The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Commandment
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Ted Cruz for President 2016
Sarah Palin for Disappointment of the Year
Donate to TBD
NOTICE
New visitors should read my "about" and my "comment policy" pages. It should help clear any confusion regarding your first-time or subsequent comments.
That’s right, Obama said it’s important not to be cynical enough to claim that the poor will always be with us. And Jesus said “the poor will always be with you.” Matthew 26:11
All who claim Obama is a Christian, just because he says he’s one, I dare you to tell me how someone who thinks he can dismiss Jesus and call Him a cynic can at the same time be a servant of Christ. It is impossible. Not only does Obama continuously prove he is not a Christian, but also continuously prove he hates Christianity and those who practice it.
Baraka Obama, like all good tyrants and criminals, is adept at the Olympic sport of “Under Bus Tossing”. In order to protect himself, he is willing to sacrifice any and every person around him. And, since he’s a narcissist on steroids, it is not in any way a sacrifice to him. At all. Consider this scenario:
1) Baraka Obama pardons all his Czars and Cabinet officials.
2) The Republican Congress calls each and every pardoned person to testify.
3a) The pardoned people refuse to testify.
4a) Congress hits them with Contempt of Congress and Obstruction of Justice charges.
3b) The pardoned people lie to protect the agenda.
4b) Congress hits them with Perjury charges.
5) Obama’s peeps are thrown in jail for crimes committed after their pardons.
6) Obama is implicated for crimes he committed, due to evidence found in the questioning and trials of his peeps.
7) Obama faces criminal charges, including treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
No, Obama would not be a wise tyrant and narcissist if he pardoned his peeps. It would be better for Obama to not pardon anyone in his circle. That way, his peeps could exercise their Fifth Amendment rights, found in a document they despise, so they wouldn’t go to prison; thereby, insulating him from the prison he deserves. His best chance to avoid what he deserves is to guarantee everyone around him will get what they deserve if he gets his.
I have been told that the GOP has a larger advantage in the US House than any Party since World War II. That is decidedly untrue. The Democrats have had a larger majority many times since World War II ended. But this is indeed the largest Republican majority since World War II. But let’s examine Baraka Obama’s infamous quote, shall we? And his impact on Democrat elections.
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Democrats have Obama
2009 Democrats 257 Republicans 178
2011 Democrats 193 Republicans 242 Republican gain of 64
2013 Democrats 201 Republicans 234 Democrat gain of 8
2015 Democrats 179 Republicans 243 13 seats currently undecided with 5 Republicans currently leading
That’s a Republican gain of 65 at a minimum, and a possible Republican gain of 70.
The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 258 Republicans 176
1995 Democrats 206 Republicans 228 Republican gain of 52
1997 Democrats 207 Republicans 226 Democrat gain of 1, Republican loss of 2
1999 Democrats 211 Republicans 223 Democrat gain of 4, Republican loss of 3
That’s a Republican gain of 47.
The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years is Republicans gained a minimum of 18 more House seats under Obama, possibly as many as 23 more seats.
US SENATE
The Obama years
2009 Democrats 60* Republicans 40* (see below-noted source)
2011 Democrats 53* Republicans 47 Republican gain of 7
2013 Democrats 55* Republicans 45 Democrat gain of 2
2015 Democrats 45* Republicans 52 Republican gain of 7, with 3 to be decided. Likely Republican gain of 8 or 9.
That’s a Republican gain of 12 to 14 Senate seats.
The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 57 Republicans 43
1995 Democrats 48 Republicans 52 Republican gain of 9
1997 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 Republican gain of 3
1999 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 No gain
That’s a Republican gain of 12 seats.
The difference between Obama and Clinton in the Senate? Obama hopes it’s a wash, but it’s much more likely that Republicans will gain more Senate seats under Obama than under Clinton.
