Yet again...

...Liberals respond to a tragedy by suggesting, nay, demanding, a new law that not only would not have prevented the tragedy, but may well lead to more.

Let me tell you something, people. I hate politicizing a tragedy. I HATE it. It strikes me as sub-human. When I look at the pictures of those students and teachers who were gunned down by a maniac in Connecticut, my reaction was tears. Liberals, apparently, loved it, and immediately thought about how to use this to further their ends.

It happens all the time. It happened after the Jared Loughner shooting. It happened after the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting. It happened after the Utah shooting. It happened after the shooting of people waiting in line on the day The Dark Knight Rises opened. It happened after the Jovan Belcher murder suicide. And this time, after I wiped the tears from my face, I wondered how long it would be before some idiot liberals started demanding stricter gun laws.

Now, here's the odd thing; argued emotionally, it makes sense to want to take guns off the street because of a tragedy. Hell, it makes sense to want to see all guns in the world destroyed. I confess; I don't like guns. I've never owned one, and I've certainly never shot one other than once as a teen shooting my grandpa's hunting rifle under tightly controlled circumstances, including the fact that I never pointed said gun at anything that moved. Even in those circumstances, I was a little afraid. I had pure respect and terror for the raw power of the object in my hands to end a life.

I can understand how someone who feels that way might want to take all guns off the street. But their thinking never goes beyond that. Those who mean well literally stop with "remove guns", believing that this will prevent gun violence. Being against gun violence is something anyone with a conscience simply must be, and it's easy to fall into the fallacy of believing that being against gun violence must also mean that you're against gun ownership.

The problem is that meaning well isn't the same as producing good results. The simple, practical, bare fact is that removing guns from the street will not reduce gun violence, and in fact will make things worse.

It's become an oft-repeated phrase that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Because the phrase is repeated so often, it's easy for liberals to dismiss it as an out-dated "old wives' tale" or something like that. But it's true. Gun violence is ALWAYS caused by people who have no regard for the law (any many had mental issues as well). And until the day comes when there's an outbreak of gun violence at a police convention, NRA meeting or gun show, you simply cannot say that gun violence is caused by people who love guns. In fact, some of the most gun-responsible people, some of those who know gun safety inside and out, are the very people I just named.

In the imagination of liberals, the more people who are allowed to own guns, the more there will be accidental shootings, or people who have always been gun-happy will simply get more so, and turn into full-fledged maniacs. They imagine a world where EVERYBODY has a gun, and therefore EVERYBODY IS SHOOTING EVERYBODY ELSE!! And these are just the ones that mean well!

The problem? Reality shows different. The areas of the United States where gun control is loosest, where nearly any citizen can be armed anywhere they choose to be, are without fail the areas where gun violence is lowest. Imagine that; a large number of gun owners does not equal a large number of trigger-happy freaks shooting each other.

For that matter, I'm not an old man but within my lifetime, gun ownership has fallen per capita, gun laws have gotten more and more strict, and yet gun violence has risen. How could that be possible, if the liberal take on this had even a grain of truth?

The fact is, gun violence has risen because criminals who would use guns for crime or violence feel more free to do so knowing that there is a very tiny chance the person they're attacking will be able to defend themselves. Hanging up a sign that says "This is a Gun Free Zone" is tantamount to telling criminals "Come here and shoot us all you like!" A person who would use a gun to hurt someone else is NOT a person who's going to care that there's a sign up.

Of course, this doesn't stop liberals from having their fantasies. I recall an episode of Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman (has there ever been a more liberal show) wherein Dr. Quinn's adopted son is elected sheriff of their town, and in the same episode an outlaw ends up shooting the town's bartender. Because of this ONE SHOOTING (I should remind everyone that this show takes place in the old west), the town votes to outlaw guns. Yup. In this case, they don't even let the sheriff himself have one. Realistic writing, there.

But it gets worse. This outlaw comes back, and is met by the sheriff in the town square. The sheriff says guns aren't allowed in their town, and that he has to turn his over, or leave. The criminal threatens to shoot him dead, and the sheriff tells him he can try, if he likes, but then he'll have to go through the entire town to do so. Seeing the angry looks of the townsfolk, who are each and every one of them inside houses, looking out of windows, the criminal mutters something like "You win this round" and then turns around and leaves!

WTF?! In real life, this criminal would mow down the sheriff and then pick off anyone who left those houses, one by one. It would be fish in a barrel. But to the liberals who run that show, that's how they envision a world where no one is allowed to have a gun; that their "moral high ground" will win. No, unfortunately it won't.

The fact is that if a criminal has a gun, and knows you don't, he won't hesitate to use it on you should he feel he needs to. Conversely, the more he believes you might have a gun, the less likely he is to risk attacking you, knowing you could shoot him just as easily.

Now, I know people are going to bring up the Trayvon Martin case, specifically that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. They see this as another case of a trigger-happy gun-owner murdering a defenseless boy. The problem is that according to EVERYONE who witnessed the event, Martin WAS the attacker, and likely attacked because he was a cocky young thug who was sure that Zimmerman either didn't have a gun or didn't have the guts to use it if he did. And he likely thought that due to the anti-gun messages he likely heard everywhere. Martin, again, according to witnesses, rushed Zimmerman, threw him to the ground, straddled him, and started banging his head against the pavement, and punching him in the face, all while yelling "You're going to die today". Zimmerman managed to reach his gun and fired in self-defense. If he had not been armed, Zimmerman would be dead, and Trayvon Martin would be a murderer (likely never caught or convicted).

But what do liberals advocate in the wake of such a thing? Make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to get guns. NOT make it easier to defend themselves against people who would break the law; make it harder to do so. Why? Why do they never understand that this is where it simply must lead?

They can't even answer the question on the most basic level; how do you expect to enforce gun laws on people who don't follow the law? What makes you expect that laws against guns would actually take guns off the street? Do they also feel that laws prohibiting cocaine and heroin have successfully made those drugs impossible to get hold of?

But they don't ask those questions. All they want to talk about is how best to get rid of guns. All they can do is spit questions back at us: "Why do you NEED a gun?" "What types of firearms do you think SHOULD be banned? Automatic? Semi-automatic?" They don't want to dialogue about it; they just can't get off the train of thought that guns simply MUST be banned, and that will reduce gun violence.

Now, I've said a lot about people like this who mean well. Many of them probably do just want to end gun violence. They've latched onto a completely wrong-headed method of doing so, but at least their hearts are in the right place. But there's another level to this. When politicians start talking about banning guns, everyone should be very, very worried.

There are politicians out there who are seriously proposing anti-gun legislation. They don't want stricter gun laws; they want to outlaw guns. Oh, not for the police or military, obviously. Just private citizens. Which means, not only will criminals still have guns, but the government will now be the only ones who have fire-power to back up their stance.

Do you know what you call it when the only people who can carry guns are those directly authorized by the government to do so?

A dictatorship.

Destroy and Replace the Media. Now.

The so-called "mainstream" media is a huge problem in America. In fact, it's THE problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He's just a symptom. If we could somehow prove that Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense (he's guilty of several) or that the election was won by voter fraud (I'm near certain it was), it wouldn't matter. Obama would face no consequences because A) his party is behind him 110% and B) the media will cover for him and blame Republicans like nobody's business.

The narrative in the United States is driven not by politicians, not by activists, not by protestors. It is driven by the media; print media, online media, televised media, big-screen media, music media, you name it. And I mean both "serious" news/journalism and entertainment. Every day, in some way or another, we are bombarded my liberal messages. Even if we're just watching TV, every TV show has a political angle, even those that would seem innocuous.

They're a huge part of the problem and we need to replace them. But in this post I'm gonna focus on tactics used primarily by today's "news" media. They claim to be objective (Except MSNBC, but most people don't really take them seriously). They claim they're just reporting the stories that "matter", that are "news-worthy". Of course, it is they, not the public, that decides what's "news-worthy." If Bush had been president when Benghazi happened, it would be the word on everyone's lips. However, hardly anyone knows about it, or even what we know happened, because the media won't talk about it. The same stories that the media wouldn't shut up about during Bush's term can't be touched by the same media during Obama's term. "Bush's war" killed some innocents in the crossfire? Horrific war crimes! Obama's drone strikes are killing innocents? Oh, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs; there's no story there. Bush "ignored" a briefing that could have prevented 9/11 (even though it could not have)? Bush is the real terrorist! Obama ignored repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi, numerous reports of terrorist activity there, and then acted as if the terrorist strike was a "spontaneous uprising" spurred by a little-seen, silly little youtube video? No story there, either, apparently.

But by now, when it comes to how Republicans are covered by the media, we all know their major tricks. They call us racists. They disparage our motives. They question our party history, apparently confusing historic Democrats for historic Republicans. Then they talk about how older Republicans of yesteryear were the true moderates, and that they wouldn't have been allowed in the party today.

But they have also begun (or could have been doing for years) lobbing a bunch of accusations or tactics against Republicans, especially those campaigning for some office or other, that just plain shouldn't work, but apparently do. These include accusations that aren't scandalous at all (or wouldn't be if it was a Democrat), or accusations of wrong-doing committed by a person not even connected to this politician. Here are just a few:

"You're rich." Code term meaning "You can't relate to the common man." The irony that most of Hollywood and the national music scene is pro-Democrat is apparently lost on any who would dare utter this ridiculous phrase. And just to show how out of touch the Democrats really are, I have heard actors, directors, singers, etc. utter those words about Republicans. Because Will Smith, Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand sure can relate to the common man. Yes, sir. Of course, even just on its face that phrase is asinine. Name a governor, senator or congressman whose income is "middle class" or average. Not only aren't there any, but seven of the top ten richest members of congress are...Democrats.

