Democrat Convention Speakers Speakers Recount Their Humble Beginning. Brii Hume sees this as a parallel to a very funny old skit performed By Monty Python’s Flying Circus.
Convention speakers recounting their desperately humble beginnings bring to mind a famous Monty Python skit. Hilarious.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1w…
— Brit Hume (@Kimsfirst) September 5, 2012
Reprinted from The Daily Caller
By Matthew Vadum
All voting doesn’t take place in a voting booth. Room for mischief exists when voter ID is not required.
While NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lashed out at new state laws requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme.
In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee.
Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.
“This crime cuts against the fabric of our free society,” Judge Webster said.
Sowers was found guilty of voting in the names of Carrie Collins, Walter Howard, Sheena Shelton, Alberta Pickett, Draper Cotton and Eddie Davis. She was also convicted of voting in the names of four dead persons: James L. Young, Dora Price, Dorothy Harris, and David Ross.
In the trial, forensic scientist Bo Scales testified that Sowers’s DNA was found on the inner seals of five envelopes containing absentee ballots.
This wasn’t Sowers’s first run-in with the law. Sowers previously had her probation revoked for disturbing the peace at a junior high school library, the Commercial Appeal of Memphis reported in 1990. During a hearing at that time, Sowers played the race card. She claimed to be the victim of “an attempt by powerful whites to silence” her, the newspaper reported. It didn’t work. She was ordered back to prison to complete the remaining two years of a three-year sentence she received for check forgery.
The NAACP has had other problems with voter fraud. The NAACP National Voter Fund registered a dead man to vote in Lake County, Ohio, in 2004. That same year, out of 325 voter registration cards filed by the NAACP in Cleveland, 48 were flagged as fraudulent.
But the NAACP’s voter fraud record doesn’t approach that of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. At least 54 individuals employed by or associated with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud.
Voter fraud, sometimes called electoral fraud, is a blanket term used by lawyers that encompasses a host of election-related improprieties including fraudulent voting, voter registration fraud, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, impersonation, intimidation, and identity fraud.
And ACORN, which filed for bankruptcy last November, was itself convicted of voter fraud in Nevada in April. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 10 in Las Vegas. ACORN was also banished from Ohio in 2010 when it settled a state racketeering filed against it by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a project of the Buckeye Institute. Under the settlement ACORN, which is now reorganizing its state chapters under different names, agreed never to return to the state.
Election experts say voter fraud is fairly common, but progressive activists typically insist that the crime is virtually nonexistent. Republicans, they say, routinely exaggerate claims of voter fraud in order to whip their political base into a frenzy and push for voter ID laws. Liberals say such laws are unfair, and claim that they discourage minorities and the poor from voting.
The NAACP’s Jealous said Monday at the group’s 102nd annual convention in Los Angeles that photo ID laws are part of an attempt to disenfranchise minorities through some “of the last existing legal pillars of Jim Crow.” Such laws stem from “the worst and most racist elements” in conservative Tea Party groups, he said.
Stephen Colbert, the liberal comedian who portrays an overbearing conservative Republican on his cable TV show “The Colbert Report,” broadcast a segment this week ridiculing Republicans for treating voter fraud as a serious problem.
Some Democrats, however, aren’t laughing. The office of District Attorney Brenda F. Mitchell, a registered Democrat who serves Mississippi’s 11th Circuit Court District, successfully prosecuted Sowers. Mitchell was appointed to the post by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour in January 2010 after the previous DA resigned. She’s now seeking the Democratic nomination for the office in a primary election scheduled for Aug. 2.
Mitchell doesn’t appear to be a conservative. She served as a legal consultant to the far-left, New York-based public interest law firm the Center for Constitutional Rights. That firm represented ACORN in an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a federal law defunding the activist group. Mitchell didn’t return calls seeking comment for this article.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, is also no conservative. But she won a conviction against Joshua Reed for voter registration fraud in 2004 when she was the Hennepin County, Minn. Prosecutor.
“It was very important for the public integrity of our electoral system that somebody, if they do something like this, gets charged, gets convicted and gets consequences,” Klobuchar said at the time.
Democrats, including Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Pittsburgh District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr., and Miami, Fla., State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, have all vigorously prosecuted voter fraud cases.
——-
Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Vadum’s book, Subversion Inc., was published in 2011.
Facts don’t lie…..