Clearly, the difference between the Obama years and the Clinton years is Republicans gained more seats overall under Obama. And the reason is very clear. When Clinton got shellacked in 1994, he learned. He triangulated. He moved toward the center. He stole Republican agenda items for himself, even items Republicans had to force onto him. And he made the Democrats sound less Socialist and anti-American in the process. Furthermore, Clinton was a much better showman, a much better politician, a much better salesman than Obama could ever be.
Obama learned at the feet of a man who dedicated his book to Satan, a man who set off bombs inside the US in order to attempt to get the US government to bend to his will, two Ivy League professors who suggested the total overburdening of the freebie system to collapse the government budget and usher in Socialism. Obama and Clinton both have been shown incapable of telling the truth, but Clinton can actually make people buy his lies.
Clinton blinked, moved away from the Big Government Socialism he came in with, and the Democrats recovered better than Obama’s “I can’t learn anything from these elections” approach.
The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years? Americans are not, in general, Socialist.
Putin has this idea that he can invade sovereign nations that have Russian speakers if those Russian speakers are “threatened.” Sounds very Hitleresque, don’t ya think? Even Stalinesque, as Hitler and Stalin agreed to sub-divide Poland before Hitler decided to kill Russians.
In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet “spheres of influence“, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invadedPoland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region).
I know that’s a wiki source, and it only a little more trustable than a Leftist, but it is a source that provides other sources (eventually), and everyone knows by now Communist Russia (hello, Putin and American Leftists) and National Socialist Germany (hello, neo-Nazis and American Leftists) divvied up eastern Europe before Germany invaded Poland, and that’s why Germany deemed it safe to invade Poland to begin with. Also note how Communist Russia had an officer-depleted military due to Stalin purges. Anyone else see anything familiar happening now? (Hello, Obama, you formerly official member of Socialists in the US.) Here’s an article from The History Channel (and it is still less than honest in favor of a Leftist retelling of history).
The former KGB agent who is trying to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, with whom Hillary Clinton had that horrendously failed “RESET BUTTON” and to whom the formerly official and still Socialist Barack Obama (link, link, link) said he will have more flexibility, has decided any who “speak Russian” are reasons to invade sovereign nations. So, once we throw the known Socialist out of office and put a patriot in office, maybe we can declare any English speaker who is “threatened” gives the US reason enough to invade Socialist and Islamist nations. Vladimir Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has given us precedents (as opposed to precedence (a singular term)).
UPDATE 10:18PM TEXAS TIME, FOX NEWS CALLS THE RACE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
FIRST PRESIDENT IN 96 YEARS TO WIN A SECOND TERM WHILE SHEDDING ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES
Welcome to Truth Before Dishonor’s version of live-blogging the 2012 Presidential election. As a reminder, here’s how the 2008 elections turned out (via US Election Atlas.org).
Note the Republican states are in blue and the Democrat states are in red. Republicans were not always red and Democrats were not always blue. It wasn’t until someone on MSNBC decided to employ some psychological propaganda that the colors were set in that way. As I noted in my Obama Wins 2008, In All Likelihood Loses 2012 article, it is my plan that Republicans and Democrats revert back to their appropriate colors.
This is set to be a long day of poll-watching from home. Stay tuned for the updates, and may Providence guide the election results.
UPDATE 8:00am Texas time: The longest day of 2012 has barely begun and we already have vote fraud allegations.
Note the Republican states are in blue while the Democrat states are in red. Republicans being red and Democrats being blue wasn’t always the case. Not until those folks at MSNBC switched it around (for propaganda benefits, since red is the color of Leftism and Communism and Socialism). It is my goal that here, at Truth Before Dishonor, the Democrats are once again reverted back to being red and the Republicans are once again reverted back to being blue. Because it is far more in keeping with the Truth about their respective political leanings.
Below is the 270 To Win Battleground States map (with my adjustments for Republican and Democrat. The Battleground states are unchanged.)
