What did I say!

Last week in the wake of the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, I challenged the lefty claims of Fox News viewers being "uninformed" by suggesting that poll questions and answers are reported based on the pollster's opinion of what the answer should be. It's one thing to ask "Which party controls the Senate?" but entirely another to ask "Is Obamacare going to fix the current issues with medicare?" The first question is one that has a definite wrong answer. The second is basically asking one to predict the future, and judging the answer right or wrong depending on whether it matches your prediction.

And now we have proof that the polls are asking that very kind of question.

Chris Wallace:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact looked into that statement, and on its Truth-O-Meter it rated Jon’s claim false. But the details are even more interesting. In a survey called “Misinformation in the 2010 Election,” people were asked a series of fact questions like which president signed tarp? But the poll also asked questions like this. “As you know, the American economy had a major downturn starting in the fall of 2008. Do you think that now the American economy is ‘a,’ starting to recover or ‘b,’ still getting worse?” "Starting to recover" was the so-called right answer. If you said, "still getting worse" you were officially misinformed. And if you questioned whether climate change is occurring or whether ObamaCare will add to deficit, you were also mistaken.

What did I say? Didn't I say exactly that?

Liberals say "You disagree with our completely un-verified stance that we will continue to cling to no matter the mountain of contradictory evidence, therefore you are uninformed."

Irony at its highest.

Concludes Wallace:

Then there was last year's Pew Poll which asked four fact questions like what job did Eric Holder have? It turns out Fox News scored better, not worse, than MSNBC, CNN, the network evening news and the network morning news. As for individual shows, 31 percent of “Hannity” viewers got all four questions correct. 29 percent for “O'Reilly.” And all the way down near the bottom viewers of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show" at 22 percent.

So folks, all that talk about you’re the most consistently misinformed viewers? I guess the joke is on Jon Stewart.

Media: By All Means, Continue to Deny Your Bias

Jon Stewart says the mainstream media, including his own shows, are not biased in favor of liberalism. It would appear a large portion of the population disagrees with him.

But Stewart, please continue to deny it. That goes double for you, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Laurence O'Donnell and others of your ilk. The more you deny it, the more you reveal yourselves as the liars you are. Soon the only people who will trust you will be those who already are as far to the Left as you.

For MSNBC, that's not much of a loss. But CNN? Can they even still call themselves "the most trusted name in news"? The loss of credibility they are suffering right now is humiliating, or should be. But they probably visit group therapy where they are taught to repeat the mantra "Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News..."

One more thing; I'm not the first to comment on this, but many have pointed out that Fox News isn't really as "fair and balanced" as they claim to be. Well, maybe not, but they do serve as the only TV news outlet that even discusses the views of the Right. All three alphabet networks, plus CNN, C-SPAN and MSDNC...I mean MSNBC are all dedicated to presenting just one side of the story.

Fox News and its "Uninformed" Viewers

Let me start by saying I don't generally watch Fox News. I tend to get my news online. I have watched it on occasion, though, and I've seen the Left go after them numerous times for "lying", which generally means "occasionally getting its facts wrong", which could be said about any news network.

However, Jon Stewart recently braved actually being interviewed by Fox News's Chris Wallace, where he brazenly sat there and defended himself and the mainstream media, claiming that neither was biased. In his case, he's a comedian first, which excuses everything he says, in his mind and the minds of liberals. He accuses the mainstream media of tending toward "sensationalism and laziness", not bias. Right.

Anyhoo, among the more outrageous statements he made was the claim that "In the polls" Fox News viewers are consistently found to be the least informed. Folks, I've never put too much stock in polls, but Stewart doesn't even cite any actual poll results. He just says "in the polls" and we're supposed to just believe him that the polls say what he says they say. Had I been Wallace, I would have asked "What polls? Who conducted them? What sort of samplings did they take? Did they balance those who watch Fox News exclusively with those who watch both Fox and, say, CNN? What kind of questions were asked to reach the conclusion that a person polled is uninformed?" And so on and so on.

See, you can make poll results skew however you want to, depending on the kinds of questions asked. When polling about how informed viewers are, there's all kinds of ways to play with the data.

For example: if the poll asks "Do you believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat and that something must be done about it right now?", the question isn't what defines an "uninformed" viewer, and neither for that matter is the answer. It's whether the pollster agrees with that answer. If I answered "no" (and I would), CNN or MSNBC would call me an uninformed viewer, despite the existence of the East Anglia emails and all they imply.