#liberals do twitter.com/ACSpollen/stat…— ACSpollen (@ACSpollen) September 1, 2012
Obama’s approval ratings are so low now, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States.
— Elishia(@elishiawindfohr) September 3, 2012
Voter ID Card for Arizona
There are a lot of things I don’t understand. In fact, most liberal ideas I don’t understand at all. However, far above all the other ideas that are inexplicable as far as I am concerned, is the one about their contention that requiring voters to identify themselves is voter suppression. In my mind, requiring voter ID is a logical way to make sure everyone’s vote counts equally. Furthermore, it seems without requiring identification, a community organizer could gather many people for the cause of getting his candidate elected and bring them to many different polls and have them vote for his man each time.
Of course, we have all heard of the rumors of people voting in Camden New Jersey and then crossing the bridge to Philadelphia and voting there as well. We have also heard of districts where more votes were counted than the number of people who were registered in that particular district. In both of these cases, it seems as if requiring voter ID would have alleviated the problem, or at least the rumors of such problems occurring.
In other words, I believe, though it may require a modest effort, it is possible for a person to vote two, three, or possibly even more times. If this is the case, the law abiding citizen who votes once has actually had his or her vote suppressed. Therefore, it is my belief voter ID laws do not cause voter suppression but to the contrary, they prevent it.
I don’t know for sure, because I can’t get into the liberal mind, they seem to believe it is difficult for some people to get identification and therefore these people will not be able to vote because they do not have any. Yes, I guess some people would have to do a little work to make sure they could identify themselves, but I understand you do not have to have a driver’s license in order to get proper identification. In other words, getting the required identification for voting purposes is not really difficult. In the state of Indiana and the state of Pennsylvania, the courts have agreed with this analogy. Therefore, they have turned away the Democrat’s challenges to the regulation that makes it necessary for voters to identify themselves.
I am not making any accusations here, but letting people vote without identifying themselves leaves lots of room for mischief. However, being able to identify each voter is a fairly certain way to make sure no such mischief at polls exists. Therefore, I really can’t understand how anyone disagrees with my point of view. However, those who do disagree with me ask me how many cases of voter impersonation has there been in the last 10 years? To this my only answer could possibly be; if you can’t identify the person how would you know how many times he voted and why does he have to actually impersonate anyone if no ID was required?
In conclusion, I’m sorry if I’m ruffling any feathers by thinking voter ID laws are fair and that without them elections could be swung fraudulently. I know a lot of people don’t seem to agree with this point of view but at least for now, the courts do and that’s good enough for me!
During the Depression, Franklin D Roosevelt Instituted The WPA in order to Create Work for Men and Improve the Country’s Infrastructure
On his latest campaign trip, the president of the United States is talking once again about putting people to work by spending government money to build new roads and bridges. This type of spending money falls under the category of stimulus spending. It is a throwback to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Works Program Authority better known as the WPA.
The WPA was instituted during the Great Depression for the sole purpose of creating work for men who had been unemployed for a very long time. The idea behind it was, if these men finally had work and weekly salaries, they would spend this money and put it back into the economy. Doing so would create work for other people while giving fledgling businesses some business, thus saving them from having to close their doors.
Once these businesses were doing better they too, would be able to possibly hire more people and at least, have some money of their own to spend and therefore, continue the cycle of creating more business and work for more people. Whether or not this program actually worked is a controversial subject. Even those who claimed it did work are not entirely sure that all the money ended up in the hands of the people it was intended to end up in.
Still, the program did create a better infrastructure for the country which helped people and businesses save time and therefore, money. When explained to the American people in this way, it seemed like a win-win for everyone at the time. On top of that, it put people back to work and while doing so put pride back in their lives.
No matter how you explain it, the WPA was trickle-down economics in action. Interesting to note is the fact trickle-down economics is now being called “Fairy Dust” by Barack Hussein Obama. Whether you call it fairy dust or trickle-down economics, it occurs when money flows from a person or entity with a greater amount of money to people and entities with lesser amounts. In the case of the WPA, the entity with a greater amount of money was the government. However, in truth, the government has no money because in America, the government is the people.
Therefore, in the case of any government program, the WPA included, money flows from taxpayers to other people. Hopefully these are people who need the money and can benefit from it. In other words, we would hope this hard-earned taxpayer money would not end up in the hands of an entity like ACORN.
