Liberals


LBJ: We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)!

Nixon: I am not a crook!

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski!

Bush – 41: Read my lips – No new taxes!

Obama:

I will have the most transparent administration in history.

TARP is to fund shovel-ready jobs.

I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.

The IRS is not targeting anyone.

It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.

If I had a son.

I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.

You didn’t build that!

I will restore trust in Government.

The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.

The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that land on my desk

It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.

Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.

We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.

I am not spying on American citizens.

Obama-Care will be good for America

You can keep your family doctor.

Premiums will be lowered by $2500.

If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan

It’s just like shopping at Amazon

I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels

I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups

I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi

And the biggest one of all:

“I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America

If I were to ask any sensible person what the number one issue facing America is, I’d bet the answer would be spending and debt.

We know what’s wrong. We know what needs to be done. However, half of Americans who bothered voting rewarded America with another 4 years of this idiot we call President.

In his first 4 years, Obama ran the biggest deficits in US history, driving the biggest debt growth in US history. His spending and deficits as a percentage of GDP were staggering, truly Greece-like. He presided over the worst employment record since the Great Depression, and poverty surged to record levels under him.

In spite of all this, the dolts of America decided we need more of it. So then the question pulled from this is “Why?” Simple; voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Game over.

LiberalVoter

Saul D. Alinsky

I began to read of Obama’s influences as far back as April of 2008, before Obama’s presidential election. From this I learned about Saul D. Alinksy and Cloward & Piven who are probably among the most important among Obama’s influences – directly or otherwise. When you read about them and the basis of their beliefs it is not difficult to see Obama’s beliefs among them.

So, who are these people?

Saul D. Alinksy

Consider Saul D. Alinksy. Known as the “father of modern American radicalism,” Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory – no matter what. This describes very well Obama’s community organizing work, which he did long before becoming a member of the U.S. Senate. It is not hard to see Alinksy’s work oozing from the pores of Obama. Obama’s most recent use of one of Alinsky’s rules was this past week when Obama ridiculed businessman Donald Trump’s efforts to get answers to questions surrounding the origin of Obama’s birth. These are questions of which the answer is owed to the American people.

“I know that he’s taken some flack lately,” Obama said of Trump. “But no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.”

But then the president quickly changed gears. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like–did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Obama said, referencing rap icons Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. – Barack Obama during his speach in front of a live televised audience at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C. in late April of 2011.

At the end of the day Obama is ultimately at fault for his failure to disclose to the American people this most basic of information upon which his eligibility to be president of the United States rests. As Oprah Winfrey on her talk show asked him the day after his disclosure, “What took so long?”. Some analyst say the timing of his disclosure is directly related to his falling poll numbers.

Cloward-Piven

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…” There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

To capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward-Piven strategy, consider the following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.


They represent the organizations at work who believe America’s economic and political systems are worthy of begin destroyed. They represent the ardent support for Obama. The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Change and the Moral High Ground

Too many Americans today brush off Obama’s influences as another conspiracy theory worthy of being alongside Big Foot and UFO’s. There are two types; those who don’t take the claims seriously or if they do and already understand these claims to be truth, they don’t want that truth to be known. They are happy if the majority of Americans are oblivious to the reasons behind the changes taking place in America today. In either case, they defend Obama’s policies and characterize them as morally correct.

“I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.” – Nancy Pelosi

One only needs to look to pre-Nazi Germany to understand how quickly the abnormal replaces the normal and how values and government can change in a matter of months. But try comparing Obama-era changes to Hitler-era changes and you’re instantly vilified. Not because of the comparison to a charismatic leader who tears down its long standing government to replace it with his own idea of what government should be to its people, but because his blind supporters are only capable of one-dimensional thinking and can only associate Hitler to the holocaust. They cannot see the truth.

The naive among Obama’s supporters truly believe he is trying to help its citizens. They cannot see how Obama’s vision of America will actually lead to its destruction and loss of standing on the world’s stage, just as Hitler’s leadership lead to Germany’s destruction.

Wayne Allyn Root

While the influences these people may have had upon the formation of Obama’s beliefs might be new to most, there is someone who has known this since Obama’s college years.