Another example: "Do you believe President Obama's health care plan will improve our current health care situation or make it worse?" Again, depending on what the Pollster believes, either response could mark the replier as "informed" or "uninformed".

That's just one way data can be played with. There are dozens more. Depending on who I worked for, there are numerous ways I can make viewers of my News network the smartest, most informed people in America.

If CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Harvard or Stanford or any other "respected" University, Time Magazine, etc. conduct these polls, you gotta ask yourself: "What would these leftist institutions consider uninformed?" The answer, as should be obvious, is "Those who don't believe their side of the story."

It's one thing to suggest that someone is "uninformed" because he believes there's proof we didn't actually land on the moon, or that he's "uninformed" because he genuinely believes the earth is flat. But those aren't the questions I'm sure these pollsters ask.

Here are some things Leftists believe:

George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her house.

Rush Limbaugh is the originator of the phrase "Barack the Magic Negro."

9/11 was an inside job.

Response to the Bush administration by the media and left-wing politicians was moderate.

Response to the Obama administration by Fox News and right-wing politicians is inflamatory and dangerous.

The Tea Parties have displayed openly racist signs and slogans.

Tea Partiers shouted racial slurs at the members of the Congressional Black Caucus during the healthcare debates.

Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was "slow" and the Federal government under Bush's watch is entirely responsible for that tragedy.

See? And this is just the tip of the provably false things they believe and report every day.

Stewart's remarks harken back to what I said in a previous post where I objected to a noted author simply stating "Fox News is lying to you", and expecting that we would believe he was right simply because it's Fox News.

To a leftist like Jon Stewart, "uninformed" simply means "not a leftist."

EDIT: Turns out even the supposedly objective (but left-leaning) website PolitiFact disagrees with Stewart. Stewart's claim is that "in every poll" Fox News viewers are "consistently" rated the least informed. This is not true at all. The polls in general are decidedly mixed, with a few actually showing CNN and MSNBC viewers as being significantly less informed, or at least less up-to-date in their knowledge, than Fox News viewers.

If They Were Republicans: Anthony Weiner

A new feature I'm introducing on this blog is a monthly (hopefully) segment called "If They Were Republicans. It's a look at how prominent Democrats and liberals are treated by the press, Leftist politicians, and leftists in general and how that would change if the Democrat in question had been of the opposite political persuasion, and nothing else was different; not the circumstances, not the individual's actions--nothing but what political stance they espouse.

Because he's topical now and likely won't be in a month's time, this first edition of ITWR will focus on: Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Now, for those of you who just arrived from the next galaxy over, I'll explain a little bit about what Congressman Weiner did, and what happened afterward. Basically, in the wee small hours of the morning late in May, a photo appeared on Weiner's twitter feed of a man wearing only grey briefs with a noticable erection. It was uploaded from Weiner's yfrog account and appeared to be meant for a 21-year-old female college student, but apparently the congressman had prematurely shot the upload out and forgot to make the message private. A right-wing website, breitbart.com, saw the incident immediately and ran with it.

On the morning of June 1, Weiner rose early to spit back at Breitbart and others now reporting on the story, claiming his twitter and yfrog accounts were "hacked", that his hands were full doing the job he was paid to do, and that he saw no reason to expose himself to the press any further. However, the congressman's attempts at deflection were woefully limp, and the story continued to grow bigger and longer. While some in the press got on top of this story and rode with it, others came...to Weiner's defense, most notoriously old college pal Jon Stewart and the ladies of the View, who were no doubt impressed by the size of Weiner's credibility.

After a few more women came forward stating that Weiner had also sent them inappropriate photos over the years, Weiner was forced to poke his head out his office door where he was busily tackling his long, hard workload, and admit that indeed he had sent the tweet, and there had been no hacking, and could this story now acheive its climax.

I myself was surprised at how long this story could sustain itself, expecting that the press would handle Weiner with velvet gloves, as they did Bill Clinton, and any other left-wang--WING! I said WING!--politician caught with their pants down. Weiner also evidently believed the press would stroke his ego and swallow any lie he came up with. As far as I'm concerned, however, they did. It was fairly clear most of the journalists covering this story were in Weiner's tent. Just look at what guys like Stewart, Jimmy Fallon and David Letterman tried to pass off as "jokes". "It was Weiner's weiner," commented Fallon, who should have followed up with "What has four wheels and flies?" Come on, a Member of Congress named Weiner showing his caucus on twitter? The jokes practically make themselves.

