pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, have stated that the film "Innocence of Muslims" is not the cause of the recent and ongoing attacks on our embassies in the middle east and now Africa.  The Obama administration is merely using that film as a scapegoat for its own foreign policy failures.

See American Power for more information:
Don't Blame 'Innocence of Muslims' — Worldwide Islamic Protests Burn From Anti-Americanism and Global Jihad

Some are reporting that the attacks were coordinated to happen on the anniversary of 911 and were revenge for recent drone killings of Islamic terrorist leaders.  This seems entirely plausible.

The revenge angle was also for our liquidation of Osama Bin Laden (may he rot in Hell), as many of the protestors were yelling "Obama, we are all Osamas."  Apparently, Obama's use of Osama's death as a campaign slogan angered the Muslims, i.e., "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive."

If it is true that "the radicals are all Osamas," that's okay with me.  We can feed them all to the fishes.

Obama's Chickens Are "Coming ROOOOOOST!"

Right after 911, in 2001, Barack Obama's hateful black liberation preacher, Jeremy Wright, stood behind the pulpit of his Chicago church and declared, with a big toothy smile, "America's chickens....are coming ROOOOOOST!"

This whack-job was delighted that America was getting its just desserts, and he also declared "Not God Bless America...GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

This morning I turned on my laptop, went to Drudge and read the following headlines:

Protesters smash windows, set fires at embassy in Tunisia...
Report: German embassy in Sudan on fire...
Clashes intensify near US embassy in Cairo...
Embassies on high alert as protests spread...
Crowd in Lebanon torches KFC...
and, DER SPIEGEL: 'Obama's Middle East Policy is in Ruins'...
What?? After Obama's "apology tour," after his great speech to Muslims in Cairo in 2009, after all his promises to make the world love us again, respect us again and trust us again [by becoming spineless leftists]?  The world seems in flame and chaos, and Nero Obama is fiddling in Las Vegas as if it were just another day in the office.

This is so reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's presidency, after an American embassy in Iran was attacked (1979) and our embassy staff held hostage for months, up to the time of the presidential election in 1980.  Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan...whom the polls showed was several points behind right up to the day of the vote.

History seems to be repeating itself.  Start packing Obama.  Your "chickens.....are coming home....TO ROOOOOOOST!"

Postscript:  In spite of the unfolding disaster of the Obama presidency, journo-whores at the Daily BS Beast attempt to spin even even these severe setbacks:

Obama Team Sees Campaign Boost from Attacks - Howard Kurtz, Dly Beast

Righhhht, Kurtz.  That 1979 attack was just so helpful to the campaign of Jimmy Carter.  Dream on.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Mainstream Media Hysterics Indicative of Someone Who's Losing and Knows It -- In Spite of Their Favorable Polls

Legal Insurrection has called the bias and hysterical tone of the mainstream media (the MSM)  "so far beyond bad it's almost indescribable."  Indeed, the mainstream media, long in the tank for Obama, seem to be having some sort of nervous breakdown.

This past week Right Scoop learned that MSM reporters discussed among themselves what to ask Romney at a press conference, coordinating their questions for maximum embarrassment of the Republican candidate (or so they hoped).  The coordinated line of questioning was something along the lines of, "Are you sorry for your reckless and damaging statements about the President's handling of the [unavoidable and unforseeable] Libyan tragedy?"  And "When do you plan to resign in disgrace because of it?"

In an earlier post today I listed the MSM headlines about Romney's critique that show extreme bias in an attempt to spin the debacle as somehow more damaging to Romney than to Obama's ineptitude in foreseeing and avoiding the contingency (he is said to have had 48 hours advance warning, but did nothing).

But why the hysteria if Obama is so far ahead in the polls?  Is it because the polls are fake, and the MSM knows it?  Is Obama headed towards an electoral wipe out in November?