The author of what follows was a college classmate of Obama’s. His name is Wayne Allyn Root.

Wayne Allyn Root

Mr. Root was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee. The opinion piece that he wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal in June of 2010 helps to justify the belief that Obama really does want to grow government, destroy America’s economic leadership and make its citizens dependent upon its government and in-so-doing making Americans slaves to an overbearing government.

What follows is Mr. Root’s view of Obama, his view of America and its place in the world and how his policies are working to bring about Obama’s brand of “Hope and Change”.

Obama’s agenda: Overwhelm the system

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama’s presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of ’83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

— Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

— Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

— Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

— Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

— Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

— Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

America needs to wake up. But I fear it may be too late.

The original opinion piece can be found here.


A full year and a half after watching the left demonstrate their inherent inability to engage in critical thinking and to look beyond the campaign hyperbole of our now community organizer for president, we are now starting to see their inability to stick to their own principles, flawed as they are.

We watched in amazement as the left, whipped into a froth by a national media which has resembled Pravda or Tass for for some time, rushed like lemmings to the voting booths to elect a shallow orator into the most powerful position on the planet.

Now we watch in disgust as the Obama supporters come out of their drunken-like stupor and sober up to the truth the rest of us already know; socialism is repressive and it doesn’t work to provide the conditions needed for a successful society. It never has. It never will.

But the left demonstrate another inability. They can’t recognize truth when it stares them in the face. As young college students, their minds have been corrupted by the liberal and socialist ideologies which has been pumped into their soft, mushy heads by professors and other corrupted elements coming from the left-wing.

These legions of liberal minded graduates which some call “progressives” are now captains of industry. They are media moguls, teachers and politicians and for several decades they have been very busy subverting our institutions and core values of our country. It’s no wonder our country is in shambles today, a product of their “sick-think” which turns traditional values and thinking on its ear by their belief that our country is broken and only they can fix it. The A.C.L.U. and activist judges are their tools.

Think about this one; California’s fiscal crisis is the product of a generation of leadership produced by the ’60s. I there was any era which represented a wholesale rejection of traditional values, it would be the ’60s. Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi come from that generation. Collectively, they’ve made a shambles of California and now they’re in Washington, D.C. and they’re well on their way to applying their sick-think to make a wreck out of our nation.

The liberal loves to label the Republican Party as “the party of no” which suggests they are “the party of yes.” Based upon their lack of convictions when it comes to traditional values, patriotism and national sovereignty, one might agree. They have established a clear record of saying –

  • “yes” to same-sex marriages,
  • “yes” to open borders,
  • “yes” to granting constitutional rights to non-citizens, especially to our enemies,
  • “yes” to tax policies creating economic uncertainty for businesses and denying economic freedom of consumers all of which lead to stagnant economic conditions and double digit unemployment rates,
  • “yes” to spending policies creating debt levels which threatens our national security,
  • “yes” to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote, especially when it benefits the Democrat party,
  • “yes” to a national media which advances their agenda
  • “yes” to emaciating our military
  • “yes” to large government
  • “yes” to policies reflecting those of socialism i.e. nationalizing large corporations and majority ownership
  • “yes” to allowing heads of foreign states the opportunity to address congress and then giving them standing ovations when they speak about how wrong we are to want to preserve our sovereignty by incarcerating and deporting immigrants who have come into our country illegally,
  • “yes” to blaming Republicans and conservatives alike for the affects of their failed policies administered by their own, such as Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and who clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about the will of the people or democratic process,

Clearly, this list could go on for a long time, but the above items serve to illustrate the destructive characteristics of their belief systems which they embed into their policies and laws, all of which conservatives and those in the Republican party disagree with, leaving them labeled as belonging to “the party of no”.

However, it’s easy to see those of the left haven’t got a clue about what it means to do the right thing for our country, which is to say those on the right actually belong to “the party of know”.

On June 3, our community organizer-president was interviewed by Larry King on the subject of the BP oil spill:

KING: I know you appear so calm. Are you angry at BP?