In any event, since 40% of taxes in today’s tax structure comes from the top 2% of wage earners, and the bottom 50% of all wage earners pay no income taxes, government programs are actually programs which allow money to trickle-down from high income people to lower income people. At least, this is what they are in an ideal world. However today, a great deal of the money the United States government spends comes from China. Therefore, it could be said any government programs instituted are an examples of cases where money trickles down from the rich Chinese government to the poor United States government.
It is important to make the distinction between government programs and tax breaks. When a class of people are given tax breaks, they simply have more money left over after they pay their current year’s taxes than they would have if the tax rate reductions had not been instituted. Normally, a cycle of stimulus will be started from this extra money once it reaches the hands of these taxpayers.
In government programs, money that could be spent on other things, like paying down the debt, gets spent on programs which the government normally advertises as necessary. The incumbent president will often do this to enrich his voter base as he confiscates and spends this taxpayer-earned money on his pet project. In any event, no matter how you can analyze it, government spending on programs such as building roads and bridges, is a perfect example of trickle-down economics or, if you prefer, fairy dust.
Newt Gingrich Ran In The Republican Primary on Eliminating Capitol Gains Taxes
President Obama is on a class warfare rampage again. While on this rampage, he is telling a story of Mitt Romney being the recipient of the tax plan introduced by Paul Ryan for the fiscal year 2010. The President is on the campaign trail saying, “Under the Republican plan, Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in taxes every year!”
It is true, with this Ryan plan; capital gains would no longer be taxed. Therefore, since Mitt Romney has very little earned income, in other words, he is not paid very much for his labors; most of his earnings would not be taxed. Therefore, when you take the total amount of money he would have paid in taxes in 2010 and divide it by the total amount of money that came into his personal coffers, you would come up with 0.82% if the Paul Ryan Plan had been law.
Liberals are elated over this because it gives them a great boon in their drive to annihilate the reputation of anyone who is wealthy and the Republican Party in general. Actually, since only liberals listen to other liberals and all liberals hate rich people, it merely only gives them something to talk about and gloat over. Still, they feel telling a tale of a rich man paying less than 1% taxes gives them a chance of winning elections. Therefore, they will spread this story far and wide never giving a hoot as to whether there is any truth to it or not. So, let us look a little more deeply into this heinous Ryan tax plan.
In the fiscal year 2010, Republicans were in the minority in the Senate, the House of Representatives and of course, the White House. At this time, there was much talk about implementing another stimulus package. Seeing as the Democrat majority hadn’t passed a budget that year and still hasn’t for that matter, the Republicans wrote a stimulus tax plan. Had this Ryan penned tax plan been implemented, capitol gain taxes would have become zero. It is important to note, lowering capital gains tax rates to zero has long been touted as the ultimate stimulus plan especially when the problem with the economy is due to the fact no one is investing.
There is no doubt about it; a zero capital gains tax rate will bring an onslaught of investing. So, if Democrats had passed this Paul Ryan budget, the economy would’ve undoubtedly taken off and Barack Obama would’ve been able to claim all the credit for it. In fact, if he hadn’t tooted his own horn about it both day and night, the press would have jumped in and tooted some more. However, like all Republican budgets in a Democrat House, it was defeated. Republicans knew all along the budget would not be passed and they were simply calling the Democrats bluff that they were looking for a new stimulus.
The Ryan plan certainly would have been more effective than the previously passed Obama plan. The Ryan stimulus would not be the type that printed more money and gave it to special interest groups. Instead, it would be the type of stimulus plan that truly stimulated investment and therefore, the economy. Yes, there would have been some wealthy people that would have paid a lot less taxes in 2010.
There is a school of thought that there never should be any taxes paid on capital gains. One person who subscribes to this theory is Newt Gingrich. However, every supply-side economist talks highly of the benefits of zeroing out the capital gains tax rates. Certainly, there is nothing morally wrong with doing this. Why this is so is because everyone who has money has already paid taxes on the money as it was earned. Therefore, if they make more money on this money after they take the risk of investing it, they are being double taxed. Certainly, double taxing a person on the same amount of money is unfair and immoral.