"You're white." Politics has been a Whites Only club for most of America's history--on BOTH sides. It's been within my lifetime that the face of politics is changing to include more than just one or two minorities here and there, and that's a great, wonderful thing. Or, it would be, if minority politicians didn't feel the need to play racial politics with literally every issue. Issues that have nothing at all to do with race now bring accusations of racial hatred...as long as it's a REPUBLICAN politician who's talking about them. Suddenly, talking about "Chicago", "apartments", "food stamps", "work ethic", "the constitution", et al, are racial "dog whistles". And now we've reached the point where simply being white is enough to get somebody demonizing you. Again, only if it's a Republican. Allen West lost to whiter-than-white-bread Patrick Murphy. Think even once Murphy was asked about his racial motivations for running against a black man, or that his skin color was even brought up? Nope. Now, how often were Romney and Ryan accused of racism for being white men who dared run against Obama? If you answered "every time their name was brought up in the MSM", well, duh.

"You're old." Again, like there aren't any old Democrats? For some reason, 70-year-old white man Joe Biden can, with a straight face, call the Republicans the party of old, white men. This man plans to run for president in 2016. He's said so. He'll be nearly 74 years old. That's older than John McCain was during his 2008 presidential campaign. You know, the one where the press couldn't stop bringing up his advanced age? I guarantee that even if Biden runs against a man young enough to be his son, no one in the press will bring up his age. Hell, Robert Byrd was in his 90's, and no one suggested he should give up his senate seat. Some even suggested he should run for president himself. Age only seems to matter if you're a Republican.

"You're a man." Yet again, an issue that only seems to come up when the politician or public figure in question is a Republican or conservative. It's all just a way to keep saying, even though no one really believes this, that the Republican Party is the party of "old white men." There are just as many women in the Republican Party as there are in the Democratic Party, but you'd never know it from media coverage. Any time a female Republican makes the news, the media act as if they've never seen one of these before. Despite the fact that they have to act like that several times a year.

"You're a devout christian." Ask most Democrats what religion they are, and the answer you'll get is some form of Christianity. No, I'm not suggesting that there are no atheists on their side, and in fact I think most of those who answer that they are Christians are lying in order to get votes, or answering with the name of the religion they were raised in that they haven't practiced in years. BUT! I would wager the same is true for a number of Republicans. Despite that, for some reason the religion of Republicans is a Big Deal. This is because it is true that more Republicans live their professed faith than Democrats, but by no means do they all, not to mention that Democrats are never called on how they aren't living their faith. Democrats who claim Christianity, whether they live it or not, are just fine. Republicans who do EXACTLY THE SAME are dangerous because they're "devout christians" who apparently wish to institute a theocracy and take us back to the "dark ages" (that only exist in liberal nightmares) where you can go to jail for not being a christian, or where women were kept in cages and raped by husbands who bought them, or something.

"Someone in your party said or did something bad. Repudiate it, or you're just as guilty as if you said or did it yourself." This guilt by association trick can apparently only be applied to Republicans. When Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock gave ill-advised, poorly phrased and, in Akin's case, just plain wrong statements regarding their views on rape, the media reacted with their typical selective outrage. The same media that glossed over Robert Byrd's "white n----rs" comment jumped on these two men for comments that were, ultimately, just badly put versions of the following idea: "Obviously rape is a horrible thing and we can understand why a woman who is put through that might not want to keep a child that could result from such an attack, but I feel that it is commendable for a woman to allow the child to be born, so that something good like a new life can grow from something horrible and criminal." Would that have been acceptable to the pro-choice crowd? Not on your life. Would it have made it easier to take their side? Unquestionably. However, because of how stupidly phrased the responses were, many began calling for them to drop out of the race. Quite a few people, even people I know personally, and who are usually smart, actually thought Romney didn't "condemn strongly enough" those statements. Apparently calling Akin directly and telling him to drop out (which Romney did) isn't enough of a condemnation. Of course, the media didn't care if Romney repudiated those comments or not. All they cared about was linking him to them, which they successfully did. Of course, when liberals rallied in support of Anthony "Shows Underage Girls His" Weiner, no one worried that not distancing themselves from him would hurt their own careers. When the media goes after a politician demanding he say or do something to condemn a member of his own party caught doing or saying something stupid, you can bet that politician is a Republican in the midst of a campaign, and you can guarantee that if he doesn't repudiate the other politician, or doesn't do so "strongly enough", which means whatever liberals want it to mean, they will claim that he's as guilty as if he had done it himself (ergo, Romney/Ryan were "pro-rape"). However, if they DO repudiate the person to the media's satisfaction, then:

"You repudiated what someone in your party said. Your party is hopelessly divided and cannot sustain itself." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"Someone in your party is corrupt, ergo your party is corrupt. Ergo you are corrupt. Prove us wrong." Sometimes the media takes it this far. If they can prove that a Republican, or even just a rich guy who donated to at least one Republican campaign at one time in his life (even if he also donated to Democrats), is corrupt, or dishonest, or whatever, then that one action taints the whole party--but only the Republican Party. Obama's complete campaign donor list remains a mystery. Who might we find on it if we were to ever see it? It's widely believed, even by many Democrats, that he received foreign campaign mony. But for some reason, if it is even suspected that a Republican candidate might have received foreign campaign contributions, instantly that person is called corrupt. Therefore, anyone in that party, including the man running for president, must also be corrupt. Then we are put in a position where we have to prove a negative. It's like the phrase "So, Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?" Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the media never puts leftist candidates in that position. Using the Anthony Weiner example again; no one in the media, at any time, asked Weiner to prove it wasn't him that sent those pictures. That would have been the first question he was asked, had he been Republican.

"Your campaign has gone negative, and is being unfair and hateful." I can see this one, actually. After all, Romney accused Obama of giving a woman cancer, of out-sourcing jobs, and of not paying his taxes. Paul Ryan accused Joe Biden of wanting to kill grannies, and later, while speaking with a feigned southern accent, told a group of African Americans that the Obama campaign "gonna put y'all back in chains!" The Romney campaign accused Obama of waging a "war on women" due to their stance on the religious freedom of groups who were anti-contraception...oh, wait. I accidentally switched the names. All those actions were committed by the Obama campaign against the Romney campaign. But which campaign was accused by the media of "going negative?" That's right; Romney's. Romney was up against one of the most angry, divisive, negative campaigns the USA has ever seen, but when he called the Obama campaign out about this behavior, the media called him, yes, angry, divisive and negative. Oh, the irony.

"You're a minority, but still a member of this party. This means you're out of touch with racial issues, and the country itself." Woe betide any woman or visible minority who dares be a Republican. This statement is an obvious attempt to shame such people away from the party, or at least the public eye. Again, irony of ironies, despite the fact that the Republican party has done nothing--not one thing--that could be considered racist, other than exist, which is bad enough, apparently, they are repeatedly accused of racism (and sexism). So how to explain why we have women and minorities in our party? These people have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, apparently, or just refuse to see the racial and gender issues plaguing this country, caused by evil Republicans. I've said lots about this before, and I won't go over it all again, but it just seems odd that no one has picked up on this; first they try and scare women and minorities away from us, then they accuse us of not doing enough to reach out to these groups. Even scarier; a lot of Republicans are falling for it.

"You've spent a ton of money on this campaign. You must be trying to buy the election." Politicians spend money to win elections. That's a fact, sure as water is wet. Obama out-spent McCain in 2008, and he won. But not one word was said about him "buying" the election. This time, despite how much attention was focused on Romney's campaign spending, not one outlet reported that, although it was a narrower margin, ultimately Obama spent more than Romney. So who really bought this election?

"You are playing politics with serious issues." This whole statement, from beginning to end, is surely facetious. Surely there's no one out there who truly believes the party most guilty of "playing politics" (which is another ambiguous term that means whatever the left wants it to mean) is the Republicans. Surely not. We're talking about a party who killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have improved international relations AND created jobs, because their green-energy backers might get mad.

"You are far too focused on social issues." This is hilarious, because Romney was accused of this just as much as Bush or any other right-wing politician ever was. What was the focus of the Romney campaign? Jobs and the economy. What was the focus of the Obama campaign? Well, winning, and at any cost, which included bombarding Romney and Ryan with repeated questions about their stances on rape, abortion, contraception or gay marriage. Neither man had much to say about them because they understood that America's economy was in the toilet and that was what was important. So who was focused on social issues?

"You have aligned yourself with protestors, which makes you dangerous and unstable." This is true if you're a Republican and have in any way been associated with the Tea Party. This is NOT true if you're a Democrat and have openly supported the Occupy movement.

Goodbye, America

FUCK.

One Day More...

Could it be that by this time Wednesday morning I will be celebrating the victory of President-Elect Romney? Or will I be bemoaning another four years of the Marxist-in-Chief?

Call me optimistic, but I think it'll be the former. My real fear at this point is that Obama will do something to halt Romney's victory, not that Romney won't actually win. Obama apparently has teams of lawyers poised across the country ready to challenge any result other than an Obama win.