That possibility is put forth in an American Spectator article called The Problem With Obama's Polls.  Every winning Republican presidential candidate from Ronald Reagan forward has been behind in the polls, usually by a significant number, but who then went on to win by a significant percentage over their Democrat opponent.  

Democrats faking polls would appear to be nothing new.  I suspect, however, that the MSM knows the real numbers are not quite so rosy for the Democrats.  If so, that would explain a lot about the MSM's recent loony behavior.

Update:  William L. Gensert at the American Thinker believes Obama will lose in a landslide, and tells why he thinks so.  Read The Empty Chair Is Losing.

Pastor Terry Jones Responds to Recent Islamic Violence ; Trailer of the Controversial Film "Innocence of Muslims" (Video)

I have supported, and continue to support, Pastor Terry Jones, who is one of few who really understands just how evil Islam is, and one of the few brave enough to openly criticize it.

I received this email from Pastor Jones's organization:
September 12th, 2012

MEDIA CONTACT: 352-371-2487
or 352-871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp) or

Statement in Response to Protests in Egypt and Libya, and our involvement in the film, Innocence of Muslims

We have been contacted by the producer of the film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’, to help distribute it.

The film is not intended to insult the Muslim community, but it is intended to reveal truths about Muhammad that are possibly not widely known. The examination of his life, as we have done through International Judge Muhammad Day, through this type of close examination, it is very clear that God did not influence him in the writings of the Koran. The fruits of the religion speak for themselves. For example the recent outbreak of violence and deaths is not because of the film, it is not because of the activities that we have done and that we will continue to do. These types of violent activities must be totally rejected. These people must be held accountable. It again shows the true nature of Islam. Islam does not tolerate criticism of Muhammad, the Koran or Sharia. Because of their fear of criticism, knowing that if Islam and the Koran were closely examined, Muhammad and the Koran will be revealed for what it is, a lie and a deception.

Terry Jones
Stand Up America Now
I agree with Pastor Jones:  Muslims must heavily suppress any examination of Muhammad's life, lest it become obvious that the man was an odious liar, thief, assassin, kidnapper and rapist.  There is no way that a just God would select such a man to represent Him on earth.

Here is the trailer from the film on which the recent atrocities were blamed:

1389 Blog - Counterjihad has more here.

Michelle Malkin Nails It: "Why They Hate Us"

So many people are clueless when it comes to Islam, its major tenets, its history, and the history of its prophet.  They think it's just another religion, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism or What-Have-You-ism.  It's not.  Islam is in a class by itself:  perpetually violent, intractable and eternally hostile.

I have read 18 books on the subject; I understand Islam far better than the average Joe on the street.  So when I say Michelle Malkin "nails it" on why the Muslims hate us, it is a very INFORMED opinion on my part.

She wrote today:
I told you the gobsmackingly obvious at the very outset of these latest pretextual jihadi outbreaks across the Middle East: It’s not about the dumb Internet movie or the marginal Pastor Terry Jones. They hated us before these excuses. They hated us before George W. Bush took office. They hated us before Israel came into existence. They hate us not because of what we might draw, broadcast, burn, wear, or say. They hate us because our very existence as infidels insults Allah. And you know what must happen to those who insult Allah. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
Read more here.

She's right, and I make it a major part of my persona to be as insulting as possible to this barbaric excuse for a religion.  Fuck Islam.

Obama Propaganda Belt Opens Up On Romney

Mitt Romney rightly criticized Obama's inept handling of the recent (and apparently, ongoing) attacks on our embassies in the Middle East. Muslim fanatics storm our embassies and kill several Americans, and Obama underlings apologize to the murderers.  The Cairo Embassy apologized:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.
Romney said:
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.
And he said this:
It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
This morning the newspapers and pundits, who are little more than a propaganda belt for Democrats, are attacking Romney for this and other, milder critiques he made of the Obama response.  In fact, if you read only their headlines, you would be unaware of any anti-American attacks in the Middle East.  You would, however, be made aware of some horrible, insensitive, inappropriate "opportunist" comment made by Mitt Romney (i.e., the one quoted above).