Of course, if you are in favor of taxing Capital gains and believe it is fair to double tax people who earn large sums of money, this is certainly an above board and viable point of view. However, here is the problem with this latest Obama “hate the rich” campaign story demeaning Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:
This Ryan plan was a one-shot deal. It was a stimulus package. It was designed for one year and one year only and to give a shot in the arm to the stumbling Obama economy. It would not have affected Romney’s tax returns “every year.” Secondly, Ryan and all the Republicans were absolutely sure the budget would never get a second look and absolutely positive it would never pass a Democrat dominated House. On top of this, if it had passed the House, it would have gone to the Senate where compromises would have been made or it would have been stopped altogether. Most importantly, though Mitt Romney didn’t have anything to do with it, The Ryan plan was a sure solution to the nation’s economic troubles.
The Ryan current plan; the one he seriously wants and believes will get passed, cuts the capital gains tax from 35% to 25%. To put a capital gains tax rate of 25% into perspective it is important to note; President Clinton passed a bill which lowered the capital gains tax rates in 1997 from 28% to 20%. Of course, the bill came from the Newt Gingrich led House of Representatives. Naturally, now liberals constantly give kudos to Bill Clinton for leading a strong economy but without this tax rate cut he certainly wouldn’t have led as strong of an economy as he did.
In conclusion, Mitt Romney never paid less than 13% tax and never seriously had any chance of doing so. Still, whenever liberals have an opportunity to take a fact that can be looked at in a couple of different ways, they will invariably make it look like it was something that unseemly Republicans did in order to ingratiate the wealthy. However, after some light is shined on the ignominious fractured tales Obama and his surly sidekicks are telling, their tales are always exposed as a complete and utter lies!
Ronald Reagan is Closely Associated With Trickle-down Economics but Actually, His Reaganomics is Badly Misrepresented
By Ed Lathrop, Tea Party Views Contributor
The phrase trickle-down economics has been bandied about freely in the media over the last 30 years or so. To people who like to use the phrase trickle-down economics, the term carries with it a dire tone. This is because people who usually use the term trickle-down economics are liberals and know little about any kind of economics. They like to tie trickle-down economics to periods of slow economic growth, which they will always call a near depression, and they love to blame it all on Ronald Reagan because of their hatred for him.
The trickle-down detractors will always shout at the top of their lungs “we tried it and it doesn’t work!” They also shout, “it’s trickle-down – Republicans giving tax breaks to the rich.” Liberals always say tax breaks are for the rich. However, even when corporate tax rate reductions and capital gains tax rate reductions are introduced it is not trickle-down economics because they benefit everybody. Regardless, to liberals all tax breaks only go to rich people.
The word “go” in the term “tax breaks go to the rich,” is a misnomer because taxes come from people to the government. If the government starts taxing these people less, less money may flow from the people to the government but nothing actually goes to rich people from the government. It is only low-wage earners who actually receive tax refunds on money they didn’t pay to the government in the first place. Still, in the perverted world of liberalism, money always goes from the government to “the rich.”
The term “trickle-down” is actually only accurate when used to describe government programs. With government programs, money flows from the government down to lower income people. This is the entire goal of government programs. When government spends money, it must recoup this money at some point, with interest, or it is just more debt which ultimately hurts the economy.
Instead, when the economy is stimulated by taxing corporations less, liberals call it trickle-down economics. Actually, it is financial stimulus because it leaves more money to cycle through the private sector, but it is not an influx of money that flows downward only and it is not government spent funds. When money cycles through the private sector, it flows down from wealth but it also flows up from lower wage earners. If it did not, businesses would make no money and they would be unable to employ anyone.
The truth is, when corporations are taxed less, more working capital is freed up for them. Because of this they may expand their businesses and when they do they will have to employ more people. When they do employ more people these people will be paying income tax and money given up by the government in favor of corporate tax rate reduction will come back in the way of more working people paying more taxes. Also, after corporations expand they will, hopefully, be making greater sums of money and therefore they will be paying more money to the government than they were when their tax rate was higher. So you can see, money left in the private sector works it’s way though to all levels of society from all angles.
Are far as taxes are concerned, there is a limit to how much return the government can get on its money by lowering taxes to any entity or group of people. I will not argue this point. However, tax breaks to any tax bracket has a cumulative affect on the economy. The problem is there isn’t a great deal of funds the private sector gains when low wage earners only receive the reduced rates. This why across-the-board tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts and corporate rate tax cuts are most beneficial.