As far as the news coverage surrounding this scandal, well, it couldn't have been more limp. Howard Kurtz of CNN's "Reliable Sources" refused to even touch Weiner's story, saying that it "appears to be faked", a remark that later came back and went off in his face. Others like Salon's Joan Walsh suggested that Andrew Breitbart was the real villain, here, for daring to break the story in the first place. Even Ed Schultz had to admit that wasn't true.

Now, oddly enough, Reuters falsely labeled Weiner a Republican in their headline on the story, either confused or willfully trying to paint him as if he could not possibly belong to the "good" party. However, one has to wonder what would have happened had Weiner actually been a Republican?

First of all, breitbart.com would still have carried the story, but so would CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, CBS, NBC, and pretty much any other news outlet that could get their hands on the Weiner piece. The press would not have worried about whether or not the story was possibly "faked", and absolutely would not have bought Weiner's "hacked" lie, nor his later "prank" description. They would immediately begin digging for more, and would have turned up all those other women on their own, without waiting for them to come forward. Olbermann, assuming he still has a TV show, would label him "The Worst Person in the World" and demand his resignation. Janeane Garofalo would probably suggest he should be arrested, as opposed to being elected "Mayor of New York". The ladies from the View would have a field day with this story.

Also, they would never shut up about it. Until he resigned (which, if he were a Republican he would likely do the day after the first photo was leaked), there would be endless round-the-clock coverage and Weiner's weiner would receive more exposure than anyone would possibly want, and after his resignation, we would see him referred to and remarked upon any time the Left wanted to deflect us from a scandal on their side. Don't believe me? Well how long do you think it will be until we stop hearing about the "scandals" surrounding men like Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Foley, Chris Lee, etc.?

I could see the collective members of the so-called "mainstream" media referring to any Right-wing politician who can keep it in his pants described as "pulling a Weiner" from this point forward. But, unfortunately, we'll never hear that about Anthony Weiner the Democrat, because, well, he's of a leftist bent, so the press dutifully reported on Weiner's flaccid apology and let him go right back to his job.

The Left vs. the Right on Race: Everything They've Said about Us, We can Say about Them

By now we're all well-used to the Left calling everybody on the Right "racist" because of our opposition to the Obama Administration and its harmful, Leftist policies. We cannot oppose their Dear Leader on any ground, not because we're so obviously wrong and he's so obviously right, but because he's black, and therefore any negative thing we say about him is clearly motivated by race.

However, in their effort to prove that we're a bunch of scumbag racists who can't stand that a black man is president, despite reality showing a marked lack of racism coming from our side, the Left has a few well-worn phrases they use constantly, and insist that these statements "prove" our evil racism, when in fact not only do they not do that, but all these phrases can be turned around and used successfully on Leftist Democrats. The main difference is, when we use those phrases against them, they are grounded in factual reality, not liberal fantasy.

"Your party has a history of racism."
I love this one, because it's so opposite of reality it's almost funny to hear people still clinging to it. The reality is that the Democratic Party was founded on racist ideals; keeping slavery going, keeping the White Man in his proper place as ruler and the Black Man in his proper place as subserviant, etc. The KKK was founded by Democrats in order to frighten and defeat abolitionist Republicans. The Democrats are the ones who thought up the Jim Crow laws. Meanwhile, from Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves to the Republicans fighting hard for the Civil Rights movement, the fact is that from its founding, the Republican Party has been the anti-slavery, anti-segregation, pro-equal rights party in its entirety. The argument Leftists like to use is that the Democrats of today are more like the Republicans of Yesteryear and vice-versa. This convenient little switching-of-histories is thanks to the myth that the "Dixiecrats" (Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and left the Democratic Party when LBJ signed it into law and formed their own party) all became Republicans after their own party was defeated. They cite that former Dixiecrats Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are proof enough that the racist elements in their own party went over to the Republicans.