Here are the journo-whores for Obama and their propaganda efforts (copied and pasted from RealClearPolitics.Com):

Romney's Major Meltdown - Gail Collins, New York Times
Romney Has Mess to Clean Up on Libya - Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Romney's in Trouble, Election Slipping Away - Joe Scarborough, Politico
Romney's Crass Opportunism - Ed Kilgore, Washington Monthly

Notice journalism's joke, Joe Scarborough of Pinko Politico, saying that "Romney's in trouble, election slipping away."  This morning's Rasmussen Poll [the only poll I trust] shows Romney leading Obama 47% - 46%.  The race is still tight, but to say it is "slipping away" is ludicrous, a transparently self-serving attempt to influence  public opinion with gross exaggeration.  If anything, the race is moving in Romney's direction, despite the anti-Romney media propaganda.

Never before in my lifetime has the mainstream media been so nonobjective, biased and agenda-driven. Disgusting!

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

A Fool's Errand: Installing Democracy in the Middle East

I was opposed to Obama's intervention in Libya and wrote several articles to that effect.  I predicted that our intervention would come back to bite us.

On March 16, 2011, in a post called Should the US Intervene in Libya?  I wrote:
I had a long discussion with another reader over at The Other McCain about the wisdom of intervening in the civil war in Libya. I am against intervention. After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no compelling reason to intervene -- absolutely not with boots on the ground, and not even with military or humanitarian aid to the rebels. Why should we help people who hate our guts? The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
 On March 21, 2011, in a post titled Drudge:  Doubts Mount on Libya War, I stated:
...I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1. It isn't our fight. I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2. We don't know who the players are or what they represent. We don't know if the rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow. Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3. We have no clear-cut role or mission. What exactly are we trying to accomplish there? How do we know when we're finished?
4. If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops. If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5. If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam. They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6. If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war. Libya isn't worth the price.

In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further. This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully. The Libyan intervention is not one of these.

Current Events and the Re-Election of Barack Obama

Current events this week are decidedly negative for Barack Obama.  Chicago teachers, whose students' performance on test scores are abysmal, and who already earn an average of $76,000 per year, went on strike for more pay and benefits.  How good are Chicago teachers?  According to
Common sense says there should be some link between compensation and job performance. But the very idea tends to make teachers unions recoil like Dracula confronted with a garlic clove. And so Chicago teachers are picketing schools where only 60 percent of the students graduate and less than 8 percent of 11th graders met all the college-readiness benchmarks on state tests last year.
Further, the Dept. of Education says that 79% of Chicago 8th graders are not proficient in reading.

Meanwhile, there is an open feud between America and Israel, Obama is on track to have the worst job record since World War II, mobs storm our embassies in Libya and Egypt and kill some of our people, gas prices are at an all-time high (I paid $4.62 this morning and it cost $62.50 to fill my tank), and Barack Obama hasn't a clue what to do about it all.

Oh yes, let's re-elect Obama!  We NEED another four years like the last.  NO WONDER the polls are so close!

That last paragraph was sarcasm in case you missed it.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

What I Would Say to the Victims of the 911 Atrocity

Eleven years have passed since I learned what Islam is, and why I hate it with all my heart:  a bloodthirsty ideology, created by a barbarian, megalomaniac and narcissist who liked to kill people.  He liked killing so much that he commanded his followers to do the same, forever, to people too modern, enlightened and tolerant to follow his ideology of death and darkness.  911 was merely one more atrocity in a long line that began in the 7th century and continues to this day.

However, today we don't focus on the barbarians who carried out the atrocity of September 11, 2001, but on the victims.  I have often thought of what I would say, if I could communicate with the departed souls.  Here it is:
I am sorry that you lost your lives, your futures, just because you went to work one day, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time, through no fault of your own.  It is a great injustice that you were deprived of all your tomorrows, and all the plans, love, dreams and goals that were denied to you.

