Obama’s Army Is Going AWOL

The “Millennial Generation” of young voters, many of whom comprise one of the President’s most devoted political action committees, Organizing For America, who were a major factor in Barack Obama being elected President in 2008 are not “feeling the love” for the Democratic party that they once had.

In 2008, party affiliation among young voters who “leaned to” one party or another favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 62% to 30%.

By 2010 the margin has shrunk to 54% Democrat, 40% Republican.

In February 2009, 73% of Millennials approved of President Obama’s job performance.

Just one year later, in February 2010, only 57% of Millennials give Obama a positive rating.

Sounds like the Millennials “liberal love” is fading.

How do Millennials compare to the political leanings of other age groups?

Among Generation X’ers, 38% described their political views as moderate and 38% said they were conservative; only 20% described themselves as liberal.

More Baby Boomers and members of the Silent Generation described their political views as conservative than moderate; 43% of Baby Boomer voters said they are conservative, 36% described themselves as moderate and only 18% said they are liberal. Similarly, 45% of voters in the Silent Generation described their views as conservative, 35% as moderate and 15% said they are liberal.

After such a strong showing of support for liberal values in 2008, the tide among younger voters may be shifting.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, as many Millennial voters identified themselves as liberals (29%) as conservatives (28%), while 40% said they are moderates.

So what does all of this mean for younger voters future support of President Obama, Democrat political candidates, and liberalism in general?

Sir Winston Churchill said it best:

“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a consevative at forty you have no brain.”

 

 

Source: Pew Research Center

Liberals Test Positive For Stupid

Jim Yardley on Pajamas Media makes the case that liberal progressives don’t have the common sense that God gave to a goldfish.

My son and his wife just had their first child, and he recently asked me what books he should get to read to his son.

I thought about it for a minute, and suggested the works of a renowned thinker who lived around 600 B.C. Before you say that ancient philosophy would be wasted on a child, I told him to get a children’s version of the works of Aesop.

Even though our liberal/progressive/Democrat (LPD) friends continue to insist that we have evolved as a species, reading Aesop will show any but the most obtuse observer that we really haven’t. Aesop continually shows us that there is a strain of humanity that “wants what it wants, when it wants it” and assumes that making such a statement is equivalent to postulating a law of nature. And just reading any recent news reports illustrates his point.

The new and current LPD “natural law” is illustrated in the “spread the wealth” mantra. But it hearkens back to two of Aesop’s fables. The fable about the ant and the grasshopper comes to mind, as does the one about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It’s the latter that demonstrates beyond any doubt that the LPDs have tested positive for stupid.

In 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with Daniel Webster when he stated “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Now we have a Congress dominated by LPDs, who show that they also have tested positive for stupid. Taxes, higher taxes, and still more taxes (even when misnamed as fines or penalties) is a guaranteed formula for economic collapse, followed shortly by societal decay and national disaster.

They are, as so imaginatively illustrated by Aesop, trying to kill the golden goose. And in this reality, the golden goose is the real engine of wealth creation — small businesses. Without the engine that creates wealth, there will be no wealth to spread around, regardless of how anyone thinks that is supposed to happen.

Read the rest of this entry

Team Obama Is Stuck On Stupid

Gallup Poll: Majority Of Democrats Have Positive View Of Socialism

According to a recent Gallup Pool 53% of Democrats view Socialism in a positive light.
So if 53% of Democrats are Socialists, what does that make the other 47% ?
Marxists?
Communists?
Astroturfers?

Election Day 1988 was only days away. Ronald Reagan was headlining a rally in Nevada. He said the options were the same as “when I stood before you.” Reagan framed the Democratic “choice” as one for “liberal policies of tax and spend, economic stagnation, international weakness, accommodation, and always, always blame America first.”

Reagan-era framing is regaining its relevance. Fair or not, liberalism’s worst stereotypes have returned from the dead to haunt Democrats. “Tax and spend liberal,” it’s back with the charge of being soft on security threats – a claim that dogged Democrats from debates over crime to the Soviets to terrorism.

