Jury still out on Russian and other post-election “flexibilities” as Obama Media’s ABC aka All for oBama Corporation, chose to focus only on gay marriage, the “revival” of the auto industry and whether President Obama will continue the first family’s Mother’s Day tradition of leaving the First Lady on Air Force One
First reaction of our Astute Democratic Party Political Observer in Georgia upon learning that President Barack Obama had evolved to favor the legalization of gay marriage:
“He just lost the election. He said it in public!”
More below on what else Democrats say privately but aren’t saying publicly and what loses elections for Democrats. But first, before President Barack Obama sat down for yesterday’s interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, he had not faced reporters, unaccompanied by a foreign leader, since November 13, 2011. Since last fall, news developments other than that a thirty-second state passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, include:
Clintonian courage and the downside of being found out later to have failed to act on OBL-whereabouts intel
The pre-May Day, ‘Barack killed bin Laden’, Obama campaign ad appearance by former President Bill Clinton almost convinces me that Hillary will replace Biden on the 2012 Democratic Party ticket. Why else would the man who slayed Ross Perot twice and an al-Qaeda night watchman in Afghanistan state the following for the man that called him a racist during the 2008 South Carolina Democratic Primary?:
“He had to decide. And that’s what you hire a president to do. You hire the president to make the calls when no one else can do it,” Clinton said in the video, which sought to contrast Obama with his Republican foe Mitt Romney. “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there, and it hadn’t been bin Laden,” Clinton said in the one-and-a-half minute video. “Suppose they’d been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him. But he reasoned, I cannot in good conscience do nothing. He took the harder and more honorable path.”
Would that President Clinton had made similar and harder, ‘honorable path’ decisions on the fate of the man who declared war on America in 1998, but the ad featuring the husband of President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State wasn’t content to merely praise Obama, as it also contained a four-year old quote from Mitt Romney as doubting the merits of searching for bin Laden:
“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney was quoted as saying in a news report included on a CNN program when he was a Republican candidate four years ago.
It wasn’t Mitt Romney that voted twice to cut off funding for combat troops in the Afghan theatre when they were about the business of gathering the intel that eventually led to Obama’s only great moment of his presidency. No, it was then-Senator Obama (D-Il) and then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that opposed swabbing the noses of high-level al-Qaedaofficials, including the mastermind of 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (pictured). We now know that critical information on OBL’s location was learned from the persons whose noses were swabbed, and which persons, incredibly, continue to live despite having been water-boarded.
This conservative’s heart bleeds with Rush’s for the victims of the Democratic Party’s race-based policies.
I often ask blacks that I meet and get to know that still cling to the notion that most whites are racists; that most of Blacks problems are due to racist whites; and that they have a right to be liked by all white people…to join us. Join whites that walk out of the house everyday to a world that doesn’t like them very much either. Join us in the human race to try and build a good life of prosperity that is only possible if government shrinks from its control of our lives.
This former Democrat was won over to Rush while still a Democrat and still nearly ten years away from my eventual 2000 conservative epiphany due initially to his utter refutation of the notion that conservatives are racists. He epitomizes not only the perfect example of MLK’s content of character dream, but also the utterly Christian concept of how precious is each individual.
Couldn’t resist posting an example of the Wonder of Rush:
Conservative Republican policies work best for the poor, middle class and Liberty-based happiness pursuits for all
An exchange with a close friend, self-described as a “bleeding heart” who is “sure” President Barack Obama will be re-elected, inspired the eponymous section of this column discussed further below, but first let’s address concerns of conservatives who delivered the historic 2010 GOP mid-term election landslide that may be disillusioned by the emergence of Mitt Romney as the likely nominee of the Republican Party after the failures of Cain, Bachmann and Perry to continue the tea partier takeover.
A properly blindfolded Lady Justice wouldn’t know if a corpus delicti looks like President Barack Obama’s imaginary son and wouldn’t weigh empathy in the scales of justice.
Unless one accepts the default assumption of “Civil Rights” industrialists, including the Attorney General-dubbed “anti-race cowards” law firm of Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, Lee & Nzinga, that White America (including so-called “white Hispanics”) circa. A.D. 2012 is a monolithic Jim Crow or that George Zimmerman’s heart, mind and soul is uniquely readable; there is no reason to suspect that the shooting of Trayvon Martin had anything to do with racism.
Rather than accept “Reverend” Jesse Jackson’s conclusion that “Blacks are under attack” in America and proceed to heed Cheif Magistrate Obama’s admonsihon to “search our souls”, why not first listen to the 911 tape, which reveals the following:
Zimmerman:
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman:
He looks black.
911 dispatcher:
Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]
Apparently the 6’2″ teen wasn’t singing in the rain and, like Gene Kelly, apparently wasn’t up to no good either; but most folks reserve leisurely strolls for non-stormy weather. All things being equal, including skin pigmentation, walks in the rain sans umbrellas can be seen as “suspicious” on some level.
We can’t read the hearts of John Does, Trayvons or Zimmermans, but what we do know is that the race of the unarmed man was only brought up by the 911 dispatcher, not the armed neighborhood watch volunteer who ended up injured about his face and head, but alive, after his confrontation that he claims ended with an exercise in the right of self defense.