The way trickle-down economics has been defined in the media is entirely inaccurate because what they call trickle-down is actually typical capitalism.. The thought capitalism does not work can only cross the mind of a person who is very economically challenged. Of course, capitalism does work. In fact, there is no other economic system that truly even approaches the wonders of capitalism. Under capitalism, everyone has a chance to succeed. Millionaires and billionaires can grow out of people who have come from absolutely no wealth. There is no other system where this is true.
Finally, to try to demean the economy of the Ronald Reagan years is completely anathema to any real economist. The Reagan administration took over an economy that was in very poor shape and by the time the eight-year term of their administration had expired, mortgage rates had fallen drastically, average household income soared and quarterly GDP measurements had typically reached beyond the 4 and sometimes 5% level. Of course, to capitalist-hating liberals, all these things are terrible.
The Electoral Map From the 2008 Presidential Election
By Ed Lathrop, Tea Party Views Contributor
In the electoral scheme of things Connecticut means nothing. However, it is interesting the Romney/Ryan ticket is doing much better at this time than McCain/Palin did in the 2008 election. Sure, this isn’t as exciting as it would be had Connecticut been one of the so-called swing states or, if Connecticut happened to have a little more than just its paltry 7 electoral votes because as it stands, there is no viable scenario where Connecticut would swing the national election. This is why presidential candidates totally ignore Connecticut.
Still, it is interesting Obama won the state of Connecticut in 2008 by a margin of 22.5%. Also, in Connecticut, more than 75% of the legislators are from the Democrat party. In other words, Connecticut is about as liberal a state as one can find. A case in point is the fact Richard Blumenthal is one of its senators! So, Romney/Ryan or any other Republican ticket has very little, if any chance of winning Connecticut’s 7 electoral votes. Therefore, Connecticut’s changing from a blue state to a light blue state seems rather noteworthy.
A dark blue state is a state the pollsters and pundits have already put in to the Obama column for the November election. In other words, a dark blue state is a state that is safe for the Democrat presidential nominee. In what seems like it must be an upsetting piece of news to the Dems, on August 14, 2012 Connecticut was moved to a light blue state. In other words, the state is still seen as one where Obama is ahead but the race has tightened up. Some of the polls are showing that Obama’s lead in Connecticut has narrowed to 9 percentage points, or 13 1/2 percentage points closer than he won the state by less than four years ago.
Whether this says more about the Romney/Ryan ticket versus the McCain/Palin ticket or about the fact Obama has just lost a lot of his steam in Connecticut, is not known at this time. It also is unknown if this trend is only happening in Connecticut or if perhaps it is the start of a nationwide trend. Still, it does seem to mean the very liberal state of Connecticut is not overwhelmed with glee about the Obama presidency. So, as crazy as it might seem, Connecticut is actually in play in a presidential election for the first time in the last 7 times the voters have gone to the polls to elect a president.
Once again, Connecticut trending toward Romney does not mean a lot in the electoral scheme of things. However, if the trend is that each of the states will swing 13 points in the Romney direction it will mean a Republican landslide in November. This is what is important about Connecticut changing from a blue state to a light blue state.
Article Written by Barak H Obama Sr.
By Ed Lathrop, Tea Party Views Contributor
It has now been more than a month since President Obama made his now famous speech in which he proclaimed “you didn’t build that.” In this speech, he connected with like-minded people when he explained how everyone needs roads to get to their places of business and that somewhere along the line we all must have had a great teacher who taught us how to do the things we do.
To show some sympathy to his argument, I must agree that realistically, no man is an island. Also, countries experience greater prosperity when they trade freely amongst themselves. There is no doubt about it, if just one person inhabited this earth, he or she would not be doing very well. There would be no one to buy from and no one to sell to. As for procreation, this would be entirely out of the question!
However, to belittle one’s accomplishments in the name of giving credit to the entire realm a person exists in implies any benefits, especially financial benefits, enjoyed by one who has become successful, should be given back to that very same realm. So, “you didn’t build that” actually has an ulterior motive and it is the conclusion no one should be allowed to get ahead in life. It is as if there are no winners and no losers because we are all in this together no matter how much harder any one particular person works than all the others.