I am sorry for the immense grief of your family, your friends and everyone else who knew you and loved you.  They did not deserve this ocean of pain that evil visited upon them.

Most of all, I am sorry for the way you died -- in terror and grief and pain.  The horror at finding yourself trapped in a burning building with no escape, knowing you would not see your family again, or even have a chance to say goodbye -- this was possibly worse than death itself.  I am sorry for the souls whose only alternative was to burn to death or jump from high windows.

I can only hope that you have found peace in another world, where your pain and fear and grief have been assuaged, where the horror that visited you eleven years ago today no longer matters.  And I hope that those loved ones left behind have moved beyond the pain and grief, and have resumed their lives in ways that you would applaud and approve.
We who are still here, however, will never forget.

Monday, September 10, 2012

CNN Poll Shows Obama Leading Romney 86% to 12%, with 2% Undecided

A number of conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, are saying the latest poll results are merely psyops made to discourage conservative voters.  Take for example, the CNN Poll out today that shows Obama leading Romney 86% to 12%.  Whoops, I see that they have now revised that estimate downward, now saying that Obama leads by only six points, 52% to 46%.  The CNN poll, according to John Hinderaker at Power Line, oversampled Democrats and included NO [only 5%] independents, who are breaking for Romney by a lead of 14 points.

Rush says the pollsters won't begin releasing accurate polls until two weeks before the election, in order to retain some semblance of a reputation.  If then!  He asserts that right now the pollsters are trying to create a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with dishonest polls.

Meanwhile, we learn that the Democrats outraised Republican donations in August, $114,000,000 to only $25.16 for Republicans (or something like that).  R.S. McCain doubts the accuracy of this report, believing it is merely more psyops -- mind games to make the public think there is a massive ground swell for Obama, create a band wagon effect, make Obama's re-election seem inevitable, and depress Republican donations, morale and votes.  It's dirty pool, but so typically Democrat.

UPDATE:  Breitbart analyzes the CNN poll and concludes that CNN "had its thumb on the scale," producing a dubious but desired result.

See the CNN Obama's-Got-It-In-The-Bag poll here.

See John Hinderaker's article, The Parade of Bad Polls Continues here.

See McCain's article Omens of Doom here.

Read Rush Limbaugh's transcript here, An All-Out Media Onslaught to Dispirit You.

Sunday, September 09, 2012

Don't Get Discouraged, Republicans! We've Been Worse Off and Still Won!

Drudge has some encouraging historical tidbits today:
POLL: O 49% R 45%...

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has a "don't get demoralized" message. Demoralizing the Republican base and suppressing voter turnout is exactly what they want. Let's fight every inch of the way.

UPDATE: R.S. McCain discusses slanted polls and a historical example of why you should NEVER GIVE UP. Read Omens of Doom at American Spectator.

UPDATE:  Rush Limbaugh doubts polls are accurate and thinks they may be rigged to discourage Republican voters.  See his opening monologue today at the RightScoop.

More Proof That the Democrats Ruined the Economy

Jim Yardley at American Thinker gives more details on the Democrat melt-down of 2008, including a graph of real estate prices.  Yardley explains how the subprime mortgage fiasco, which was forced on banks and morgage companies, and the graph shows the resulting spike in home prices that resulted.  Yardley writes:
Claims of racial discrimination were frequently aimed at banks in the mid-1990s by community activists who, through judicial actions or by producing demonstrations by irate citizens, embarrassed banks into lowering their lending requirements to the point where, in common parlance, banks began issuing "sub-prime" mortgages. In an effort to both protect the financial integrity of local community banks and provide access to enormous amounts of cash for mortgages, Congress instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase such mortgages from the original lender, returning the original lender to his original state of liquidity.
Fannie and Freddie then offered institutions such as Lehman Brothers and other major Wall Street firms a chance to "bundle" these mortgages and sell derivative securities, with their value basis predicated on such bundles.
More about the Democrat-engineered meltdown can be read in Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny" and in Thomas E. Wood's book, "Meltdown."