Democrats branding deteriorated across the board from November 2008 to the close of 2009, according to the McClatchy-Ipsos poll. Democrats’ 17-percentage point advantage on taxes became a 2-point GOP advantage. Democrats’ 30-point advantage on the deficit became a 7-point GOP advantage. Democrats’ 9-point advantage on protecting the public against terrorism became a 7-point GOP advantage. The numbers were a light on Barack Obama’s new political terrain, a landscape eerily reminiscent to liberals of the bad old days.

Read the rest of this entry

Obama Is An Ideologue

President Obama would like to have people think that he is pragmatic.
I’d like people to think I’m the greatest writer since Hemingway.
The difference between myself and the President is, I know that I wouldn’t be fooling anyone.

‘I am not an ideologue,” President Obama insisted at his truly refreshing confab with the Republican caucus last Friday. When he heard some incredulous murmurs and chuckles from the audience in response to the idea that the most sincerely ideological president in a generation is no ideologue, he added a somewhat plaintive, “I’m not.”

The president’s defensiveness isn’t surprising. He holds his self-definition as a pragmatist dear — and not just because it polls well.

It’s clear from interviews that he’s fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He’s described himself as a “pragmatist,” even a “ruthless pragmatist,” countless times.

Yet the evidence that Obama is no ideologue rests almost entirely on two contentions: He has annoyed some members of his ideological base, and because he says so.

Here, for instance, is New York Times columnist David Brooks: Obama, he writes, “is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.” If this gruel were any thinner, it would be water.

Read the rest of this entry

My Christmas Present To The ACLU

Relax, relax, I haven’t lost my mind.

I would never waste my money buying anything for anyone who belongs to the ACLU.

Unless I could get them a brain, or some common human decency.

Maybe even just some simple common sense.

Instead, I came across this video clip which, although it is satarical in nature, pretty much sums up the work that the ACLU is doing to, I mean for, America.

Merry Christmas to all of you at the ACLU.

You liberal scumbags:

Moderate Senators Are Mental Midgets

I have always thought that calling a politician a “moderate” was sort of like saying a rabid pit bull was only slightly unpleasant.

Generally, anyone calling themselves a moderate has no convictions of their own, they simply judge their statements and actions on which way the wind is blowing.

At least, that has been the case up until now.

The debate over universal health care has changed all that.

Now, some Senators are voting for what they want, and don’t give a damn what their constitutents want.

Opposition to government-run health care grows day by day, yet these liberal lunatics are hell bent on ramming Obamacare down our throats whether we want it or not.

A prime example of this “we know what’s best for you, even if you are too stupid to realize it” is Colorado Senator Michael Bennet.

Senator Bennet, in spite of what the citizens of Colorado want, is on record as having said that he will support health care reform even if it means losing his Senate seat.

I am going to take it upon myself to inform Senator Bennet of something just as I would if I happened to live in Colorado:

Dear Senator Stupid:

We don’t care what you want!

In case you are either too brain-dead or too arrogant to remember, the only reason you are keeping that cushy job is because you are supposed to represent the electorate.

Don’t be scared that your fellow liberals in the Senate will look down on you, don’t worry too much about threats from Joe Biden, because if you or any other Senator who is up for re-election in 2010 continues to say the hell with the voters, I’m going to do what I want, you better make the most of it while you can.
                                                                                                                              Sincerely
                                                                                                                                      A concerned constitutent

For a few moments, I had trouble coming to grips with this guy’s totsl disregard of anything other than his own wishes.

Then I remembered that, when it comes to Obamacare, both the House and the Senate could care less about public opinion.

I have a news flash for any member of Congress who plans on supporting the travesty that is Obamacare.

Years from now, when your grandchildren ask how it happened that you were voted out of office, if you give them an honest answer, you will tell them it was because you went against the wishes of the majority of the American public.

Why Did God Do This To Liberals?