“You didn’t build that” is the cousin of “it takes a village.” Both of these philosophies are in actuality, collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Of course, individualism is closely related to capitalism, which is, in essence, the American way. With capitalism, people are free to set goals and to work to attain these goals. They can fashion a dream and then chase that dream. With capitalism, dreams can come true. Also, in capitalism people can fail but if they want to, they can pick themselves up and chase after their dreams again.
With collectivism, there is no sense in dreaming because the outcome will always be the same. Whatever you desire in life will never be attained because someone must look over the realm you exist in and make sure everyone receives the same gratuities. In other words, it doesn’t pay to dream and it doesn’t pay to work hard when you are living in a collective society. Therefore, since you will not be motivated to work hard by your dreams, you must be induced to work hard by the one overseeing you. Certainly, collectivism requires being punished in some way, for not performing the amount of work you had been prescribed. In fact, in ancient collective societies, you could be executed for failing to do the work you were required to do.
Collectivism is closely aligned with communism. Many people describe collectivism as socialism. However, it is much worse. It is true socialism requires some people have things taken from them and others to have things given to them by an overseer, but under collectivism or communism, the entire community partakes in a single pursuit. Therefore, under the rules of these systems, common folks never actually own anything in the first place.
Those who have followed the life of Barack Hussein Obama or have read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” are not at all surprised he speaks positively and accurately about things aligned closely with communism. It will not surprise you to hear him tout, communist ideals, because actually, he is a communist as was his father and all his mentors. The only thing that may surprise you is there are some people that believe he would be insulted if you referred to him as a communist. However, deep in his heart, he would not be because communism for everyone is truly his heartfelt desire. I have no reservations at all about saying this.
Submitted By Tea Party Viewer
Anne Ferris
The DNC Playbook, Rules for Radicals
By Ed Lathrop, Tea Party Views Contributor
For eight years Democrats, which include the mainstream media, college professors, high school teachers and union bosses teamed up to cultivate a phenomenon known as Bush hatred. Bush hatred is also known as “the blame Bush syndrome.” How it works is no matter what happens you simply blame Bush for it. For instance, Hurricane Katrina and the 9-11 disaster were two of the occurrences in the first decade of the 21st century that were George W Bush’s fault.
If the temperature was uncomfortably high, it would certainly be attributed to global warming and as you probably know, global warming is Bush’s fault. If the stock market has a bad day it is Bush’s fault. If the stock market has a series of very bad days which can be attributed to the damage 9-11 did to the Nation’s financial center it was George Bush’s fault because of course, he was to blame for 9-11 in the first place.
When things went well they too were George Bush’s fault. Not because these things were good but because with Bush hatred, even good things were bad. For instance, the average unemployment rate in George Bush’s tenure was 5.2%. Remarkably, at one point, the unemployment rate actually reached a low of 3.4%! However, to Bush haters, this was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Therefore, Bush hatred even got a boost from events that would be considered miraculous during the Obama administration but because these marvelous things happened when George W. Bush was president, they were deemed disastrous.
While all this may seem like fun and games, it is actually a well known Saul Alinsky technique. This technique, which is one of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, is; “if you repeat a lie often enough people will eventually come to believe it.” All modern liberalism seems to come from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. At least, repeating lies over and over again is certainly a stalwart of the Democrat Party headed by Obama these days.
Repeating the lie that everything which went wrong was George Bush’s fault was actually a well-thought-out plan the DNC implemented way back when W first took office. Democrats put their foot down on the lie accelerator and kept it there for eight years, defaming George W. Bush every bit of the way and loving it.
As unseemly as this rule for radicals is, it probably won the election for Obama in 2008. This is true because undecided voters who hadn’t followed politics closely during the George W Bush presidency knew very little about anything pertaining to politics. However, the one thing they knew was they hated George Bush. The lies they heard over and over again from the Democrat machine worked subliminally on these undecided voters and though they went to the polls still undecided, their subconscious minds didn’t allow them to pull the lever for a candidate endorsed by Bush .
All this may sound unbelievable but it is more unbelievable a person like Barack Hussein Obama could’ve been elected president of the United States of America. The good news is, in the upcoming election, Bush hatred will mean very little. The Dems are trying feverishly to convert Bush hatred into Romney/Ryan hatred but they don’t have eight years to do it and it will be very difficult to tie Romey/Ryan directly to Bush. About the best they may be able to do is keep lying about the evils of personal wealth and that because he is a Republican, Ryan is intrinsically wealthy.