The meltdown not only wrecked the economy, it provided the duplicitous mass media and the Democratic Party an opportunity to benefit from their own misdeeds.  The bubble burst in the last few months of George Bush's presidency.  In an extraordinary display of bad faith, the Democrats then blamed the meltdown on a lack of governmental oversight, the machinations of Wall Street and the Republican policies of George W. Bush.

Read Yardley's article:  So Obama Inherited a Mess, Did He? From Whom?

Saturday, September 08, 2012

Has America Passed the Point of No Return? Have Progressives Finally Won the Future?

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a rather sobering post today:  Why Is This Election Close?

John believes that the country may have passed a point of no return.  He writes:
On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.
Hinderaker quotes Andy McCarthy at National Review, who implicitly believes that the Gramsci vision has been realized, that the "long march through the institutions" has been accomplished, and that a large part of our country's culture and institutions, namely the media and academia, are in the firm control of the Left.  What's worse, is that the Republican establishment cannot fight them because it has accepted the Progressive framework, not arguing for its abolishment, but only that it be better executed.  McCarthy writes:
It has always been possible to run against elite opinion and win — if you make a compelling counter-case...Today’s Republicans do not. Indeed, they cannot, because they have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.
My friend Lawrence Auster at View From the Right has long argued the same thing -- that the Republican establishment seeks a slightly different approach to liberalism, but not its defeat.  This is a very pessimistic view, but no doubt it contains a lot of truth.

If we do indeed lose the nation to another four years of progressive destruction, it may be time to consider some radical alternatives, e.g. a new political party, state nullification of unconstitutional laws, and even secession.

Read Hinderaker's article here.

Read McCarthy's article here.

See Romney Political Ads on Romney's YouTube Page

Yesterday Romney launched an ad blitz of battleground states, with 15 new political ads.

You can view the ads at Romney's YouTube page here.

Obama Edges Ahead in the Polls...Or Does He?

Perhaps Obama did get some bounce from the Democratic National Convention.  In spite of the discouraging jobs report yesterday, Obama has edged ahead in the polls, including the only one I trust, the Rasmussen Poll.  Real Clear Politics polls (RCP) show Obama with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206.  If those figures reflect reality, Obama will win in a landslide.  Who would've guessed that the American people would embrace poverty, socialism and presidential ineptitude with such wild abandon?

My intuitive mind has not given up, nor is it convinced that these numbers are real.  The Rasmussen Poll is a rolling average of several days and today's slight edge to Obama could be statistical noise.  The RCP polls are all over the map, and are an average of polls going back to August 24.  They do not reflect the actual electorate at this day and time, and can be misleading.

Romney and Ryan can still win this and are very much in the fight.  From here on to the finish, the race will be decided by debates, television ads and stump speeches.  Advantage Romney-Ryan.

Friday, September 07, 2012

Clint Eastwood Sums Up the Obama Presidency in a Single Sentence (Graphic)

Obama's Convention Speech Widely Panned; Campaigns Move to Next Phase, Debates and Political Ads

Obama's uninspired stump speech to the DNC is being widely panned today.

Joe Klein of Time says it was "a fine speech that didn't close the deal."  The Atlantic says the speech was an "anticlimax," and that "Barack Obama got up and just sort of didn't do anything special."