There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God.

It’s because he has been unfair to them.

He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to.

In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites.

Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:

That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming.
As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.

Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.
While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.
The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.

Liberals support abortion on demand.
And they oppose the death penalty.

Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies.
But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.

Liberals openly support gay rights parades.
Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.

That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong.
But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”

That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school.
Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.

That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.
And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.

Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state.
Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.

Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.

They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit.
They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.

Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.
But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.

So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.

I Am So Proud, My First Death Threat (I Think)

It’s possible that after all the time I have spent doing this, I have become successful.

Any time that a conservative can bring a liberal to hint at taking violent action, you must be getting too close to the truth for them to be comfortable.

I say that because I think I have just received my first death threat.

An article I did a while back, Barack Obama Appoints Doctor Death As Health Care Czar, has generated some interesting comments, but one it received on Friday tops them all:

“Dear Karl, It’s great that you agree with Emanuel because, we have just been appointed by Emanuel to decide about you and we have decided we should not waste any more resources on you.”

“I hope you understand that, as you indicated, “there comes a time when a person is no longer of any use to the state and must therefore be terminated.”  Sorry, Karl, “it’s just the progressive thing to do.”

Seeing as how this person couldn’t even spell my name correctly, I feel compelled to go very slowly and explain things to him.

Those of you reading this who have an IQ that is more than that of a goldfish will be able to understand the parts where I am being serious, and where I am being sarcastic.

You Kool-Aid drinkers will have to find someone to explain the difference to you.

“We have decided we should not waste any more resources on you.”

If only that statement meant what I would hope it did.

Because if it means the government is going to leave me the hell alone, stop trying to dictate every aspect of my life, deciding what is best for me in spite of what I think, I would take that as welcome news.

As would tens of millions of my fellow Americans.

….”there comes a time when a person is no longer of any use to the state and must therefore be terminated.”  Sorry, Karl, “it’s just the progressive thing to do.”

See, this is where I get confused.

Like most statements that come from liberals, this really makes no sense to me.

Is this guy saying he is going to try and kill me, is he trying to be sarcastic, or is this a lame attempt at humor?

If this is suppossed to be a threat, I’ll have to try and find the time to be scared, I am too busy to do it right now.

If he’s trying to be sarcastic, well, that’s one of the usual reactions that you get from a liberal when you point out something that that leaves them drawing a blank when it comes to disputing your facts.

And if he’s trying to be funny, I must have missed the punch line.

In any event, there is one thing I would hope to see in my lifetime.

And that would be liberal who could face reality.

Oh well.

I probably have a better chance of seeing Elvis and the Pope singing a duet.

The CHANGE Obama Promised Has Arrived. Or Has It?

This weekend we will be bringing you a series of articles that may escape your notice otherwise, but that we feel are important enough that you should know about them.
This article examines if the change that President Obama promised us has happened yet.
Seems like business as usual to us.
Or worse.

In the year since he was elected president, Barack Obama has revealed himself as one of the boldest leaders to occupy the Oval Office in the modern era.

 In that same year, Obama also has revealed himself to be an innately self-protective, constantly calibrating and, in some surprising ways, supremely conventional politician.

 So who is Barack Obama? The drama of this presidency — in sharp relief with Wednesday’s one-year anniversary of his 2008 triumph — revolves around how Obama navigates his own contradictions.

 Obama turns out not to be a Bill Clinton-style centrist or a Paul Wellstone-style liberal. His plans for health care and his trillion-plus dollars in new spending have earned the ire of Rush Limbaugh for being too grandiose and of Arianna Huffington for not being grandiose enough.

 Obama is the president as grand improvisationalist: a leader of epic ambitions who — when faced with a difficult choice — almost always pursues his aims with a pedestrian strategy and style.

This may be a shrewd approach to governing. But it manages almost by definition to defy and disappoint the huge — and wildly divergent — expectations Obama encouraged supporters to harbor for his presidency.

Read the rest of this entry

Next Page »