Compare the two maps. (singing)Do you see what I see?(/singing) That’s right, folks. Every Republican state in 2008 is Republican in 2012. Every Battleground state was Democrat in 2008. And Indiana, which was Democrat in 2008, with less than 50 percent of the vote (despite Obama having an ACORN-led 105 percent Registered Voter vs Adult Resident advantage in Indianapolis in 2008), is Republican in 2012.
The charts show what everyone in the know has known to be true: Obama is on the defensive, desperately trying to cling to territory he won in 2008 and losing ground. That has been the case since the day he was inaugurated. He has been doing his best to cling to territory won and hoping against hope that he doesn’t lose too much. That’s what happens when you push a lie-filled, anti-American, anti-Christian, Socialist agenda down the throats of American citizens, the majority of whom oppose what you’re doing. (ObamaCare: the majority of the population was against it before it became Law, the majority of the population wanted it repealed immediately after it became Law, the majority of the population wanted it repealed in 2010 when they swept 700 Democrats out of office nationwide, and the majority of the population wants it repealed today.)
How big is this inability to win states Obama won his first time through? Let’s look at previous two-term Presidents.
2000: George W Bush won 271 Electoral College votes. 2004: George W Bush won 286 Electoral College votes.
George W Bush gained 15 Electoral College votes for his second term in office.
1992: Bill Clinton got 370 Electoral College votes. 1996: Bill Clinton got 379 Electoral College votes.
Bill Clinton gained 9 Electoral College votes for his second term in office. (Ross Perot went from just under 19 percent of the overall vote to under 9 percent.)
1980: Ronald Reagan, a true Conservative I could back (but wasn’t Conservative enough on some issues, and I was ineligible to vote regardless), got 489 Electoral College votes. 1984: (The first year I was eligible to vote.) Ronald Reagan got 525 Electoral College votes (losing only Minnesota by 18/100ths of a percent and DC by a huge margin).
Ronald Reagan gained 36 Electoral College votes.
In fact, the last time a sitting President won re-election despite shedding Electoral College votes was the election year of 1944, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a fourth term with 432 Electoral College votes, compared to his third term win of 449 Electoral College votes and his second term win of 523 Electoral College votes. But even FDR improved his second term EC votes over his first term EC votes. To find a President who won a second term with fewer EC votes than his first term, you have to go all the way back to the wholly destructive “Progressive” Democrat Woodrow Wilson who won 435 Electoral College votes in 1912, but only gained 277 in 1916, a loss of 158 Electoral College votes for “Progressivism”. He also only garnered 49.24 percent of the popular vote. (Too bad for this country that he couldn’t have lost 170 instead of only 158. Our country would have turned out far better for it.)
The Socialist Barack Obama? He doesn’t have a 168 EC vote cushion to lose. And lose EC votes, he will. Even the pinko Democrat operatives will tell you that. Even the pinko polling firms with their “Democrats will vote in higher proportions than they did in 2008” polling numbers, will tell you that. Independent voters, who gave Obama an 8 point advantage in 2008, are giving Romney a 15 to 20 point advantage in 2012. And the above “battleground” map shows it. Obama has already lost Indiana. Obama cannot win any state he lost in 2008. The Census has reduced the EC number in states Obama won while increasing the EC number in states Obama lost. And every Battleground State is a state Obama won in 2008.
Will this be the first time in 96 years that a sitting President won re-election to a second term while shedding Electoral College votes? I think not. And since, it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama will shed Electoral College votes, I have declared Obama the loser of the 2012 election.
(Truth Before Dishonor intends to do its version of live-blogging the 2012 Presidential Election this upcoming Tuesday night. Tune in to TBD for the 2012 Presidential Election results as they happen. (hopefully))
This is SICKENING. The Discraced House at 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, DC DID NOTHING to save and fight for our fellow citizens and Americanns. Anybody who votes for Obama after reading or hearing this, is BLIND!!!
Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Posted on October 26, 2012 byCowboy Byte
Charles Woods, the father Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
I’m long since tired of Republicans being overly-gracious winners while Democrats get to be petulant criminals without having to face judgment for their crimes. Providence said “To whom much is given, much shall be demanded.” George Bush the Younger refused to prosecute the Clinton administration criminals who were involved in vote fraud, obstruction of justice, theft of classified documents that would’ve crushed the Clintons under the weight of their own criminal actions (Vince Foster).
Luke 12:42-48 says:
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
A higher standard had been applied in a previous leak prosecution, but Judge Brinkema ruled it was not necessary in Mr. Kiriakou’s case because he was a government employee with security clearances and clearly understood the rules about disclosing classified information.
The judge said prosecutors had to show only that the information could be used to harm the U.S.
Mr. Kiriakou was charged in April with disclosing classified information identifying a covert agent, illegally disclosing national defense information and making false statements.
The probe began in 2009 when authorities discovered detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel. Eventually the FBI concluded Mr. Kiriakou gave the name of one covert operative to a journalist, who then passed it on to a private investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.
A former CIA agent will be spending two years in prison for leaking classified information to the Mainstream Media, who leaked it to terrorist defenders, who gave it to terrorists. The President and his administration have far greater authority and thus far greater responsibility than a mere CIA agent; thus, the President and his administration should rightly be imprisoned for far more than two years for their leaking of classified information to enemies foreign and domestic as well as to the Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself), merely to get Obama reelected and at the cost of many of our elite defense forces dying due to the classified information leaks coming out of the Obama reelection scheme. “From everyone who has been given much, much shall be demanded.”
It is far past time for Republicans to quit graciously giving a pass to treasonous, criminal Democrats and to force those Democrats to pay dearly for their crimes against the US.
Now, it’s been rumored that Obama will be handing out all manner of pardons for his peeps. If he believes some serious investigations are coming, he will not give out those pardons. Because doing so will place him in even more dire jeopardy of being imprisoned, as those he pardons will have no reason to keep silent and every reason to blow the whistle on him. They’re free from prosecution but would face prosecution if they continue to obstruct justice. Refusing to pardon them would keep them in jeopardy of prosecution if they say anything at all.
I’ve been watching the third Presidential Debate and I’ve come to the conclusion that, for the most part, two cousins have been busily pecking each other’s cheeks and playfully punching each other’s shoulders. Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy is clearly weak, but Obama’s Foreign Policy is disastrous, so there’s no win here for either one.
For the most part, both candidates have been respectful of each other. That’s standard operating procedure for Romney, but a great improvement for Obama, and a far cry from the insanity and inanity of Biden in his only debate. As I said, for the most part. When Romney talked about the number of Naval ships being the smallest since the World War I era, Obama countered mockingly and derisively. “It’s true we have fewer ships than 1914 but we also have fewer horses and chariots (or something to that effect).” That’s not going to win over undecided voters, but it is candy for the Loony Left. “We have these things that airplanes land on, called aircraft carriers, and ships that go underwater, called submarines.” That sort of garbage will not play among the independents.
Overall, the two candidates are differing by degree and not oppositional. And the moderator is doing his job correctly, asking the questions, moving the debate along, and then getting out of the way so the two candidates can make their own points (or not make any point at all) all on their own without his help.
Barack Obama is pro-abortion. He’s so pro-abortion that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban, which prevents murderers from delivering 90 percent of a baby, sucking that baby’s brains out, then delivering the rest of the baby. He’s also so pro-abortion that he voted against a law that requires doctors and nurses to care for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, purposefully allowing that living, breathing baby to die.
1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion
In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 , Aug 1, 2008
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
To borrow from a fast food restaurant chain, who borrowed it from American culture: I’m lovin’ it!!! Gimme more, gimme more, gimme more!!! And, pass the popcorn (coconut oil and extra butter, please)
What’s money got to do with it?
Why, everything, of course.
Let’s throw out some seemingly random points.