Peggy Noonan wrote:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? 
Noonan added:
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
Charles Krauthammer said the speech was "flat" and "empty":
I was stunned. This is a man who gave one of the great speeches of our time in 2004, and he gave one of the emptiest speeches I have ever heard on a national stage. Yes, it had cadence, and yes, there were deceptions in it, but that is not what is so striking about it. There was nothing in it. This is a man who believes that government can and should do a lot. There is nothing in here that tells us how he's going to go from today to tomorrow.
NBC's Chuck Todd described the speech as just going through the motions, i.e. uninspired.
 "I'm in the workmanlike camp ... it seemed at times they were methodically playing the notes instead of lyrically playing the notes."
Michael Tomasky, an ardent Obama supporter, wrote at the Daily Beast:
Let’s be blunt. Barack Obama gave a dull and pedestrian speech tonight, with nary an interesting thematic device, policy detail, or even one turn of phrase.
John Podhoretz of the New York Post described the speech as "O's Surprise Flop."

Back in 2008 I noted that the public was suffering from Bush and Clinton fatigue, and just wanted someone new.  They got the newness in Barack Obama.  Now four years later, the public has Obama fatigue.  He's an old story.  New promises don't make up for older, failed promises.  Barack Obama is no longer the magical light worker.  Now he is just another politician, and even Obama seems tired of Obama.   Not even he believes what he is saying up there behind the podium.

Now that the conventions have ended, the campaigns move to the next phase: televised debates, television ads and stump speeches. I expect Romney and Ryan will do very well in this phase. Unfortunately for me, I won't get to see a lot of Romney-Ryan television ads. I live in California, a deep blue state where common sense and economic reality are simply not tolerated. I doubt that Romney wants to waste much of his campaign funds here, and I don't blame him.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Joe Biden and Barack Obama's Speeches to the Convention

I listened to the speeches of both Biden and Obama tonight.  Biden was a blowhard, full of enthusiasm but offered nothing but generalities.  Joe Trippi said he thought the second half of Biden's speech was sheer demagoguery.  Obama then gave his speech and offered the same standard stump speech we are used to hearing from him.  I found it uninspired and unconvincing.

Obama set up various "straw men" arguments, by telling us what the evil Republicans want to do, when in fact they have no such goals.  If you can't refute what they said, refute what they didn't say.

Charles Krauthammer said Obama's speech was empty and flat, but other than that, he loved it.  I agree.  The speech was just a lot of promises about what he was going to do in his second four years (probably a lot of golfing back in Chicago, since he will have lots of time on his hands).

If this is the best the Democrats have to offer, I'm not too worried.

Michelle Obama's Speech Was Filled With Distortions and Misrepresentations

In her speech to the Democratic Convention this week, Michelle Obama described herself and her husband as Americans who believed in American values and the American dream, even though they came from a financially disadvantaged background.

Karen McQuillan, writing for the American Spectator, dissects her speech and highlights its many falsehoods and misrepresentations.  Read it here.

Some Counter Points to Bill Clinton's Convention Speech.

The transcript of Bill Clinton's convention speech is now published, and I respond to some of its major points.

We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."Clinton describes a false and simplistic alternative from which to choose. Clinton gives no specifics, so it is hard to respond to the charge, but it is safe to say that Republicans do not oppose social programs created and run by the individual states, as it is in their constitutional purview to do so. We do oppose the federal fovernment from exceeding its Constitutional authority, imposing its will on the states in such matters as medical care.

Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
It is a fallacy to say that jobs are created by the federal government.  The government can, however, enhance the conditions under which business can flourish, where jobs are created through increased prosperity.  If the above statistics are correct, how many of those 28 Republican years were presided over by a Democrat run congress?  How many of the 24 Democrat years had a Republican majority in Congress? Clinton doesn't say.  What other economic factors were in play during the 52 years, which are even more important than who was president.  The president's ability to effect prosperity is limited by the amount of congressional support that he enjoys.  Clinton's statistics (if true) prove little or nothing.

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. 
Clinton may accurately describe his own attitude, but not of Democrats in general.  During the Bush years (and even now), the Democrat rank and file expressed deep hatred for Republicans, expressing a desire for their assassination or death by other means.  Just this week various Democrats have compared Republicans to Nazis.  When it comes to partisan hatred, the Democrats exceed all comers.