So, essentially, Mitt's gotta get not just a win, but a decisive one, or we could be here all week just waiting for O's lawyers to somehow conjure enough fake votes to total a win.

If it sounds like I think that most Americans have turned away from Obama, that's because I do. Romney may not have been their number one choice to replace Obama. He certainly wasn't mine. But my fear of his campaign; that he would be soft, capitulating and unwilling to fight, like McCain, have proven to be ungrounded. Romney/Ryan have run a very good campaign. If they'd run a fantastic one, like Allen West or others who didn't run probably would have, there would be no one questioning Obama's loss. The race would already have been called for the Republicans. As it stands, Mitt could still end up with a comfortable victory. America is sick and tired of Obama, and it's only uncertainty that Romney can be trusted more that keeps him from slaughtering Obama in the polls.

How can I say that when the polls either show a tied race or show Obama slightly ahead? Simple; most, if not all, of the polls that say that are following the electoral model from 2008, and in many cases juicing it up even moreso.

The Dems enjoyed a D+7 electorate in 2008. They've never had a turn-out like that, and it's not too hard to see what brought them out; they weren't just voting for a president but for the first black president, who was made out by the media (and his own campaign) to be the second coming.

Nobody thinks this electorate is really gonna be D+7. For one thing, the 2010 gubernatorial and congressional electorate was D+0 (even), and we shellacked the Dems' hold on Congress and our state governments, which should say something. Anger toward the left has only risen since then. Disgust with the current administration has climbed and climbed. Bottom line, though, is that Republican turnout is predicted by many pollsters to be MUCH higher tomorrow than in 2008, and that's very easy to believe since even these juiced polls are recording that Romney is leading Obama by double-digits among independents, and enthusiasm among those voting for Romney is a good 15% higher than among those voting for Obama. So how do these polls still manage to call Obama the winner, or at worst, say they're tied or it's too close to call?

Simple; because all these polls are over-sampling Democrats. Some of these polls have gone as wingnut-crazy left as to deliver a D+11 or even D+13 sample! That's insane. No one, not even these pollsters, honestly believe that's the electorate we're gonna get. But they keep touting it. Nate Silver, former Kos blogger (bias? surely not), is deliberately using the 2008 model to predict, uh, predictably, a comfortable Obama win. Huff 'n Puff Post and MostlySaysNothingButCrap can't stop chatting up Silver's predictions and the handful of juiced polls, mostly from Reuters, AP, CNN, CBS and other news outlets that couldn't be more obviously hoping for an Obama victory, just certain that because these polls, along with Public Policy Polling and Marist, both run by left wing think tanks like Media Matters for America, show victory for their side, that they simply can't lose.

They also tout the assurance of Joe Biden, David Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, Jen Psaki, et al, that they feel confident of victory, as if that means something. What else are campaign officials going to say? Oh, we're so scared, we think we might lose?

Meanwhile, Gallup polls and Rasmussen polls, neither of whom over-sampled Democrats, show a pretty clear Romney victory. Michael Barone, a pundit who predicts polls as part of his job and is rarely wrong, predicts a landslide Romney victory. Ditto George Will, Karl Rove (say what you will, he predicted Obama's 2008 win), Joe Scarborough (he's never liked Romney) and numerous others, many of whom have no horse in this race, and some who were even saying they want Obama to win but have to be realistic. Those saying just as surely that they think Obama's going to win? The anchors from MostlySaysNothingButCrap. Bias? Surely not.

Right now, the "battleground" states are New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Colorado (9) and Nevada (6).

Now, of these "battleground" states, Romney is leading or tied (according to those Dem-heavy polls) in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Colorado. 80% of Coloradans have already voted, and the state is looking decisively Romney-red, so I'm giving it to him. Again, those Dem-heavy polls have Obama just squeaking by with a narrow victory in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Nevada. Some polls put him behind in Iowa and ALL polls show Romney leading independents there. Personally I think Obama will lose Iowa.

I also think that the evangelical vote, which a lot of pollsters have ignored, will swing widely in Mitt's favor, thanks to Obamacare's contraception mandate, which could easily deliver Ohio and Iowa to Romney. Obama's hold on New Hampshire is tenuous enough that it could easily slip through his grasp, as many are predicting.

So of those "battleground" states, the smart money is on Mitt taking all of those states with the possible exceptions of Pennsylvania and Nevada. HOWEVER! New polling, plus the fact that the Obama campaign sees the need to still campaign and run ads in Pennsylvania, as well as (I'm not kidding), Michigan, Wisconson and MINNESOTA (again, not kidding!) shows that those states are in play as well! Romney/Ryan are campaigning and running ads in those states, which they would not do if they didn't see those states as being in play. Even realclearpolitics.com lists them as toss-ups, even if some pollsters won't go that far. Mitt leads independents in all these states comfortably, plus Wisconsin's recall vote last year went to Scott Walker, when most polls showed him behind, says that Wisconsin may be going more red than we've previously thought. Could Mitt take those states as well? I'm not counting on it, but he could take one or two of them.

But let's be generous. Let's just say that all the states currently leaning O's way (even though his lead in all of them is less than 5 points, or he's losing or tied, even in the juiced polls) will go to him. Let's just give him Pennsylvania, Nevada, and the Northern Firewall of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. That still leaves 146 electoral votes up for grabs and Mitt seems to be heading toward winning 72 of them, while Obama has 30 of them within his grasp. 18 of them are still genuinely up for grabs, and whoever wins them, wins the election. For those keeping count, I've just awarded Obama 257 electoral votes and Mitt 263. If O takes Ohio, he'll win with 275 electoral votes. If Mitt does, he wins with 281. Hell, let's be super-generous and give Iowa to Obama. Still it all comes down to who wins Ohio.

And Mitt is easily in a place where he could.

I'll be honest; I think I'm being too generous to Obama. I don't think he'll take Iowa OR Ohio. I also think he stands to lose Wisconsin and New Hampshire. His lead in NH, even with juiced polls, is too slim, and anecdotal evidence like crowd size at speeches, number of Romney/Ryan signs vs. Obama/Biden signs, lead among independents, and other stuff it's hard to totally calculate, we could potentially be looking at a Romney landslide. For that matter, knowing how juiced the polls are in Obama's favor, if we give Romney every state where Obama's lead is less than 5 points, Mitt wins with 337 electoral votes! Some pundits are even predicting it WILL happen.

I won't go that far. I'll stick to a Romney win with 281 electoral votes, 275 at minimum, with minimum 53% of the popular vote. But I know if the vote is any closer than that, Obama will contest it. He will not go quietly.

Four years ago, I started blogging because I was angry that America could have fallen so far that we would willingly vote in a man so obviously hateful of America and all she stands for, just because he was black. Wednesday morning, when I type either a large "YES!" I will probably stop blogging, or slow down significantly. Life just keeps getting in the way of blogging. I'm getting married, I have children, and I have a career. But if O keeps his stranglehold on America, I will not give up the fight. If anything, my blogging will increase.

I will leave you with one thought; Right up to the day of voting, the 1980 race was dubbed "too close to call". Reagan won 485 electoral votes. In 1984 the media speculated that he might have more of a challenge, and lose some states. He won again, this time with 524. George W. Bush, who was neck and neck with Gore, won with 285 electoral votes. The media suggested he would be trounced by Kerry, but he won again with 292. Every time a Republican wins, it's to the surprise of the media, who insisted the polls proved a Democrat win, or at least a toss-up.

We'll see you back here Wednesday morning with the results.

What Will Happen When Our Problems Don't Vanish Upon Romney's Election?

John Hawkins's latest article. Read it. Then read this.

Hawkins isn't wrong, and it's not entirely unthinkable that Romney won't solve these problems. It's reasonable to assume that once he's in power, he may even ignore some of these problems.

But I am confident that no matter what he does in regards to the issues Hawkins points out, Romney will do a better job handling any of them and all of them, than will Barack Obama.

Why? Because the last four years have shown that Obama won't do ANYTHING to solve them, but the liberal media will ignore them for his sake. So, if he gets another term, we can count on all those problems to get worse, we can count on the president ignoring them, and we can count on the media ignoring the president ignoring them.

But the article also serves as a nice preemptive strike when it comes to what's going to happen should it be Romney who's victorious on Tuesday.

That is, the media will finally start acknowledging that these problems exist, and begin hand-wringing that Romney isn't the man to take care of them. And if these problems haven't disappeared on day one of Romney's presidency (and they won't), then the media will immediately call him a failed president who did not live up to the job.

Remember how often leftists demanded we leave Obama alone during his first 100 days in office during the early part of next year. At this point, I believe Romney has a very strong chance of winning (though nothing is set in stone), and if he does, I firmly believe that he will be excoriated strongly by the very same people who called us racist, angry, violent, dangerous people because Obama had only just taken office, so we couldn't judge him.

Think they'll show the same courtesy and respect they demanded we show then? Not hardly. Romney will become the punching bag for all the problems still facing the USA. These issues won't go away overnight. No, I don't think it takes more than a single term to turn them around and I think if Romney can't get us on the path to significant change by the middle of his first term, then there's a problem. But because these issues are many, and hard to solve, I know, I don't just think, that the same media, and the same rank-and-file Obama supporters, who are currently pretending things are good, or at least better, will suddenly realize all these problems exist and begin wailing that they're unsolvable, or at least, that Romney hasn't waved a wand and solved them overnight.