OBAMA: You know, I am furious at this entire situation because this is an example where somebody didn’t think through the consequences of their actions. It’s imperiling not just a handful of people. This is imperiling an entire way of life and an entire region for potentially years.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37619-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d5-Obama-tells-Larry-King-he-is-furious-about-BP-now-will-people-shut-up

The next day, in his wisdom and no doubt reflecting upon the words he spoke on the previous day, the Obambastic decides that what is in order is a 6 month ban on new offshore drilling while a commission investigates. It’s like halting all automobile manufacturers from making cars because of an accident on 59. No matter. Obambastic’s plan to halt drilling is just as wise.

The moratorium will cost as many as 20,000 Louisiana jobs in the next 12 months to 18 months during “one of the most challenging economic periods in decades,” Governor Bobby Jindal said in a letter to Obama released recently. Each drilling platform idled by the ban puts 1,400 jobs at risk, according to the National Ocean Industries Association, a Washington-based group for drillers and companies that support oil production.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-03/jindal-says-obama-s-moratorium-on-drilling-may-cost-louisiana-20-000-jobs.html

So there we have it; Obama lambastes from his ivory tower while his arrogance prevents him from seeing his own hypocrisy. It is why he yet again wins the “I have my head up my ass award.”

Major Portions of GDP Coming Under Federal Control

In July of 2009, a University of Arizona economist, Professor William Boyes, stated that the federal government owns or controls 30 percent of private wealth in America.

MoneyGrab

The Fed Wants Control of America's Economic Engine


Boyes said his calculations were rather simple in nature not even worthy of a Nobel Prize.

I simply added up how much of GDP [gross domestic product] was govt run or govt controlled. I gave an approximation that is pretty conservative. I suspect the actual number is more like 40%; if health care goes through then it will rise to over 50%.

The Washington Times pointed to Boyes’s calculations in their story about the Fed’s takeover of GM, citing the government’s growing role in controlling private wealth.

William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, estimates that the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity. — Washington Times

A Money Grab

Government’s control of the nation’s economy stems from its intervention into the operations of GM, government-assisted bankruptcy reorganization of Chrysler LLC, the assumption of partial ownership of Citigroup and Bank of America, the seizure of mortgage industry’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurance giant American International Group Inc.

Boyes sums it up when he says,

“the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity.”

The ever-expanding government take-over of the private sector under the guise of crisis is stunning. To quell the fears of impending socialism, The White House frequently states it wishes it didn’t have to do what it did, and that it is acting to save the economy from total collapse.

Regardless of Obama’s true intent, one thing remains clear: the economy of the nation has been changed – almost overnight.

Mr. Boyes notes:

“I didn’t think I would ever see the United States move to a primarily government-controlled economy, and its happened in just a few months.”

On November 1, 2009, Limbaugh appeared on Fox News Sunday, hosted by Chris Wallace, where he stated that the Obama administration is intentionally destroying the private sector thorough their economic plans.

“I believe that the economy is under siege…. Anybody with any economic literary would not do one thing that this administration’s done … They’re destroying it and I have to think that it may be on purpose. ” — Rush Limbaugh

Nancy Pelosi’s Affordable Health Care for America Act

House speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday unveiled HR-3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

As Boyes states, when HR-3962 or some variant is signed into law, it could bring government control of the GDP to well over 50 percent. If Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is correct in stating health care could account for 18 percent of the economy’s cash flow, this figure could rise to 58 percent.

Marc Goldwein, an economist with the New America Foundation says,

“What percent of GDP is made up of government spending is a different question from what government spending equals as a percent of GDP.”

When government “transfers” money — such as through Social Security — it is shifting money around rather than spending it directly. As Goldwein states,

“This can have real and large effects on GDP, but it does not directly impact GDP, since tax and transfer policies simply take money that one person could be using for consumption or investment and give it to another person to use for consumption or investment,”

Move over Chavez, you’ve got company

While Iraq has begun the transition from a command economy under Hussein to a free market economy and with Iran currently in the middle of privatizing it’s companies, the United States has, by all accounts, a mixed economy having a variety of public and government control. Said another way, it’s a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

TRINIDAD-AMERICAS-SUMMIT-CHAVEZ-OBAMA
The economy of Venezuela is a mixed economy based in large part on petroleum.