One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.
Not true.  In deliberating laws governing health care, Obama did not consider or allow a single Republican proposal on the problem.  He has sought to use administrative procedures to bypass the will of Congress.  Obama is the prisoner of a rigid leftist ideology that makes him uncooperative in discussing alternatives to his vision.

the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.
Putting Obama out of work is synonymous with "putting Americans back to work."  A president who believes the American founding was badly flawed, believes in keeping energy costs as high as possible, and in crippling business with high taxes and regulation, is himself a major detriment to greater employment.

I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
Obama contributed to damaging the economy by supporting the subprime mortgage fiasco that caused the meltdown in the first place.  He did not put a floor under the crash, and his incurring substantial new debt will inhibit, not advance, the recovery.  What foundation did Obama lay for a "modern, well-balanced economy"?  Clinton doesn't say, because his statement is nothing but a glittering generality, pie-in-the-sky, big promises like those Obama made when he ran for office in 2008 -- and subsequently failed to keep.

Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.
The auto industry has suffered severe economic disadvantage due to the high pay and benefits extorted by the Democrat-supported auto workers union.  GM finally became insolvent due to Democrat policies and the aftermath of the Democrat constructed meltdown.  Now that the federal government owns General Motors, how many of those new jobs are really government jobs in disguise, i.e. paid for by taxpayers?  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, created thousands of real jobs in the private sector through his activities in Bain Capital.  

President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
Barack Obama has publicly stated that he favors an increase in gas prices, and his now abandoned plan to create a carbon swapping scheme would, by his own words, "cause energy prices to skyrocket."  He has opposed new oil exploration in ANWR, vetoed the Keystone pipeline that would have added thousands of real jobs to the economy and helped to lower energy costs.  If oil imports are at a 20 year low, no doubt the decreased economic activity is a factor in that.  When it comes to energy independence, the Democratic Party is a hindrance, not a help, in achieving that goal.

Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.
No cuts in benefits only means that the program will continue operating in the red, thus hastening the day when it becomes insolvent.  Obama took the 716 billion "savings" to fund Obamacare, not Medicare.  To say that this makes Medicare more solvent and stronger is a bald-faced lie.

Space and patience prohibits me from dissecting more of Clinton's long-winded speech, but it is safe to say that it was spin and propaganda, and not to be taken seriously as an objective description of the economy and the issues.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Slick Willy's Speech to the Democrat Convention

I listened to Bill Clinton's speech to the DNC, and it was very well delivered.  The man is a master speaker, whatever else you may say about him.  I have no doubt that his speech will fire up the base and return many disillusioned Democrats to the fold.  His speech will almost certainly give Obama some positive bounce in the polls.

Clinton was less than honest, but you have to expect that.  His assertion that Republicans "left Obama a huge mess, and now they want to fire him for not finishing the clean-up and put them back in" was very slick.  What he didn't say was that it was his administration that is most guilty for the melt-down, as it was his administration that began suing mortgage companies and banks to force them to make bad mortgage loans, leading to the bubble and the resulting crash.  Nor did he mention that Barack Obama contributed directly to the meltdown by suing Citibank in Chicago to force them to make bad loans to blacks in that city, the great majority of which have now gone bust.

His derisive comments about Romney not allowing "fact checkers" to influence his campaign was another slick piece of legerdemain.  The "fact-checkers" have been widely shown to be partisan propagandists whose "facts" are not facts at all, but merely partisan spin.

If Bill has relegated us to four more years of economic stagnation, it will be yet another accomplishment in his dubious resume.

We will need to analyze his speech in the week ahead and do a little fact-checking of our own.

Listening to the Losers at the Democratic National Convention

I'm listening to the various losers and unknowns give speeches at the DNC.  Lots of lies and distortions.  Still not feeling threatened by screeds.