You watch and see.

Personally I really think conservatives aught to take advantage of the fact that so many common Americans are starting to self-identify as conservatives and Republicans again, and do something about this corrupt media. Protests might work, but massive campaigns promoting conservatives to become journalists, writers, etc. and find other ways to enter the media, and promote the media they make, will have a more lasting effect. Something's gotta be done about these bastards. They more than anything are what's harming America today.

VP Debate 2012: Mr. Smith vs. Leslie Neilsen

A while back, I said that we need a candidate willing to get onstage and laugh at the Obama administration. Apparently Joe Biden read that and decided to get the jump on it by laughing at his opponent. But he got it wrong.

Joe, I wasn't suggesting that you laugh when your opponent talks about YOUR ADMINISTRATION's response to a terrorist attack. See, if you laugh at the other guy's absurd claims about his own record, or bizarre claims of racism from your side, that's one thing. Laughing about dead people? Not cool. Not cool at all.

Joe Biden, even to his own party, came off as dismissive, arrogant, jerkish, and un-serious. While Paul Ryan looked like an honest, open, earnest, serious young Mr. Smith (of Mr. Smith goes to Washington), Biden looked like Leslie Neilsen at his most obnoxious. This wasn't Leslie Neilsen in Airplane!. This was Neilsen in Spy Hard.

Now, I won't say that Paul Ryan did a 100% job. He gave a couple of weak answers here and there. Nothing approaching Obama's non-performance at last week's debate, but a couple of blunders. Light stuff. I could point out that it was his first debate ever and that Biden was an old hand at this, but I won't make any excuses, and besides, he doesn't need them. Weak moments aside, I saw a man that, at 42, is already more ready to be president than Obama was at 47. I can tell you right now, after watching this debate, that 2020 has a VERY promising incumbent VP Presidential candidate.

Just Show Up and You'll Win: Obama Believes His Own Bullshit

Obama has declared before "You know, I actually believe my own bullshit".

Anyone who hears this story will find out that the president wasn't just kidding. He actually does believe his own bullshit.

Ever see a pre-schooler at a T-ball hit three strikes but walk from the plate smiling because he just hit the ball three times? You know, the ball that's sitting there right in front of him, on a poll, not moving? Well, that's Obama after last Wednesday's debate.

Apparently he believed all he had to do was show up, and he'd win. Worse yet, he still believed that after he strode from the podium, not seeing the fresh, steaming helping of his own ass that Romney had just handed him.

I can just hear it now "Oh, yeah, I'm the man. All I have to do is be here, and I've wrapped up this whole election. I rule. I RULE! Another four years! Heck, maybe during my fifth year I can get someone to lobby to overturn the 22nd amendment. And because I want it, I know it will happen. I'm the king, baby. Hail to the king."

This pic is funny, but apparently not accurate. It would be, if Obama lived in the same reality that everyone else does.

Even Obama's staunchest supporters immediately declared that the debate was a drubbing. Mitt Romney ate Obama's lunch, and watching guys like Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan melt down over it has been hilarious. Remember how Obama was "sort of God", or that he gave Chris Matthews a "thrill up his leg", so much so that he "forgot [Obama] was black"?

That's the effect you get when Obama is placed in a setting where he can hold court; where no one can challenge what he says, and when everything he wants to say is on a teleprompter. I also think it's funny that some of his supporters are now arguing that teleprompters should be allowed during debates. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. This is how mindless liberals are.

For the last four years, Obama has enjoyed as president the same environment he has enjoyed his whole life; the environment where he will always be reassured that he's the smartest person in the room. Everything is handed to him; he got every "job" he's held because of how he was able to cultivate this image of a smart young black man. In interviews, no one asks him tough questions, and in the one interview he granted FOX news, he was visibly irritated that he wasn't allowed to just quote platitudes and get off lightly. That's what he was used to, and that's what he expected.

Notice that the more openly controversial his decisions became, the more he held "press conferences" where he refused to take questions, even from the liberal media? Obama can't handle being challenged.

He also carries with him the innate belief that he'll always win because he is who he is. This was clear to those non-racists who saw past his skin-color from the get-go, but now it's becoming clear to all Americans.

I'm gonna close with some advice for the brilliant Paul Ryan (who probably doesn't need it): don't believe the anecdotes that tomorrow night will be a walk in the park for you. Don't believe that all you have to do is show up to win. Yes, Joe Biden is an idiot, but he's a folksy idiot who can lie on his feet while smiling. Call him out, and call out the media for allowing him to get away with it for four years. Bring your A-game, because we know the best game Biden's got is a B minus. But don't feel like you can bring your C-game and win, like Obama clearly thought was the case.

Conservatives Should Demand This From Any Liberal Hoping to Interview Them

I watched Ann Coulter brave the four harpies and the one MSNBC-Conservative on the View, and it reminded me of other times that I've watched conservatives brave the gauntlet of the MSM interview.

Condi Rice on Laurence O'Donnell. Jonah Goldberg on Piers Morgan. Ari Fleischer on Chris Matthews. Andrew Breitbart on Bill Maher. I watched these interviews, and plenty others, and compared them to whenever a liberal host like those above bring on liberal guests.

Watch any of the interviews between Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There are several. Note that he lets her have complete freedom to speak her mind for as long as she needs to make her point. The interviews above? You can barely hear what the guest is saying, because the host won't shut up.

They talk over the guest, they interrupt them, they cut mic's. Now, say what you want about Bill O'Reilly (who I've never really liked) but most of the time when a liberal is invited on a FOX News program, they can actually get a word in edgewise. Off the top of my head, the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace that I've already discussed springs to mind. I mean, yeah, I didn't like what he said, but I do like that he was allowed to say it.

When you think about it, that made Wallace look like the bigger (and smarter) man. Let Stewart blab, let him expose his ignorance, let him show just how little he actually knows when he's not in his echo chamber, and then, when he's said his piece, eviscerate him.

That's not how liberals work, though, and in the above interview examples, I think one of the reasons why is clear to me, even if it's not clear to those who do it; they're worried that the guest may say something they can't refute. They're worried about looking stupid. And they're right to worry. Ann Coulter vs. Whoopi Goldberg? Bitch, please.

However, it has to stop. One of the reasons type-1 liberals remain liberal is that whenever they're in a situation where they're watching a conservative, they come away thinking conservatives must be stupid and mean. Any time they watch a conservative, they're always fighting to be heard over the host, so they look hostile.

But conservatives can't just stop going on these shows. It would look cowardly. Since liberals have set the narrative, they can always just say "conservatives won't come on these shows because they will only go where they're made to feel comfortable and no one asks them hard questions." I mean, that sentence is entirely true of liberals (which is why Barack Obama has instructed his staff not to talk to FOX News, and why, after some pressure, he agreed to all of ONE interview in four years). But projection is one of the ways liberals deflect criticism, and as of yet, that won't work for conservatives because we have lost control of the narrative (some would say we conceded the narrative). So what can we do? Continue to go on these shows to be brow-beaten by the host and made to look bad?

No. We can start by saying that we will not agree to go on any show until the following conditions are met:

1) The interview must be live. Never submit to a pre-taped interview or you WILL find yourself edited to look less smart. Any point where you stumped the host will not make it to air. Similarly, never submit to a magazine or newspaper interview.


2) Prior to air, the host or producers must be completely honest about the tone and line of questioning in the interview. We could be prissy like liberals and demand to see the questions beforehand, but since we already know what we believe and why, we don't have to prepare answers. However, since liberals are always fully prepped by the host, conservatives must be as well.

3) When the host asks us a question, he must wait at least three minutes for us to answer, and is not allowed to cut us off mid-sentence. If he does interrupt after you've said a complete sentence (after the three minutes), the three minutes start again. I say three minutes only because I know a TV show has a limited time slot and you're usually not the only guest. However, I think that if the whole show is one long interview with you, that three minutes should expand to six.

Then, during the interview, if the host breaks the third condition, the guest must say "Okay, you just broke the condition to let me actually articulate my position, and everyone watching saw it. Strike one. You don't get a second strike." Then hold to that. If he breaks it again, he's out. Get up and walk out. But first, tell the host "If you ask me to come back on this show, I will, but only if next time you actually agree to let me get a word in edgewise. This time, however, you blew it, and this interview is over."

You may be thinking this will make us look more hostile. The first couple of times, maybe so. But when it becomes obvious that this is happening with EVERY interview show on CNN or MSNBC (or morning talk) and ONLY with conservatives, soon people will be able to see that conservatives are always entering a trap when they go on these shows, but they're no longer allowing the trap to be sprung.

EDIT: Someone's been reading my blog. Go Congressman Ryan!

Democrats Hope We Have Veeeery Short Memories...

Wow.

We all knew that Obama can't run on his record. That's why, so far, his main message is "Vote for me because Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car in the 80's" or "Vote for me because Romney is rich" or "Vote for me because Romney gave a woman cancer, Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff and they both perform weird rites in their basements at night involving midgets with cloven hooves and sacrificing thirteen year old girls. Prove it isn't true!"

But now we have Bill Clinton saying on a national stage the same shit that Obama's supporters have been spewing in political forums for the past year; Obama is not a failure because no one could possibly have led an economic turnaround from the disaster we had in 2008 in just four years.

Umm...what?