A mixed economy is an economic ideal supported by social democrats as a compromise between socialism and free-market capitalism. It strays from the ideals of either the free market, or various planned economies, and “mix” with elements of each other.

Social Democracy: A socialist movement that advocates a mixed economy of private and public ownership combined with a welfare state.

Private sector ownership of production, transportation, agriculture, communications and other segments of industry exists along side with government’s tax-funded, subsidized, or state-owned factories such as GM and Chrysler, infrastructure, and services such as AIG as well as government-granted monopolies.

The system includes involuntary spending and investments such as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as welfare for the poor, social security, government subsidies to business and mandatory insurance such as HR-3962.

As our government moves for greater control of America’s economic engine, the next phase of evolution brings it into a planned economy or directed economy in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Looking back to The White House’s decision to force the resignation of Rick Wagner, the longtime head of General Motors, then forcing Chrysler to accept a merger with Italy’s Fiat and determining which of GM’s products are to continue while killing other lines (Buick no longer exists) one could reasonably think we are indeed heading in that direction. It’s a question of how far the administration cares to take it.

Maxine Water’s Desire to Nationalize Domestic Oil

While we witness Obama’s reconstruction of America’s insurance and manufacturing base, we can look back with a wary eye on Representative Maxine Waters, D-California, and to her comment of May 2008, when she communicates to Shell Oil president John Hofmeister her desire to nationalize America’s oil companies.
MaxineWaters2
Waters was challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores. Hofmeister replied: “I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down.” The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump “will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.” Waters responded, in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …” (The congresswoman paused and sputtered to collect her thoughts obviously searching for the term “nationalize”) “Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …” The oil executives responded by saying they’ve seen this before, in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.

Taking lessons learned by watching our government give money to failing industry and force policies upon them, the sincerity of Maxine Waters demands serious attention. Once viewed as unlikely if not impossible, the gas in the tank of my new government designed car could come from soon-to-be nationalized oil companies (overseen by Maxine Waters?).

It wasn’t too long ago when California wanted to pass a bill to outlaw the color black for cars, essentially governing the color of every automobile sold in the state.

Attacks from the Left upon Free Speech and News Outlets

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and World Net Daily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

TheObamacrats

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it. – Barack Obama


On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.
ExtremistsInCharge
The past October, several top White House advisers have gone out of their way to appear on other channels to criticize Fox News’ coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

On October 20, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said White House officials

“render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.”

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to “Beck” and “Hannity” — even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said:

“That is our opinion.”

Recently, I was reading a comment posted by a blogger who was lamenting about the rising costs of our government-run social programs. The owner of the comment said,

“the cash for clunkers cost $3B after we were told $1B. This year’s deficit was under-estimated by how much? … tell me why anyone would believe the government can manage health care and especially do so efficiently?

Are Americans really certifiably stupid?”

Not able to help myself, I responded by saying,

If you are to believe the theories about the dumbing down of Americans through our failed (government managed) education system, then the answer is “Yes!”

I went on to say anyone who believes our government should be in the business of being in business effectively waives their right to complain about resulting waste of our tax dollars used to run that business.

As a sidebar topic, Article I., Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is explicit about what it should be involved in and national health care is nowhere in the list. Neither is Social Security for that matter.

The other day, a Republican congressman pointed to the fact that Congress is controlled by the Dems and that the Republicans couldn’t muster the votes required to stop a 1 car parade. He went on to say that in spite of that glaring fact, Nancy Pelosi’s health care initiative can’t get the votes needed to pass because the ultra-wacky Democrats can’t get the “normal” Democrats to agree to it. In the end, he simply labeled the bill as “wacky”.

Back to the question, a recent Pew political IQ poll indicates Republicans to be consistently more knowledgeable about our government than Democrats.

This video certainly supports the results of that poll.

Whoa… did I just suggest that when it comes to issues critical to the health of this country, the left is basically ignorant and should waive their rights to vote unless they take their responsibilities seriously?

If that offends anyone, maybe it should.

Next Page »