A mixed race Trayvon Martin is killed by a mixed race, and so far uncharged, George Zimmerman, and We the People are admonished to search our souls since the deceased looks like President Obama’s imaginary son.
Souls are searched.
Souls in Florida impanel a grand jury to determine if sufficient evidence exists to bring charges against a broken nosed-Zimmerman for the homicide and a U.S. Justice Department investigation is commenced to determine if Martin’s civil rights were violated.
Problem solved? Not according to the souls of New Black Panthers, certain non-Pastoral “Reverends”, and the director of “Do the Right Thing”.
New Black Panthers (only recently granted the right to wield billy clubs outside polling places on Election Days when Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general, dropped voter intimidation charges against them) post kidnapping bounties for Zimmerman, aided and abetted by inaccurate Spike Lee tweets that force an unrelated elderly couple to flee their home, as Revs. (without portfolio) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim “blacks are under attack” and call for an escalation of civil disobedience, respectively; and the nation’s Chief Magistrate says…nothing.
Part III of our Why the poor should vote Republican series
For the past 30 years Democratic Party presidents, congressmen and candidates have opposed expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production, as well as permits for new oil refineries and nuclear power plants. Democrats have based their policy arguments on safety (despite the absence of any significant nuclear power accidents in the U.S.) and environmental concerns; as well as the promise of “clean” solar and wind energy.
When Americans noticed that the polluted air and water of the 1970s were cleaned up while energy use expanded exponentially in the 1980s and 1990s, they argued that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were dangerously warming the globe. When the combination of cold 2000 naughts’ winters coincided with scientific data affirming global cooling, they semantically shifted to fears of amorphous “climate change.” When the discovery of emails from adherents of the latter indicating a conspiratorial fraud followed closely upon the Summer of 2008′s increase in gasoline prices to $4/gallon, they lost all credibility aimed at the CO2 humans exhale, i.e. plant food.
Republicans say “x”; the media reports they meant “y”; and the best way to be sued for defamation is to accurately quote a Democrat
President Barack Obama has faced the nation the past three years declaring his debt-exploding policies to be Biblically-based, in the national interest and necessary to remedy the economic crisis he inherited from his GOP predecessor. When addressing the persistence of continuing economic ills in the fourth year of his presidency he asserts that Republicans impede solutions to the nations ills because they put party politics above what’s best for the country or that he didn’t realize just how bad the crisis was. Finally, when addressing follow up questions from the media reminding him of his original contradictory claims and suggesting that he is attributing nefarious non-Christian motives to Republicans in Congress, he…oh, wait a minute, we don’t actually remember hearing such follow ups when Obama meets the press.
The free exercise of religion was fundamental to the founding of America, but so is the right to freely bargain with health care and insurance providers
After President Barack Obama inevitably drops the recently announced mandate that even church-affiliated employers provide health insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and “Plan B” morning after abortion pills (aka RU-486), will we look back at this exercise as a ruse to make ObamaCare seem more palatable to voters this fall?
After all, the Messiah will be seen as having heard the public outcry including threats of civil disobedience, and graciously agreed to respect the consciences of Roman Catholics? In fact, the subject mandate applies to all religious group employers which include numerous Southern Baptist hospitals and other Protestant and Evangelical organizations, but I digress.
Yes, America’s founding by pilgrims and Puritans, not to mention the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, properly focuses this mandate to fund abortion coverage via insurance premiums on the free exercise of religion, but of course, when Democrats aka Dem-o-bats (pictured, that suck the blood out of health care) rule, our tax dollars regularly fund abortion and yet we don’t see threats of civil disobedience to withhold taxes, do we? Moreover, if theObamaCare mandate is actually put into effect in August 2013 (after the election of course) the only recourse people of conscience would have would be to refuse to pay the ObamaCare fine for refusing to comply.
Caring for the poor is always defined by support for the latest Democratic Party proposal
During my teen and young adult Democratic Party activism years in the 70s and 80s, the number one scare tactic used by the party to scare widows and orphans, i.e. the poor, was their claim that if Republicans controlled the government, they would “take away your checks”. Ronald Reagan, famously asserted his support for a safety net for the “truly needy” and despite several periods of exclusive GOP control of the executive and legislative branches over the last 30 years, the safety net remains intact.
And yet, the Democratic Party mantra against Republicans as having a lack of concern for the poor has continued unabated with the goalposts continually being moved to re-define caring as support for the latest liberal Democrat proposal, whether it be Stimulus, ObamaCare or mortgage bailout bills.
Enter Mitt Romney:
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
Translation: We agree with the Democratic Party. Our concern for the very poor has been satisfied by the welfare state they have constructed and if we must spend more money to expand that safety net to show we care about the poor, we will.
Mitt makes many mistakes with this statement and one of the mistakes is in thinking that Republicans can ever satisfy the Democrats on the issue of caring for the poor. We can’t. Why? Because their concern is in buying the votes of the poor by keeping them dependent on government and creating more poor people to be dependent on them.
Recent Comments