Bill Clinton's planned speech text has been released, and he will say this:
"The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in? If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility -- a we're-all-in-this-together society -- you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."
This statement is partially correct.  "You're on your own" really means "you get to keep what you earn and not be compelled to pay for other people's health care, living costs and birth control."  The term "winner-take-all" is complete B.S., and illustrates the Democrat's erroneous view that for every winner there must also be a loser.  But in our economic system, there can be many winners.  If someone gets rich through his own efforts, that does not stop someone else from doing the very same thing.  It is not a zero sum game; wealth does not magically appear like manna from heaven, it is produced by entrepreneurs.  Wealth only becomes scarce when government begins to seize it, because confiscation eliminates the motivation for producing it.

Do I want the kind of country where we are more free from governmental intrusion into the private sector?  Hell yes.

The second sentence is closer to the truth.  "Shared prosperity" means wealth redistribution, the theft of the pay from those who earn it to buy the votes of those who do not.  "We're all in this together," I suppose, means "we all share the wealth, even when we didn't produce any of it."  However, in a larger sense, we are indeed "all in this together."   When the economy is heavily damaged by social engineering schemes, like the subprime mortgage fiasco, we all suffer.  We must work to keep our freedoms, our opportunities and our prosperity.  Barack Obama's presidency has had a deleterious effect on all three.

Right now there is an older woman speaking about how we need to "share, share, share, that we are our brother's keeper, blah blah blah."  Translation:  shut the hell up Republicans and hand over your wallets.

Signs Point to a Coming Democrat Defeat in November

Four years ago I stated that my intuition is often accurate, and that it was telling me that Obama would win the 2008 presidential election.  It came to me in a flash and was very strong, as if an accomplished fact had been revealed to me.  On October 3rd, 2008, I wrote:
My intuition is often very accurate. This morning when I woke up, I had a strong feeling of certitude that we Republicans are going to lose this [2008] election and that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. It wasn’t a panicky feeling or a worried feeling or a feeling of fear, it was a calm realization, an inner knowing. It told me in a quiet but clear voice that the election is lost. The inner voice presented it to me as a done deal.
Today my intuition is not as clear as it was then, but it is somewhat positive and hopeful.  My feeling is that Obama will lose the 2012 election.

The signs are continuously pointing to an Obama defeat in November this year.  Stacy McCain and Alli Akbar are onsite at the DNC in Charlotte, and report that the crowds are smaller, the media filing center smaller, the vendors fewer, compared to the GOP Convention last week.  Obama has moved his great speech on Thursday from a huge stadium of 73,778 seats to an indoor auditorium of only 20,200 seats.  Ostensibly the reason is because of the fear of lightning, but weather reports show good weather for Thursday.  The obvious reason is because Obama simply cannot draw the same huge crowds that he drew in 2008.

Registered Republicans are at an all time high and seem very motivated to get out the vote.  Democrats, on the other hand, seem lackluster and unenthusiastic.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are raising much more money than Obama is, and Obama has resorted to various tricks to increase campaign contributions.  In 2008, the Obama campaign was afloat in cash; now he is asking for donations as low as $3, and for married couples to ask for donations for him rather than accept presents from those attending the weddings.  The lack of financial support from the left indicates dissatisfaction and disillusion with Barack Obama.

The polls show a dead heat, but I don't trust the polls.  They showed Bush behind right up to the election in 2004, where he won by a strong margin.  Also, now that Mitt's the official Republican candidate, he can begin spending his huge war chest on anti-Obama and pro-Romney political ads.

Then there is the Democrat Convention itself.  I watched it last night and found the arguments so weak that I didn't feel upset, challenged or fearful.  Mostly I just felt bored.  Even Michelle Obama's supposedly sizzling speech left me cold.  She loves her husband; he cares so much about everything and everybody; he's the new Gandhi.  Yawn.