However, the fact is that the Democratic Party doesn't have, and never had, racist "elements". Their whole mission statement was pro-white, pro-segregation. LBJ went against the Party Line when he signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Democrats of the time hated LBJ (for that and also the Viet Nam war, another thing modern Democrats blame Republicans for). The Dixiecrats weren't kicked out of the Democratic Party for being the remaining "racist elements"; they left because they thought the Democrats had strayed too far from their racist roots thanks to LBJ's siding with the Republicans on this issue.


Pictured: A DEMOCRATIC political cartoon

Another thing; the Dixiecrats may have included Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, but they also included George Wallace, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd and a number of others, all of whom went right back to being Democrats after the folding of their party. This is where the Leftists respond "That's because they changed their minds! They understood racism was a thing of the past and rejoined their party to fulfill the equality dream!" Ummm....no. First of all, the Democratic Party as a whole still supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. Second of all, if you can so easily suggest that men like Robert Byrd (a former Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the KKK) and George Wallace changed their minds, despite evidence to the contrary, what's to say Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms didn't change theirs? And for that matter, how can anyone suggest that two men could transform the Republican Party into a frothing lynch mob when they never were before?

So, whose party is it with the history of racism? Not the Republicans. Not then and not now.

"You use racist code words to hide your racism."
I used to think there was no such thing as racist "code words" and that true racists don't hide. I don't believe that anymore. Whenever I hear the Left talk about Black America, I hear code-words all over the place; and, unlike what the Tea Party says, when the Left use these words they actually are referring to black people.

Ever hear Leftists talk about "urban" areas? They mean "populated largely if not entirely by black people." "Urban music" is the new way to say "race music." "Urban housing" is the new way of saying "n----r quarters". How about when they refer to "welfare recipients"? Welfare isn't just for African Americans but there are currently more black people on welfare than white people, so "welfare users" is another term for black people the Left likes to use. In fact, the Left loves the poor urban-dwelling black person, because not only do they see this as where African Americans belong, but they also love harvesting votes from this type of person by selling the Republicans as racists who put them where they are. "You're poor and on welfare and living in slums because of Republicans!" they tell the poor urban-dwelling black man. They don't bother to point out that the cities where this problem is the worst are unfailingly Democrat-controlled cities like New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. That's because Democrats don't actually want black people to succeed; they just want them to vote Democrat. They've managed to convince African Americans to keep voting back in the same system that keeps them poor and dependant.

They don't see "welfare recipient" or "urban dweller" as the racist code words they are because they think those are proper terms, but that doesn't make them any less racist code words.

"When you look at Obama, you see his skin color first."
Again, the exact opposite is true. When I looked at Obama the first time, I saw a somewhat handsome man with a nice speaking voice who I thought looked fairly presidential. Then his true nature was exposed, and he became president anyway. Now I see a far-Left liberal who hates what America is and hopes to "fundamentally transform" it into a socialistic nightmare; a man whose failed policies are threatening to destroy America, and a man who the Left will side with no matter what. I did notice, however, that pro-Obama people around me who learned that I opposed him, immediately asked if my opposition was racial.

Leftists, on the other hand, see him as a shield against criticism, as his presence in the Oval Office allows them to use the race card. If they didn't see his skin color before anything else, they never would have campaigned him. After all, besides his skin color, what did he bring to the campaign? Did anyone have any reason to vote for him that wasn't racial, other than to get rid of Republicans? No, voters who voted for Obama did so either out of Black Solidarity, White Guilt or Hatred of Republicans. Those where the only reasons to vote for him. Racism didn't keep Obama down; racism helped raise him up.

Obama got elected because the Left saw his skin color first.

"You don't care about the plight of the Black Community."
This is a baseless accusation that stems from the totally false belief that Republicans created the plight of the Black Community. Not only didn't they, but they care far more about them, and every other American. See, Republicans see black people as just more Americans, no different in any meaningful way than white Americans. Leftists see black Americans as victims, which to them means "people we can exploit". They talk a great game about the plight of African Americans and don't seem to notice the incongruity between their words and their actions. Or at least, they hope you don't notice it. I've already mentioned that the cities where the problem for black Americans is at its worst are all Democrat-controlled cities, and have been for decades. Could that be because...the Left doesn't really care about the plight of African Americans?

Republicans say "Yes, there is a plight, and the way to solve it is for black men and women to get a good education, to get good jobs and to provide for themselves the way all other Americans do." But to a Leftist that's telling them to act like they're white. In other words, telling a black person that it is possible for them to succeed on their own without help from white people is...racist. Huh?