Like I said, I've heard this tripe before. In every public forum, be it youtube, facebook, twitter, you name it, Obama supporters whine about how we just don't understand; Obama's not a failure. Obama is the only thing that kept the whole situation from getting a lot worse than it did. Do we rubes really think McCain could have handled this situation any better? Do we really think Romney has better ideas that will actually work? It's just the same-old same-old that got us into this mess in the first place! Obama's "really trying". He "really cares". If it weren't for him, "everything would be much worse." And "nobody could have turned all this around in that short a time."

Okay. A few things.

First, does anyone really believe that no president in US history has EVER had to face an economic situation as bleak as the one Obama "inherited"? Was the economy, the jobs situation, etc., really so weak in 2008 that it was possible to say that no president has ever faced a situation that horrible? The answer, of course, is no. Ronald Reagan got elected in a landslide because of Carter's mismanagement of, well, let's be honest, everything, but the economy in large part. Whether you love or hate Reagan, you cannot deny that America became a prosperous place under him, and before that fully happened, Reagan didn't sit around blaming Jimmy Carter.

Second, yes, the economy and jobs situation was bad in 2008. We had 7.2 percent unemployment. Our debt was over 4 trillion, prices were rising and trade was down (of course, I could point out that most of this wasn't true until the Democrats took control of 2/3rds of the government in 2006, but that's beside the point). That was 2008. Now our unemployment is well over 8%, and that's just the "official" report which doesn't even factor in those who have stopped looking for employment. Our debt is now over 16 trillion and rising all the time. America has gone from having "a weak economy" to losing its AAA rating for the first time since 1917. In other words, Obama not only failed to make things better, but contrary to the supporter's line, he did NOT keep things from getting worse.

Third, ever since being elected, Obama, his cabinet, his staff, the news media and his other supporters have been whining about the "mess" that Obama "inherited." He "inherited" nothing. This implies that the job of fixing the "mess" was thrust upon him, and caught him unawares. He knew, and acknowledged that there was a mess that needed cleaning many times during his campaign. He campaigned as though he was the man with the plan to take care of it. He kept talking about how badly George W. Bush screwed things up and how only he and his plan could possibly fix it. "Yes we can!" he shouted at adoring crowds. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" "Hope!" "Change!" People voted for Barack Obama because he was supposed to be the one, the ONLY one, who could turn this around and make America into a land of chocolate rivers and rainbow gardens. He was NOT elected because "no one" could possibly fix this in just four years, but at least he could keep it from getting worse. Had he run on that idea, he not only would have lost the presidency, he would have lost the nomination, and 2008 would have been McCain vs. Hilary Clinton (which means, instead of the US mysteriously becoming the most racist country in the world just after electing a black president, it would have become the most sexist country just after electing a woman president). This argument that "no one" could have fixed the situation in four years is a complete fallacy. Four years is all a sitting president is guaranteed. Obama knew this going in. He even said that if he can't turn the economy around in three years, "we're going to have a one term proposition." Those are the words of a man who believed he could do it, not a man who just wants to keep things from getting worse (which, as I said, he didn't even do).

Next we have to address the constant poo-pooing of any plan Romney or Ryan may have. Democrats don't want to discuss what the plans of the Republican nominee and his running mate actually are; they just want to smear and name-call. They talk about a woman getting cancer who didn't have any coverage because "Romney!" when a brief investigation reveals Romney had nothing to do with her fate. They want to call Ryan's budget "draconian", and accuse him of wanting to gut medicare (pushing an old lady off a cliff) without ever actually discussing his budget or his economic plans. If they did, they'd lose, and they know it, especially since it was OBAMA who has gutted medicare already (cutting more than 700 billion from it to pay for Obamacare).

And fifth, "Obama's really trying" and "really cares" only work as campaign slogans. It doesn't work for a sitting president that's had four years of almost unencumbered time to implement whatever plan he had. Seriously, the next time you're up for a job review, and you've done a bad job, try using "But I'm really trying" and "I really care" as a defense.

Obama and the Democrats apparently hope we have very short memories. They hope we don't remember all the promises they made back in 2008, when all they had to do was get elected. Now that they're fighting to stay in power, and haven't kept a single campaign promise, all they can do is shout "racists!" "George Bush!" "Rich people!" "First gay president!" "Do-nothing congress!" Etc.

They also hope we don't see that under Obama, spending rates doubled, and tripled, and that Obama has spent more in his first three years than Bush did in eight. They hope we don't see that in all that spending, we have nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still high, our economy is still in the toilet, and all Obama can say is "we need to spend more", "I didn't tell a good enough story", "The private sector is doing fine", "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" and other such happy homilies that reflect "hope" and "change" and the "yes we can" spirit.

Jonah Goldberg sums up perfectly why we shouldn't accept his "the situation was worse than we thought" excuse. "They say in their defense that’s because the downturn was so much worse than anyone realized," writes Goldberg. "OK, but that just demonstrates the folly of their confidence in the first place. If I jump off a building because I am sure I can fly (“I wrote a study that proves it!”), it’s of little solace, and even less of an excuse, if I sputter out my last words from the bloodied pavement, “The pull of gravity was so much worse than I realized.”"

Let's face it, if Obama was a white Republican (or, even a black Republican since democrats think race is sharply defined by one's politics, therefore Bill Maher is more black than JC Watts), but nothing else was different, the press would be raking him over the coals. Not only would they say that he's unworthy of re-election, but they would have insisted that he be impeached facing criminal charges (Fast & Furious, the Cordray appointment, etc.). But because he's a Democrat, he can hide behind his paper shield of "all my critics are racists" and the Left and the press will let him get away with almost anything. I'm convinced he could pull out a gun during the presidential debates and shoot Romney dead, and the press would spin it as self-defense.

Obama has had four years to convince us that he's up to the job. He has been, for good or ill, the CEO of America. Congress is the Board of Directors. Obama apparently thinks we're the employees, but we're not. We're the customers and shareholders; those most important to any company. His job was to manage the company and make it profitable and sustainable, and to do so to our satisfaction. He did neither. And when pressed on his poor performance, he offered up blame-shifting and excuses. If any other CEO did that, it would be time to replace him. And it's time to replace Obama.

We don't have short memories. We remember what Obama said he would do. And he failed.

Obama: "I'm Unsuccessful. Vote for Me."

Conservative republicans have been categorizing Obama as the anti-success president. He doesn't like people who are successful. And that's what this campaign has turned into; a contest between a man who is indisputably successful vs. a man who really can only call his political career a "success", and only a marginal one at that.

Obama has never held a real job. As far as we know, he's never flipped burgers or pumped gas, let alone had a genuine career in the private sector. We know that as a child he was educated in Muslim schools in foreign countries, and even in his late teens was not expected to work as his community provided for him. We know that he didn't hold real jobs in college. He did, however, work as editor of the Harvard Law Review, despite never actually submitting any copy himself. We know that he got into schools he was unqualified for, but we don't know how. Since a bio of himself, written by himself and submitted to a publisher in the late 80's stated he was born in Kenya, it's entirely logical to assume that he applied to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School as a foreign student.

NOTE: I am NOT saying I think Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere other than Hawaii. I am saying, however, that in the past Obama has decided it suited his purpose better to claim that he was born in Kenya. This cannot be denied, not even by explaining the publisher's bio as a typo (they claim they meant to say he was "raised in Kenya") because OBAMA WROTE IT HIMSELF.

We also know that Obama was apparently a "senior lecturer" (his official title) at the University of Chicago, although he refers to himself frequently as a constitutional law "professor". The actual title of "professor" was never bestowed upon him, and Obama does not have a teaching degree. Also, apparently his course load was light, "lecturing" only three times a year from 1996 to 2004, when he was elected to the US Senate. Also during that time (starting in 1997), he served as an Illinois State Senator. Prior to that he held a nebulous "position" as a "community organizer". What exactly that means is unclear, as Obama himself won't really define it, but we know that mostly it involved political activism. So, in other words, most, if not all, of Obama's jobs before becoming a senator were political in nature, and most of them he most likely held because he sold himself as a foreigner, and was therefore afforded special privilege.

For that matter, Obama's entire adult life has been an exercise in mediocrity. Nothing he did, or is doing now, has ever really gotten anything done, except promoting Obama himself. Can anyone point to a lawyer who credits "Professor Obama" as an inspiration? Can anyone name anything he did while editor of the Harvard Law Review that was noteworthy? His record in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate is entirely unremarkable, with not a single accomplishment to his name. Eight years in Illinois and three years in the US Senate and not a single accomplishment? No signature legislation, no deciding votes, no leadership skills shown. He's never even held the type of office that requires him to interact with the American people on any kind of regular basis.

His record is thinner than a greeting card. Obama is a prime example of a man who, due to knowing the right people and presenting himself falsely, has been moved up in the world despite having absolutely no successes to claim. No wonder Obama seems to despise those who are successful due to the sweat of their own brow. No wonder he seems to think that business owners can't claim to have built their businesses. No wonder he thinks privatization is wrong and that the government should own everything. It is entirely reasonable, from his standpoint. He is the exact opposite of a self-made man, other than making up a false self (but even there, this was likely a product of the kind of thinking his communist buddies were up to).