Barack Obama’s reelection campaign claimed at one point (was it before or after he was innaugurated?) that they would spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS (pinky stuck to the corner of their mouth, no doubt) on this reelection campaign. Even with turning off the online security that would’ve prevented fraudulent over-seas contributions and other fraudulent contributions and other election law violations, the Obama campaign is coming up waaaaaay short of that ONE BILLION DOLLARS (muhahaha) goal. Oops.
Barack Obama told the DNC and all other Democrat candidates “you’re on your own; I won’t be giving you any money”. Sucks to be them.
Barack Obama, in his original run for President, told the Unions he’d put on his comfortable shoes and be front and center in their lines, right there with them, as they pushed for whatever they were pushing for. (What do they push for, other than theft of private citizens’ property?)
So, what happened in Wisconsin when the Unions needed Obama to keep his promise? Wisconsin Unions found out they were in Flyover Country! As Obama flew over Wisconsin while visiting all the states that shared borders with Wisconsin. Obama didn’t have time for them because he was working to get himself reelected (years in advance).
And the Unions screamed in torture that the DNC and Obama weren’t ponying up the money they needed to achieve their goal.
Oh, by the way, the Unions were spending tens of millions of dollars to lose at the voting booth, all the while their forced Union dues were drying up. One of the biggest Public Employee Unions in Wisconsin lost over half of its dues-paying members in under a year, all the while, the Union was spending like gangbusters on politics.
Obama didn’t put on his comfortable shoes and walk the picket like he promised he would. Quelle dommage! Quel suprise! Obama broke a promise! A promise made to get himself elected! Because he was too busy trying to get money to get reelected to help someone not named Barack Obama. And he isn’t getting his ONE BILLION DOLLARS (muhahaha), despite his aiding and abetting fraud and felonies.
I, for one, was loudly cheering on the Unions. I strongly encouraged them to spend all the money they could, and then to spend more. For a very simple reason.
Moving on, the DNC has decided to thank the Charlotte DNC Committee for the free lunch. That’s right. The national Democrat party has stiffed the committee that organized and ran the Democrat National Convention. “Thank you for putting on this extravagant gala. No, we won’t be giving you any money.” It turns out the Charlotte DNC Committee has run 12.5 MILLION DOLLARS short in paying its bills to run a gala for Barack Obama and the National Democrats. And Obama and the National Democrats aren’t about to help the Charlotte DNC Committee in its shortfall. And the Charlotte DNC Committee is depending on future donations to pay off that 12.5 MILLION DOLLAR debt. “Hey, buddy, do you want to chip in to pay for an event that has already happened, to support a candidate and cause that lost? We could really use your money, or businesses could go bankrupt and people could lose their jobs because we can’t pay them.” That’s not going to sell.
Oh, by the way, the Unions (who support Democrats 99 percent of the time and with 99 percent of their dollars) were busy boycotting the Convention because it took place in a Right To Work state!
And now we have news about the terrible financial state of the DNC (who refused to help defray the costs of their own convention). From The Other McCain:
[Link to site that I don’t link to] The official Federal Election Committee reports for September are out [end link to site that I don’t link to], and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s DNC is a complete wreck. The Democrats ended September with cash on hand of $4.6 million, compared to the Republican National Committee’s $82.6 million.
That’s nearly an 18-to-1 cash advantage for Republicans.
Worse still for the DNC, they had to take out loans to pay the bills so that they owed $20.5 million at the end of September, meaning that that (subtracting cash on hand from total debt) they were $15.9 million in the red — essentially bankrupt. Wasserman-Schultz’s committee only raised $3.7 million in September; at that pace, it would take them more than four months to clear their debt, even if they didn’t spend another dime in the meantime.
So, let’s recap.
Barack Obama, who told all the other Democrats “you’ll get no money from me”, cannot get to his ONE BILLION DOLLARS (muhahaha) goal, and is losing in the polls and is losing in the Electoral College and is being rolled over by the political tide (Roll, Tide!).