Black Americans, to the Left, are to be pitied, mollified, infantilized and patronized. In other words, they don't see black people as equals, and that in itself has created the plight of the Black Community.

"There are so few blacks among you ( conservative Republicans)."
Actually, this is partly true and partly false. But in neither case is it because we're racist.

Here's a fact: the Left controls a vast majority of the public narrative in this country. They control CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, the NPR, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, etc. and all of America's more prestigious colleges and universities. And each one is absolutely dedicated to broadcasting this message to African Americans: "The Republicans hate you. They may like it if you start talking like them, but they'll never see you as equals." Of course, as I've said, this is far more true of Democrats than Republicans, but imagine for a moment that all you ever heard about a certain political group when you turn on the news, or go to school, is that they hate you and want to keep you down. Do you think you'd want to go check it out? After all, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. As I'll say more about below, the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus have sold out to the Democrats, as have professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they help to push this message.

The other fact is (and this is what makes the claim partly false), most black people are themselves conservative. Poll after poll has shown that the average African American is pro-Christianity, pro-family, pro-life, against the government having more power and anti-gun control. Whereas the Left is anti-Christianity, says there's no such thing as a traditional family, are pro-choice, feel the government's powers should be expanded and they invented gun control. So why do black Americans vote for them in overwhelming numbers? Is it because the Republicans are horribly racist? Not at all. Is it because they have all been convinced that that is the case? Absolutely.

I am not saying that black Americans are stupid or easily duped. I'm saying that every human being likes to be told what they want to hear, and if the Democrats do one thing well it's tell people what they want to hear. And you can't sell yourself as the solution to all of their problems without saying they have a problem and pointing to a cause. Like I said, liberals control the narrative in America, and he who controls the narrative controls the masses. Plenty of white Americans have also bought the "Republicans are racist" lie. I mean, heck, I've even heard conservative Republicans talk about "purging the racist elements from our party".

Democrats point out how few black Republicans there are as proof that we don't like them. In reality it's proof of how many African Americans they warn away from us, constantly calling us racists until enough people believe it. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that the black people among us are here because they realize we really are on their side. The blacks among them mostly don't stand for what the Left stands for.

In other words, in reality there are very few blacks who truly side with the Left.

(On a side note, just how many prominent Democrats are black? At present, the answer is one, and as we're about to see, that's meaningless.)

"______(Insert black Republican here) is nothing but your House N----r."
I hate this term, and I detest that it's still being used today, but nonetheless, it is, and it says more about the person who uses that term than those they accuse. Conservative brains aren't even wired to think in terms of "field n----rs" and "house n----rs". It's just not in our make-up. It's the Left who keeps injecting those terms into the discourse.

See, there is nothing a racist liberal black person hates more than what they see as an "Uncle Tom". As they see it, any black Republican is trying to act like a white man in hopes he'll be invited to enjoy...I dunno, the perks of being called an Uncle Tom. They see this metaphorically as coming out of the fields to live in the white man's house--still a slave, but one with all the comforts of the white man. Any prominent black Republican (Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Allen West, etc.) has been referred to as an Uncle Tom, or the horrible smear of "House N----r". The argument is, they try to ingraciate themselves into our "inner circle" and although we will never see them as equals, we'll let them come to our Party if they say what we tell them to say. "You only like (fill in name of black republican) because he says what you want to hear," say black racist Democrats.

But what does that say about black groups that do nothing but repeat what the Left says? Are not establishment Democrats just as white as establishment Republicans? What are the NAACP if not a group of Uncle Toms for the Left? Or what about the Congressional Black Caucus? I admit these weren't founded as Leftist groups, but they've certainly become that. Name a position either group has taken in recent years that isn't also the Leftist position. Name a prominent African American they've supported who wasn't a Democrat (and usually a far-Left Democrat). If the NAACP ever starts living up to its name and actually starts advancing people of color, regardless of Political affiliation, don't tell me the Democrats won't throw them under the bus. How do I know that? Just look at how the Left treats any black man or woman who dares to call themselves conservative, or Republican. Anybody see the video where a group of people was asked their opinion of Clarence Thomas? These weren't KKK members. No. They were Leftist Democrats. They certainly acted like Klansmen. All that "racism" you're supposed to see at a Tea Party rally? It was on full display at a Left-Wing protest.

You can watch that video here, assuming you can stomach it.