Obama has never really worked, but has instead taken on job after job where he can promote himself and parrot leftist talking points. In his chosen fields he has no career highlights whatsoever. Every piece of legislation he has ever put his name on was drafted by someone else, and is just a new form of legislation that was introduced by someone else earlier. He can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. He is, more or less, a made-up human being who can only be described as "successful" due to coasting into the White House by use of the race card and other dishonest techniques. Success is antithetical to his vision, which only requires that the right people (himself and those who handle him) are in power and the rest will have his version of "success" (that is, government dole for everyone) handed out to them as he sees fit.

And no wonder that he can so easily demonize Mitt Romney for being successful. When I was a boy, a man like Mitt Romney running against a man like Barack Obama would have been no contest; the successful man can make America successful, and back then this was considered good.

Now Obama can basically build his campaign around the idea of "he's rich, so don't vote for him." Of course, Romney is rich because he built successful businesses, and so Obama has no recourse but to try and attack that.

We used to aspire to be like those successful people. But this is the age of Obama, where mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, and failure is proof of good leadership. All one has to do is look around America to see what Obama's idea of "success" is.

A Change of Pace: A Personal, Non-Political Post

So, if there are regular readers of this blog, you may have noticed some lack of regular posting, or as regular as I used to. This is because my personal life has become far more active than normal, as I have met the woman I have been waiting for my entire life.

This comes on the heals of a relationship that could not have been more wrong, and also almost immediately after me saying to myself that I would remain single for a while. I didn't count on meeting "the one" this soon, nor was it planned, but when it's right, it's right.

So, in the spirit of that, I've been thinking lately about ways I knew this was right, as compared to other relationships I've been in, including my ex-wife. And I decided to share with you all my thoughts on the matter.

And here they are; a few ways to tell if the relationship is wrong for you, or if you've met the right one.

The Wrong One: When you're not together, or in contact, you barely think about her, or relish the break from her.
The Right One: Every minute spent without her is a minute she's SOMEWHERE in your mind, and you can't wait for the next time you see her.

The Wrong One: When she leaves your house, you relax again because now everything can go back to normal.
The Right One: When she leaves your house, it feels like it won't be normal again until she's back.

The Wrong One: You both feel there are aspects of yourself you can't admit to the other, so you both compromise who you are for the other person.
The Right One: You can both be completely natural around each other with no repercussions.

The Wrong One: You tabulate all the favors you do each other, all the times the other pays, gifts you buy each other, etc., and carefully weigh them against how much the other is doing the same. You feel cheated if the balance ever tips in the other's favor (and feel it's entirely fair if it tips in yours).
The Right One: You do favors for each other or surprise each other with gifts because you enjoy seeing the happy look on their face, and neither of you worries about who's paying because you think of your money as each other's.

The Wrong One: Her dream man is some unattainable actor or singer with nice abs.
The Right One: Her dream man is you.

The Wrong One: You often stop to recall what your life was like before you met her.
The Right One: You can't imagine life without her.

The Wrong One: Thinks it's demeaning to be thought of as "yours", because "what am I, your chattel?"
The Right One: Joyfully calls herself yours, and calls you hers.

The Wrong One: When one of you has to move far away, due to work or another extenuating circumstance, they either expect the other to move with them without considering their needs, or they end the relationship.
The Right One: Neither of you could stand the thought of living apart for too long, and would gladly sacrifice something else to be near the other.

The Wrong One: Expects frequent ceremonial gifts or actions from you, and gets angry if there aren't enough of them.
The Right One: Appreciates every gift or action, but mostly just wants the gift only you can give her; yourself.

The Wrong One: Dismisses your hobbies and interests as irrelevant because she doesn't share them, but either fully expects you to appreciate hers, or blatantly doesn't care what you think of them.
The Right One: Your individual hobbies may be different, but you also share quite a few and the differences compliment each other's. You may even find some of the other's hobbies or interests becoming yours after a bit.

The Wrong One: The two of you may talk about marriage, but both of you have back-up escape plans in case things go wrong.
The Right One: You both understand what "forever" means, and talk of marriage comes up because you'd gladly give each other "forever."

The Truth on Racism in America Today

“Racism: The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others.”
Or in other words, being more concerned with the color of one's skin, or one's original nationality, than what they do or say.

Often times, racism expresses itself negatively. As in the example above, it often follows that a believe that races differ from each other can also be coupled with a belief in genetic superiority. But it doesn't have to.

Quite often in western society, the open racism we see exemplifies the first part of that definition but leads into something quite different from a need to dominate that race. Instead it leads to a kind of pity for, and infantilization of, that other race.

When the Left uses the term "racist", they conjure in their heads a kind of person who hardly exists anymore except in movies and on TV; a white male (for some reason, they're always male) who has only white friends, lives in an all-white neighborhood, and resents any and all times they're forced to interact with people of other races. This person, much like Archie Bunker, likely believes all stereotypes about black people (or anyone of another race) that he's ever heard, and will call the police if he sees a black man walking down his street, because as far as he's concerned, that person can't be up to anything good. He'll naturally assume that any latino is a gang member, any oriental person can't drive but knows his computer inside and out, Italians don't bath, etc. This guy, when he goes into a 7/11 and sees a guy behind the counter who's of a different race, immediately winces and thinks "of course".

The thing is, the image they have of this guy is not only not very prevelant anymore (do YOU know anyone like this?), but other ideas they have about him are wrong. The belief, for example, that such a person would, and could, only vote Republican. People caught expressing views like those above are almost unfailingly Democrats. See Joe Biden and his comment about not being able to go into a Dunkin' Donuts without a slight Indian accent, or Bill Maher suggesting that a "real" black president would solve the BP oil spill problem by threatening BP executives with a gun. Rush Limbaugh, who is regularly called a racist by leftists who refuse to listen to him, has never said anything like that.

Another problem is one of extrapolation; leftists see all-white neighborhoods and immediately decide they exist because of racism. And because these all-white neighborhoods have nice houses and cars in them, the people living there must be rich, and we all know Republicans are all for the rich, so therefore these racist people must also be Republicans, therefore all Republicans are racist.

Not only is the conclusion ridiculous, the whole premise is reliant on supposition that may or may not be true. First, you don't know that the neighborhood is all white because of racism. That's just an assumption. It may be all white simply because the area has a low black population. This isn't an unreasonable assumption. Black people make up about 12% of the population of the USA. The fact that there are still areas where a majority, or even totality, of the residents are white proves nothing about endemic racism. It says far more about a person who would make that assumption.

It also could be an all- or mostly-white neighborhood thanks to another kind of racism; one that nobody in that community can help. But I'll get to that later.

Then there's the assumption that just because everybody in that neighborhood is rich, they all vote Republican. Where does this assumption that rich people vote Republican come from? Last I checked, Warren Buffett was a Democrat, as are Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, George Soros, and a number of others. Not to mention that the entertainment and music industries, and most news organizations (comprised of mostly millionaires and billionaires) unfailingly support the Democrats and describe themselves as liberals. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. Find an affluent white neighborhood and knock on each door, pretending you're a surveyor and asking only what party they affiliate with. I can guarantee you'll find that more than a few are Democrats, and probably that in some areas like this (especially in blue states) you'll find that Democrats actually outnumber the Republicans.

But, with the image of the affluent white conservative who lives in an all-white neighborhood and hates (or at least is uncomfortable around) people of other races in their heads, liberals apply this kind of label even to people it doesn't fit.

When a white man from a lower or middle-class area is on TV talking about the young black man that stole his car, leftists see the white skin and assume "White. Most likely rich. Probably votes Republican. Racist." When they hear reports of a black man beating up a white man, they think "Well, the white man was probably racist and deserved it." In fact, black Democrats have been heard saying on many occasions that they assume all white people they meet are racists unless they prove otherwise. Lord knows what that means, considering that apparently even using someone's first name is now considered racist.

In Mobile, Alabama, a white man named Matthew Owens asked a group of black boys not to play ball directly in front of his house. It was a Saturday night, and he told the kids they were making too much noise, and to please play elsewhere. In return, he was visited by a mob of black adults who beat him with bricks, chairs, pipes and paint cans until he had to be hospitalized. His sister, who witnessed the event, reported that one of the men, while walking away from Owens's broken, bleeding body, shouted over his shoulder "That's justice for Trayvon!"

Unless you're living under a rock, you know who "Trayvon" is. But you might not know he's not the victim of a racist attack. Again, more on that later.

Now, the attack on Owens was brutal, and horrific, and there's no chance such an attack wasn't motivated by race. Consider that all Owens did was ask the kids to move elsewhere; not an unreasonable thing to ask on a Saturday night when someone is bouncing a ball around and yelling directly in front of your home. The next thing this man knows, on his own front porch he is surrounded by an all-black crowd, who beat him within an inch of his life for the crime of asking kids to move. If there's any doubt that the attack was racially motivated, the "justice for Trayvon" remark should clear that up.

In fact, black on white crime is much higher in the USA than white on black crime, but you'd only know that if you bothered to look up the statistics for yourself. If you watch the news, and formed your opinion straight from there, you'd assume that any black man who walks past more than two white people at a time is in danger of being murdered. But real life can show you this isn't true. There's a reason the Trayvon Martin case made national news; it was one of the only known instances of "white" on black fatality where the reason for the killing was not immediately evident. So naturally it was due to racism and is proof of widespread racism still being a "thing" in America today. Nobody reporting on it or reacting to it paused to wonder why we haven't heard about a hundred similar deaths each month, if what they're saying about widespread white racism is true.