The DNC, who refused to “pay their fair share” of the costs to bring you the DNC Convention and all its lies and pandering (not to mention the complete face plant with all those anti-Israel and anti-Providence boisterous boos), is 20 MILLION DOLLARS in debt and has 1/18 (one eighteenth) the cash on hand as the RNC.
The Charlotte DNC Committee is 12.5 MILLION DOLLARS in debt and cannot get any money from higher up, and is depending on people to contribute money for an event that already took place.
The Unions have spent tens of millions of dollars they couldn’t afford, only to lose the elections they had to win in order to zombify their dead Union Dues — to — Democrat Election machine. All the while, watching their Union Dues dry up as newly liberated people used their liberation to extricate themselves from the Union leeches.
In short, all those whose goals would necessarily impoverish America are, themselves, becoming impoverished. Their money-making outlets are drying up. They’re going deep into debt, spending their future election money today. They’re losing their enslaved contributors. And they’re losing the elections. All the while, they’re refusing to support one another, as they each look out for their own selves. Which is typical of the sort of mindset that is necessary to be part and parcel of any of their various sub-groups. And the outyears will find them needing to cover costs for previous losing campaigns with their greatly reduced future money, leaving them less able in the future to spend the big bucks.
All the better for Conservatives. All the better for the poor. All the better for the middle class. All the better for small businesses. All the better for America!!!
Barack Obama has six high-profile military endorsements, all male. Mitt Romney has six retired female flag officers* (that’s general/admiral stuff for you non-military types) among his military endorsements. Actually, Mitt Romney has 359 retired flag officers who have endorsed him for President.
Who do you suppose those who have served this country in uniform support?
*I didn’t count names like “Terry” and “Chris” (there were no Danas) or names that were only initials, so the count could be higher.
Gallup has a new poll out from data it collected from October 10 to October 16, showing the 50 percent barrier has been crossed. This is important because when an incumbent has less than 50 percent of the likely voters this late in the stage, that incumbent is in serious danger of being defeated — even if the incumbent has the lead in the polls. Because people who are undecided this late in the game break very heavily toward the challenger. The incumbent has a record, and that record has not convinced the undecided voter. What’s left?
So, when a poll with the clout of Gallup comes out and declares that 51 percent of likely voters have stepped up to the plate and declared they will be voting for Obama and 45 percent will be voting for Romney, leaving only 4 percent undecided, that means something major.
Wait, what? Oh, that’s right. Never mind. The Gallup poll of likely voters shows Romney with 51 percent of the vote, a clear majority, to Obama’s 45 percent to give Romney a 6 point lead. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Tonight is the second of three Presidential debates this campaign season. It is in a moderated and moderator-directed “townhall-lite” format. A great many sites will be all over all of Obama’s lies, whether it’s lying about what Romney actually said (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about Romney’s actual recort (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about what Obama himself actually said (and there are many of those Obama lies) or lying about what Obama himself actually accomplished (and there are many of those Obama lies) or any other manner of Obama lies. There is a lot of meat for honest fact-checkers to have very long-winded articles shredding the heavy amount of falsehoods Obama has put out in this debate.
There will also be a great many people on the Left and the Right who will have plenty negative to say about Romney. For one, Romney’s no Conservative, as his statements in this debate have proven.
As I said, you will be able to find all that information and more on a great many other sites. So I will not cover them in this article. What I want to point out, something that was very obvious for the 45 minutes I listened to the debate on my drive home from work, is the civility or incivility involved in the debate. The respectfulness or lack thereof.
***For the record, and to be perfectly clear, Truth Before Dishonor has never endorsed Mitt Romney. Dana Pico has endorsed him on this site and I have written scathing articles against Romney on this site, but Dana Pico and I will both agree that while Mitt Romney is no Conservative, he’s far better than the Socialist Barack Obama.
But re-listen to the debate in the memory banks of your mind. When it was Barack Obama’s turn to talk, Mitt Romney listened quietly and allowed Barack Obama to say whatever he wanted without interruption. But when it was Mitt Romney’s turn to talk, Barack Obama was constantly interrupting and trying to talk over top of Mitt Romney, trying to prevent Mitt Romney from saying whatever it was Romney was saying.