So it's not the Right that only loves African Americans who say what we want them to say. Sure, we love it when African Americans side with us. We love it when anyone sides with us. Who doesn't? But we don't have "house n----rs". We don't use that term, and we don't believe in segregation. It saddens us when people would rather just believe what they're told and continue to support those who don't support them, but we don't hate them for it.

It's the Left who makes race an issue. It's the Left who only support African Americans who parrot their talking points. It's the Left who are guilty of having "House N----rs". Oh, and don't try and sell President Obama to me as proof that I'm wrong. Obama is the ultimate "House N----r". Think the Left would love him if he suddenly became a conservative? Hardly. As proof, look no further than the fact that the only thing they've called him out on is not being Left enough. Obama is the black face they put on their party in order to garner the votes of the Black Community; their shield to deflect criticism (or accusations of racism). In other words; the very thing Bill Maher accused Herman Cain of being.

So, in conclusion, let me say, as I've said so often in life, that racism isn't defined by politics, but anyone who considers the color of one's skin before what they say or do is a racist. And which party does that far more often?

I encourage Republicans and conservatives of all colors to rise up and expose the fact that every accusation of racism the Left has lobbed at us is in reality far more descriptive of them.

What We Have to Do to Win 2012

The Obama 2008 campaign won for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that it used Alinsky-esque tactics to demean and belittle its opponents. It smeared them as racists. It smeared them as scared little morons clinging to their guns and religion. But all of that can be summed up in three words: "They ridiculed us."

It's hard to stand up to ridicule. It's hard to fight it. It's a classic playground tactic, and the Left have proven they have a playground mentality. Bullies insult your looks, your size, your intelligence, your (ahem) prowess, even your sexuality. And Liberals insult Ann Coulter's looks, Rush Limbaugh's size, Scott Brown's sexuality and the intelligence of EVERY conservative, but probably Sarah Palin's the most often today.

I want everybody to read the following words: SARAH PALIN. Now, what went through your mind? That's easy. If you're a Leftist, or even a centrist, the first word you most likely thought was "idiot". If you're a right-winger, you probably thought "It's a shame so many think she's stupid."

The Left used ridicule on her intelligence non-stop, and continue doing so today. She cannot deliver a five-minute interview without it being picked apart, and anything that even appears to be a gaffe making headlines. If Sarah Palin were to say that the sky is blue, there would be story after story saying that Palin is obviously not intelligent enough to know that the sky changes colors and anyway, it's actually black and we only see it as blue during the day. These stories would likely come with mis-leading headlines such as "Palin Can't Tell What Color the Sky Is" or something along those lines.

Ridicule worked on Sarah Palin. While it energized her base, it has successfully polarized the rest of the country, with many who would otherwise agree with her political standpoint believing she simply must be an idiot.

Contrarily, we constantly hear about how much of a genius Obama is. Any thinking man can look at the last two years and ask "Just what about his performance as President makes you think he's a genius?" The man can't talk without a teleprompter. Every one of his plans to save the economy has only made it worse. He says one thing and does another. Worse yet, he somehow fails to see that more than half the country HATES what he's doing. They didn't want Obamacare, for example, and his approval rating shot down to 47%. Now that there's talk of repealing it, suddenly it's "skyrocketed" to 53%, but I expect that to drop as Obama continues to pursue his agenda, oblivious to the repudiation of said agenda the American people have routinely shown.

2012 is now less than one year away. The time to get serious about who's going to run against Obama is getting closer all the time. At this point, nobody from the Republican party looks to really be surging ahead. None of them really have the base or support they'd need to actually win the nomination, much less the race. But whoever we choose, whoever ends up as Obama's opponent next year, I know what they need to do.

They need to ridicule Obama. They need to laugh at him. They need to make him look foolish. They need to point out just how many times this joke of a president has screwed up.

Can you imagine? On the debate stage, Obama gives his "scholarly"-sounding lecture, uses words like "hope", "change", "winning the future" and other nice-sounding meaningless platitudes...

...And then his opponent will openly laugh and say "Listen to yourself! Even you don't know what you're saying! So I'll spell it out for you. You are responsible for unprecedented levels of government spending. You have not made good on a single campaign promise. Every plan you've put in place to improve the economy has only made it worse. Unemployment has risen on your watch. You have made us appear weak and subserviant to our enemies and you have offended and alienated our allies. The only thing you set out to do that you actually accomplished is creating a bank-breaking healthcare bill that the American people didn't want, and now you appear to be trying to take credit for its repeal. You are a disgrace to the office of president. And you are a joke."