What we should also be asking is, why cases like Owens's above are so under-reported. I'd guess that if you walk down the street and ask a random person if they've heard the name "Trayvon Martin", most would say they have, and I'd say most of them would know where from. But ask them the name "Matthew Owens" and they'd probably say "Now him I don't know" or even "Was that the name of the killer? I forget" or probably even "Why, is he another black boy killed by racists?"

That's because he was white, and his assailants were black. The media didn't report it because it could get people asking about how many other vigilante acts were committed in Trayvon's name (at least three thus far, none of which got even a third of the coverage the Martin case got), or even (gasp) independently researching just how many other such incidents happen per year. However, confront a leftist with that story and I know what the response would be. "He was probably a racist. He deserved it." The logic behind that thought process? He's white.

So right there, there's two kinds of racism; one an example of positive assumptions, the other an example of negative. If a large group of black men attack a white man, they're freedom fighters fending off a racist. If a white man is attacked by a large group of black men, he must have deserved it.

Both assumptions are...racist! Assuming only good motives (or at least "pure" if still illegal and violent) of black people is racist because it's absurdly patronizing, or it comes from a place that says "black people can do no wrong." It looks at race first, and decides the right-ness of the actions based solely on that. Any way you slice it, that's racist. For that matter, assuming the white man must be guilty of racial discrimiation himself is racist.

In the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, racists around the country pounced on this story, assuming two things. 1) that Zimmerman is a white man who killed Martin because Martin was black and 2) that the police were also white and racist, and approved of Zimmerman ridding their neighborhood of one more black kid, so they let him go. And they reacted with anger and threats of violence. As you can see from the example above, they were ready to carry out those threats, too.

Both assumptions made were racist assumptions. First of all, Zimmerman isn't "white", he's of mixed heritage that is primarily latino (he's also part black, which has gone criminally under-reported). He also isn't racist; he was involved in a petition against his local police because they didn't arrest a local cop's son for beating up a black homeless man, and he mentored a young black man for a while and treated him like a son. For that matter, he was not just a member of a neighborhood watch; he was the founder of it, and there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood when Zimmerman spotted Martin wandering around his neighborhood and looking at the houses.

When you learn more details of this story, it's impossible to believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood, or that it was racially motivated. Well, it's impossible if you yourself aren't racist and are actually able to look at the facts objectively and not be blinded with rage. (As an aside, many were incited to anger at Zimmerman thanks to a malicious edit by ABC News of Zimmerman's 911 call, where it sounds like he think Martin is up to no good because "he looks black", and CNN's garbled version of it, where it sounds like he says "fucking coon". In fact, in the un-edited version, we can hear Zimmerman saying "he looks black" in response to the 911 operator asking what color he was. Also "fucking coon" becomes "it's fucking cold" when played without the intentional garbling of the recording.)

There's a lot more I could say about this case, as new revelations that show Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder are coming out all the time, but this has been covered quite extensively by other blogs, and I don't have much new to say about it. However, this all speaks to another form of racism that I alluded to earlier.

That is, black-on-white racism. "Oh, but blacks can't be racist!" I hear you cry. You believe this because you've been raised in a society that is patronizing toward black people. It automatically assumes that racism is only racism if it comes from whites. Blacks can commit the same actions, but they are justified, because they are black.

Remember the hypothetical all-white neighborhood? Remember I said that there could be another reason no black people live there? Well, it could be because the black people in that city look at that area and think "I can't live there, because that's whitey's neighborhood. If I were to live there I'd have sold out. I wouldn't be authentically black anymore."

That's a racist attitude. If being "authentically black" means you must live in slums with other black people and refuse to congregate with whites, you're just as racist as a KKK member. Maybe worse, because you expect that people will be okay with this entirely racist attitude.

Unfortunately, it's an all-too prevelant attitude in today's society. White people walking through black neighborhoods are justifiably afraid they'll be attacked...because it happens all the time. Of course, they'd never admit to it because to do so, they're told, is racist.

On the other hand, black people can attack white people for being white, even tweet about it, and expect that no one will bat an eye for fear of being accused of racism. All while claiming that black people are attacked and killed in great numbers by racist white people. Any person with eyes to see and ears to hear and common sense can tell you that's nonsense.

Face facts; we live in a country where the head of the justice department (the same man who has sued Arizona for enforcing existing immigration laws and sued a Florida fire department for what he saw as "racist" standardized tests; the same man who dropped the case of voter intimidation by Black Panthers; the same man who is responsible for Operation Fast & Furious which has put guns in the hands of drug cartels and killed border patrol agents and hundreds of innocent Mexicans; the same man who says voter ID laws are not necessary and could "disenfranchise" black voters) is on record saying hate crimes do not apply to black people. Got that? In America, a crowd of black attackers beating a white man halfway to death for asking children to move their play is not a hate crime, but a single person, who increasingly appears to have been acting in self-defence, shooting a single black kid is not only a hate crime, but direct proof of widespread racism still prevelant in America today.

If America were truly racist, not only would we have never elected President Obama, but Holder would not hold the job he does. However, because the left is racist, not only has Obama not been impeached, despite his Cordray "recess" appointment when congress was still in session (an impeachable act all by itself), his sudden declaration of amnesty for illegal immigrant children raised in America (which is illegal), and his own involvement in OF&F, but Holder, who has done his best to make America a dangerous place to be white, who has made our borders less secure, directly caused the death of border patrol agents and Mexican citizens while arming drug cartels and has not done anything remotely approaching his job since taking office, is not only still employed but not behind bars, where he belongs*. It is the left's endemic racism ("you can't impeach or suspend either man because they are black") that allows this.

You also have black liberals openly stating their racism. New Black Panther member Minister King Samir Shabazz is on record (and video) as stating "I hate white people! All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em...You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

Flip this around and imagine a KKK member shouting this stuff through a bullhorn on a crowded sidewalk about black people. Imagine the media circus that would result. He would be in fear for his life (as he should be) and the police would likely arrest him (as they should). That speech contains calls for violence, open hatred of white people, and murder. Murder of babies. What's the response of the liberal media? Same as Matthew Owens; crickets. Oh, and did I mention that Obama shared a public stage with this man, and at no point repudiated him or his incendiary language? Now imagine George W. Bush sharing the stage with a KKK grand wizard. Hoo boy.

Other examples of racism, which would easily be recognized as such if the races were reversed:

Former DC mayor Marion Barry openly stated that black neighborhoods need to kick out Koreans and their "dirty" shops so they can replace them with black businesses.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, who I've always liked, openly stated that he voted for Obama because he is black. He also accused white people of always voting white, and for the same reason. Um...Sam? If that's true, Obama would never have won, since as I've already said, black Americans make up about 12% of the populace. You can't win just on that vote alone.

Black radio host Tom Joyner apparently agrees with Jackson, calling on blacks to vote for Obama again this year. Why? Because he's black. "Stick together, black people."

Another black radio show host, Thaddeus Matthews, had as his guest GOP congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann, who is also black. When she would not acknowledge any direct connection with the Tea Party, Matthews lost it on her, calling her all sorts of awful racist names, accused her of being a "token" and then told her he wouldn't even shake her hand because he was afraid "the whiteness might rub off."

And through all of this, black racists like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson want us to believe that black people are under attack. They want us to think that it's the 1950's all over again (Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson even said Republicans and Tea Partiers want to see blacks "hanging on a tree"). They want us to believe that peaceful, orderly Tea Parties are in fact mobs of violent racists simply because there are more white people in attendance than black.

And this goes back to that hypothetical all-white neighborhood. When the left sees a predominance of whiteness among people they despise, they decide based on less than even circumstantial evidence that the purpose of this group must have hidden racial motives. However, a group they approve of can be mostly white (and also violent and criminal) yet receive no criticism from the left at all for their lack of racial diversity (witness the Occupy movement or any Bush protest).

Racism is indeed alive and well today, but it doesn't reside in the hearts of wealthy white Republicans. It thrives within the liberal black community and all those who seek to keep those liberal blacks liberal and angry, and hating the white man.

It is black racism toward whites that threatens America most today. Not the other way around.

*Note: Since this writing, Holder has been found in criminal and civil contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with their investigation of OF&F, and could likely be facing criminal conviction.

Five Ways from This Year Alone that Obama Cost Himself the Election

1. The Romney personal attacks. Listen, when you yourself have a past that is shrouded in mystery, but we do know that you spent a lot of it outside of America, were raised by an unrepentant communist, ate dog meat, abused cocain, bullied a young girl because of rumors you were dating her (that she didn't start), joined a communist party in college, wrote a publisher's bio in which you described yourself as being born in Kenya, and many other disturbing things, nobody's going to care that your opponent once bullied a kid while in high school, or put his dog in a carrier on the roof of his car in a time period where everyone was doing that and no one thought it was cruel.

2. The Bain Capital attacks, despite having no proof. If you're going to attack a man's record, attack HIS record, not the record of a company he once ran that fell on hard times after installing a CEO who would later become a pretty big bundler for...uh...you.

3. Calling Romney a felon. Like "racist", the word "felon" shouldn't be a word you just throw around. Of course, since literally all of your defenders use the word "racist" the way others use "guy" or "woman", then it shouldn't be surprising that your campaign manager can bring that word up as casually as she would reference that Romney is "rich".