Who was the more respectful, more Presidential, more civil, more professional debater? Very clearly, it was Mitt Romney.
Who was the more impertinent, more disrespectful, more rabble-rousing, less civil, less professional debater? Very clearly, it was Barack Obama.
That is what I heard. And if you replay the debate in your mind’s memory banks, that is what you will hear, too. That is, if you’re being Truthful to yourself.
UPDATE: I said other sites would be chronicling the massive number of Obama lies in last night’s debate, and JE Dyer did just that. I also said people on the right would be dinging Romney, and she did that, too.
Pew has released its October poll and Obama received terrible news. He lost 12 points to Romney in a single month. Perhaps it’s time for Obama’s corrupt Department of Injustice to sue Pew. The Socialist Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware was crowing about the September Pew poll despite being shown very clearly that the poll was heavily skewed Democrat, far afield of the actual voting populace. So what will the Left (whom Perry Hood parrots) say about the same polling firm now that the numbers show Obama losing by 4? Will they, and consequently the parrot, accept the numbers? I highly doubt it. They’re very inconsistent like that.
Pew’s September poll, and many other polling outfits’ September polls, were heavily skewed to the Democrat side of the RDI. Far afield of the actual voting makeup of the US population. And people went through the effort to unskew the polls. This effort showed Romney with a strong lead over Obama instead of the strong Obama lead that Pew and others were showing. Of course, the Left scoffed at the idea of unskewing their skewed polls. Well, Pew did just that. They unskewed their own September poll with their October poll, showing a far more realistic RDI sample. And the result is Romney leads Obama by 4 in October.
Now there’s a reason polling outfits would skew in September but not in October (or not so badly in October). It’s actually a very simple reason. While there are those who don’t see anything nefarious about the shenanigans, I do. And here’s why:
Polling outfits want Liberals to win, so they provide propaganda showing Democrats in unrealistic leads. It helps bring low-information voters into the fold and discourages Conservative voters. It pushes the actual polling numbers more to the polling firms’ liking, thus when it’s time to unskew the polls, the damage has been done.
Polling outfits like to tout their accuracy, pointing back to previous voting outcomes compared to their polls; thus, they have to have final unskewed polls to show to unsuspecting readers. Their earlier polls, since they are far enough away from the election, can be ignored. Or they can be said to show the gradual shift toward Conservatives as the cycle goes on (for other insidious anti-First Amendment activities by lawmakers and Leftist activists alike).
In order for the polling outfits to push their two-fold propaganda, they have to push a Left bias in their polls to start and then shift their polls to far more reasonable breakdowns as the election approaches. And this is what Pew has done. It is what other polling firms will be doing, as the election approaches. They have no choice if they want to be believed in later years.
In other bad news, that polling firm the corrupt Obama Department of Injustice sued is showing a 47/47 tie among registered voters, a 5-point Obama loss from its previous poll. What’s worse, this is a poll of registered voters, which consistantly swings two or three points further Left than the actual vote results will show. So, when adjusted for likely voters, Obama is trailing here, too.
In still other news, Obama went from +10 in Michigan in September to +3 now, with a margin of error of +/-4. That means it’s a statistical dead heat in Michigan. And in Pennsylvania, Obama only leads by 2 with a D+6 poll. That makes Pennsylvania a very clear toss-up, unlike what the loony Left were saying.
And he declared the first one, where Obama wins by a landslide, ain’t never gonna happen. I agree. The other three possibilities could happen, although he believes the middle two are the most likely. But as time goes on toward the election and the polls start unskewing, it’s looking more and more like the last two are the most likely with Obama’s squeaker least likely of the three and Obama’s landslide still ain’t never gonna happen.
Dana Pico
DNW
Foxfier
Hube
Yorkshire
Truth Before Dishonor 