Of course, racism charges, or Uncle Tom charges should the nominee be Herman Cain or Allen West, will be levelled against whoever has the guts to do that. The response should be? More laughter. "You can't seriously believe the race card is still gonna work. If you honestly believe that calling everybody racist will automatically silence all opposition, you really are pathetic."

Right-wing talk-show hosts, columnists, bloggers and TV personalities have been doing this for the last three years. It's time to take it on the campaign trail. Whoever we nominate, should it be Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Chris Christie, etc. has got to make it their mission not just to get their own arguments across but to leave Obama humiliated by the time they're done. People like Ann Coulter or Andrew Breitbart understand that Liberals don't see this as political discourse but ideological war, and they've been treating it like a war for decades now. It's time for us to do the same thing. The best way to win a war is to take the best defense your opponent uses and turn it against them.

Let's be the laughers in this next election, rather than the ones allowing ourselves to be laughed at.

Why I am Not a Birther

There's all kinds of controversy over Obama's birth certificate. He says he has one, but a verifiable paper copy has yet to be produced. Hawaiian officials deny that they have one for him on record. There's significant cause to believe that he was born under the name "Barry Soetero", meaning that a birth certificate naming him "Barack Obama" would be fake. Then of course there's the fact that Obama spent a significant amount of his youth in Kenya and Indonesia.

However, despite all that evidence pointing to the idea that he may not be a natural-born US citizen, I am not a birther.

In fact, I think the birther movement is hurting us, much like the 9/11 Truther movement hurt Van Jones and nearly any other public official with ties to that group. It isn't that I don't think there's a viable possibility that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, or US soil in general. I'm just saying it doesn't matter.

I have a couple of questions for my birther friends.

1) If it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama was indeed a natural-born US citizen, would it no longer matter that he is over-spending, doing nothing to secure our borders and socializing the auto and banking industries, and of course, health care? Would you no longer care that he is anti-American?

2) Does it matter to you that were he to be impeached for being found a naturalized citizen, his policies and party would remain?

3) Do you really feel any better about President Joe Biden?

And now a thought question: When there are already a host of reasons to fight against Obama's agenda, do you think making an issue of his birthplace makes you look like we are against his policies, or do you think it makes you look like a bunch of racists? Do you think you look as sad and desperate as the Truthers when you cling to clearly faked "evidence" that supports your claim, such as the now-proven fake "birthplace of Barack Obama" sign in Kenya or the supposed Kenyan birth certificate? Do you feel it opens the door for people to ask if we would care so much about his birth certificate if he wasn't black, or was named something more American-sounding?

When we focus on where he was born, it's very easy to be labeled racist, and in this case I have to agree with the Left (GASP!) and say it does often feel like it's motivated by race. I don't at all think that the Tea Party movement was founded on racist ideals, but that's because the Tea Party was founded to try and stop or at least slow down this entire Administration's socialistic goals. The Tea Party is about halting the expansion of government, the raising of taxes, the increasing of government control of the private sector, etc. The birther movement is about getting rid of Obama, any way they can.

Think about this, too. Let's say Obama does get impeached based on his birthplace. How quickly do you think the Dems would leap upon this and claim the documents were fake and rally around Obama in support? After all, impeachment requires a trial by Congress, and we all know there's enough votes on the Left to overturn his eviction from office. And then he would claim racism, again, to guarantee enough Americans vote him in for a second term.

Impeaching Obama won't send a clear message to the Left that America repudiates the actions of this administration. Heck, they chose not to listen to the last clear message we sent them. An impeachment on ANY grounds, and especially this sort of grounds, will cause them to state that they are the majority and the Right just can't stand a black President, to the point where they'd go against the will of the American people and impeach him on false grounds.

This Administration is a Hydra, not a snake. We try to cut off its head and it won't die; it will just grow a new one, and we'll be right back where we started.

But they'll have a much harder time fighting back against a humiliating defeat in 2012. That's the goal we should be trying to attain; uniting Americans against the socialistic, anti-American policies of this Administration. VOTING them out; the entire Administration. Not trying to knock one man off his pedestal because we don't think he was born here.