4. "The private sector is doing just fine." This statement more than anything else makes Obama appear to be Nero with his lyre. He wants to accuse Romney of being out of touch and then says this? The economy is in the worst state it's been in since the Great Depression, and joblessness is at an all-time high. The country looks at the president for his plan to create jobs, only to essentially be told by him that they should quit whining, because they're all doing fine.

5. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." And the heads of every business owner in America did a simultaneous double-take, followed by a collective "WTF?" I honestly believe that statement may be the final nail in the coffin of Obama's 2012 hopes.

Type 1 liberals are the greatest hope to destroy America

If any of you are reading this blog, you may remember my post on the three types of liberals: Type 1) the ones who say they don't really care about but consistently vote Democrat, Type 2) The kind that are liberal, and know it, but don't know why and Type 3) Capital-L liberals who know exactly what they are and are proud of it.

I also said Type 1 liberals were the most common. I still say that. Type 2 are common enough, but most of them are the way they are because they're recent college grads who've had their heads filled with the stupidity of their professors, or parents of flower children who really believe the kind of hippie nonsense their parents preach (or perhaps they are the aging flower children themselves), or maybe they're celebrities who love all the adulation they get for their "brave" stances in favor of liberal causes, or they're single-issue activists who are supportive of causes they believe all conservatives oppose (gay marriage, abortion, atheism, etc.). They're out there, yes, but they make up a relatively small portion of our society. Even smaller are the Type 3's; the George Soros's, John Podesta's, Ezra Klein's or David Brock's of this world, just to name a few examples. These people are very few; less than 30% of America. They just know how to talk the loudest and how to make sure more people hear them. Conservatives number greater than these people ever thought about, but we suck at getting our message out. Or, we did, but we're learning.

The problem is that we take the fight to the Type 2's and Type 3's and challenge statements they make directly, while making no attempt whatsoever to reach the Type 1's. Liberals know this, and it's Type 1's they target most specifically. Remember that Type 1's, while each may be a bit different, don't really know they're liberal, or at least, what being liberal really means. Politics are boring to them, but they do have stances on a few issues. Why? Because someone made an emotional argument that resonated with them; usually a liberal friend or relative, or a character on a TV show (I'm not kidding). Everybody watches TV, and when they do, they see Saturday Night Live, or the local news (watched because they want to see what's going in in their city, but you can't avoid political coverage on news programs), or late-night talk shows, or even just normal TV shows, all of which never fail to portray conservatives as buffoons or evil people.

If this is your only exposure to politics, of course you're going to mostly believe liberals are good and conservatives are bad. And the Obama campaign knows this. Why else would they bother propogating the Seamus the Dog story, or even weirder, the Romney high school prank/bullying story? And why ISN'T the media picking up the Obama eats dogs meme or the admitted bullying Obama was guilty of as a high-school kid (not to mention his cocaine use)? The media went in depth about George W. Bush's alcoholism (which he had beaten years before he took office) or his supposed cocaine addiction (which was never proven or admitted to), and now they're asking us to believe it matters what Romney did to other kids as a 16-year old or as a young family man...but Obama's past is completely off-limits. We can't talk about his being raised in a muslim school by an America-hating "uncle" who may have sexually abused him, that he spent most of his formative childhood years in Indonesia, that he did indeed eat dog meat, that in college he was an ardent student and follower of radical critical race theory propogator Prof. Derek Bell, or that in high school and college he was a regular cocaine user.

What's more, I don't even want to talk about those things, and we shouldn't have to. But the left wants to focus on stuff from nearly 50 years ago where Romney is concerned, so why should we treat Obama's past with kid gloves? It's because the left wants to win those Type 1 liberals. They want to make sure they stay at least liberal enough to keep voting Democrat. Oh, they're not worried about whether Type 1's continue to go to church, or if their personal stance on abortion is that they would never have one, or anything like that. They just want the vote. They want the Type 1 liberal's mind, when they go to the polls, to be full of Obama the warm, knowing, fatherly leader and Romney the bullying dog-hater. Talk about the issues? Type 1 liberals don't want to talk about politics, so let's not, okay? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz even went as far as to say most Americans "don't care" about the budget process. In saying that, she let the mask slip a bit, because what she meant was "Type 1 liberals, whom we have to sway, don't care about the budget process, or the economy in general, as long as they personally aren't suffering too much."

Romney can hype the budget process, the economy, or joblessness, or debt as long as he wants, but those Type 1 liberals just simply don't care. That's politics. That's boring. It's much more exciting to them what the latest celebrity gossip is. And the "Romney was a bully" and "Romney tied his dog to the roof of his car" stories are far more like celebrity gossip, and that's what the Type 1 liberal will remember on his or her way to the voting booth. And that's why they are the greatest hope for the Democrats to win again and continue destroying America. They may "not care" about politics, but they still vote, and since they do have to pick one or the other, they'll pick the one that they've been told is the better guy. We've got to improve our message to these voters that don't care, because believe it or not, there's a lot of them, and they are one of the big reasons we keep losing the court of public opinion, and a big reason why we lose elections.

Five Ways Liberals Deflect Obama Criticism

Treat his failures as accomplishments. Hey, Obama got his health care reform passed! What an awesome achievement! Bush didn't do it, and McCain wouldn't have! That makes Obama better! So what if nobody in America outside of the far left and illegal immigrants actually wanted it. Speaking of illegal immigrants, Obama sure showed all those racists in Arizona, right? He sued them and...well, that didn't go anywhere, but he sure showed them! And how about that Solyndra debacle? Would you have even heard of Solyndra if it weren't for Obama? And man, did he rock the Green world when he killed the Keystone pipeline, not to mention all those moritoriums on drilling! If he hadn't accomplished so many great things there, we might actually have single-digit unemployment...I mean, we would have raped the environment further than we already have!

Take credit for things Obama did not do. Obama killed Osama bin Laden! Yes sir, it was Obama, not Bush! Who cares that we learned of bin Laden's location thanks to those "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Obama repeatedly disparaged in public. It doesn't matter that if Obama had his way we never would have learned where bin Laden was; what matters is that when the American military did its job, unimpeded by PC regulations, and obtained this critical information, it was Obama who bravely sat in his office and said "Uh..yeah, sure. Go ahead. Bound to be good publicity." Seal Team 6 and our military can still be routinely disparaged, but Obama is a hero for using them to get bin Laden. Oh, by the way, you know the Bush tax cuts that we hated Bush for implementing? Well, Obama extended them, so now they're the Obama tax cuts, which are great, because they give the American people a break! Isn't he wonderful?

Place blame on others for Obama's faults. Yes, I know, things aren't great right now, but that's not Obama's fault! It's Bush's! He left such a mess that nobody could possibly have cleaned it up in just three years! People are on food stamps because of Bush. Who cares that the food stamp explosion happened after Obama took office and unemployment rose; what matters is that there were people on food stamps while Bush was in office. And if it wasn't Bush who's at fault, it was...Congress! Yes! That obstructionist group Obama routinely finds ways to do an end-run around; they're the reason the economy is in the toilet, NOT the over-spending or the job-killing entitlements and legislation. It's that this obstructionist Congress won't let Obama do MORE. Why, they haven't even passed a budget in over a thousand days and...oh, wait. It's the Senate that passes the budget and that's run by...us. But...but...Congress killed the new jobs bill! Who knows how much money that could have raised that we would have squandered on special interest groups, money-pit "green" endeavors or unions...I mean, created jobs with!?

Behave as if any criticism of Obama automatically makes the critic "Pro-Bush". You know what, it doesn't matter what Obama's done wrong because Bush was a horrible president! Any time you point out Obama's miserable record, we know what you're doing. You're trying to praise Bush! That's right, so any time you start talking about how awful Obama's record is, we can simply point out all the ways we hated Bush and your argument immediately evaporates! High spending? Bush spent too. Bad economy? It started under Bush. Wars? BUSH! Who cares that Obama's spending eclipses not only Bush but every president before him, or that the economy was starting on a downward turn at the end of Bush's presidency, but took a complete nose-dive during Obama's term that resulted in the loss of our AAA rating, or that Obama has started TWO wars that Bush had nothing to do with! You can't complain about any of that, because we're gonna keep reminding you how much we hated Bush!

Accuse the critic of racism. Okay, listen, we tried reasoning with you people. We pointed out all of Obama's failures that we arbitrarily decided are actually triumphs. We gave credit to Obama when good things happened IN SPITE of him. We showed how easy it is to place blame for Obama's faults on others. We showed you how criticism of Obama is really praise of Bush. And you still just don't get it, do you? Well, guess what? That makes you...RAAAAAAAAAACIST! Yes, everything you do and say is now racist! You're so racist you say racist things that only we can hear! Calling people by their first name is racist! Pointing your finger at someone during a spirited debate is racist! Talking about "work ethic" is racist! Any reference to food stamps, even though there are more white people on them than black people, is racist! Any reference to the founding fathers is racist! Or "the constitution" or "core American values"; racist, racist, racist! Keep talking, say whatever you want. We're just gonna cut you off by yelling "RAAAAACIST!" And you know what? Because we're saying it, it's automatically true! Hell, we can even say racist things, like how Obama is "clean and articulate", as if that's something rare in a black person, or how he's electable because he's "light-skinned with no negro dialect", or how "a year ago this guy would be getting us coffee" or point out how he's so articulate that we "forgot he was black for an hour" or that we thought a real black president would solve problems with a gun and ghetto talk! That's not racist because only WE get to decide what's racist. And you are definitely RAAAAAAACIST!