Author: Papa Giorgio
A group of protesters organized by SEIU and `Obama For America` showed there Crazy Side (Quote: `We Love Dead Republicans`)
As the race heats up… more and more truthers will come out of the woodwork. First, lets watch a union organized protest via Weasel Zippers:
A group of protesters organized by SEIU and Obama For America showed up in Wisconsin to greet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Here is my point. More and more as the high percentage of conspiratorially minded Dems become vocal, the above will almost be normal. Here are some stats and ideas between the left and the right in regards to conspiracies from an older FB chat:
PERCENTAGES
You are aware,I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton. For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:
☼ …Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks…. Read more: http://www.politico.com/
Let us digest this a bit. Let me reiterate the stat I ended with:
☼ Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Read more: http://
To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were “still on the fence.” Now, only 31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states… 15% of Democrats believe the same, as well as 18% of Independents. However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (http://
WHAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY?
So you have two conspiracies to compare, what do they show? One has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up. In other words… when Obama was a child other adults made this happen, he was powerless to affect it, and may not have known (assuming such a thing to be true) about it until his Presidential run. That’s number one.
Number two deals with a conspiracy that posits a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it — killing more Americans over an evil conspiracy. Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen (http://hotair.com/
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS [*not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*]. Yeah this other conspiracy is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.” in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would I guess (if they were Republicans) be called racists for this assertion, like Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position (which I guess the 15% of Democrats are not?)
Islamo-Fascism Threatening Tunisian Female Olympic Medalists ~ Women Are 1/2 the Worth In Islamic Countries
Heard on 870AM, here is NPR/AP:
TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — Islamist extremists have targeted two Tunisian Olympic medalists for behavior and dress seen as un-Islamic, as debate grows over the role of religion and women in the country that unleashed the Arab Spring uprisings.
Radicals on social media networks called on the government to strip Habiba Ghribi, the first Tunisian woman to win an Olympic medal, of her nationality because her running gear was too revealing. She won the silver in the 3,000-meter steeplechase.
And a Facebook campaign by extremist group Ansar al Chariaa is targeting swimmer Oussama Mellouli for drinking juice before racing during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Mellouli won gold in the 10-kilometer marathon and bronze in the 1,500-meter freestyle.
Tunisia is run by a moderate Islamist-led government that is facing increasing challenges from religious extremists.
Via Creeping Sharia:
Clarion Fund Documentary Promo (Working Title: Sisters) from Clarion Fund on Vimeo.
`Lies, and Damn Lies!` Politifact Labeled Dem Rhetoric 2011 `Lie of the Year`
Breitbart has a great story that shows that all the rhetoric used over the weekend was Politifacts “Lie of the Year” last year. I have added just a tad to a small portion from it… I suggest reading the whole post at Breitbart.
Politifact, of all places, already dismantled Democrats’ scare tactic rhetoric concerning Medicare, labeling their claims that the GOP would have ended it as “false.” In fact, the very attack that Democrats are using now was branded Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” for 2011.
The Above is Obama’s tweet, below the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, responds to Wolf Blitzer pointing out the rhetoric in how the Democrats are framing the debate:
Here is GBTV taking on many of the generalizations and specifics in the Democratic attacks:
Newt Tells Piers Morgan, `You Guys Almost Sound Like You`re An Extension of the Obama Campaign`
That [REALLY] Looks Bad ~ FIREWALL
I will post (to the right), the other Firewalls I missed.
Going Out of Business! AFTERBURNER
Video Description:
That which cannot continue, will not continue. Does this adage apply to California? Could California simply go out of business? Bill Whittle tells you a cautionary tale about the California government and how it is driving high tech businesses to Texas at the same time that it is building trains to nowhere. Is the California government going to bring the rest of the United States down a path to fiscal ruin?
I will post Bill’s videos I missed in the side-bar to your right.
CBS edits key part out important part of Romney/Ryan interview
Via Doug Ross:
`Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?` ~ Obama
Doug Ross (via Free Republic) exposes a very serious separation between the 200[+] years of our country and the vision Democrats have of our nation:
“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
“I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”
Doug Ross continues his post by astutely commenting on the above:
“Shared prosperity” is collectivism. Statism. Marxism. It means taking from those who produce goods and services to fund those who don’t, which is certainly outside any legitimate function of government under the United States Constitution.
Ryan`s Not the First: Media`s History of Trashing GOP VP Nominees
Sununu Accuses MSNBC`s Matthews of Being Dumb Enough to Think Ryan`s Going to Call the Shots
Democratic Party Platform Leaked ~ Same-Sex Marriage Supported (Subtitle: Losing the Black Vote Piece-by-Piece)
Some news Denny Burk has been keeping up with:
The draft language for the Democratic party platform on gay marriage has just been leaked, the Washington Blade reports. The language will be discussed and possibly amended when the full platform committee meets in Detroit this weekend. Here’s the language:
We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.
We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
How much of this will remain intact after the weekend remains to be seen. If it were adopted as it stands, it would be significant for a number of reasons, but here are just a few:
1. It would be the first time that a major U.S. political party has ever officially endorsed same-sex marriage.
2. By calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, this approach would force states where same-sex marriage is illegal to recognize same-sex marriage performed in states where it is legal. In effect, this would go against the states-rights approach that President Obama ostensibly favored when he endorsed gay marriage rights last May (though he himself also supports the repeal of DOMA).
3. By supporting the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, this approach would require the federal government to recognize gay marriage.
4. The part about supporting “the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament” is significant. It tells religious people that their beliefs can only be practiced within the four walls of the church. There is no room for a Christian definition of marriage as far as public policy is concerned. Under this approach, the government would say, “In your church, you can hold to the traditional definition of marriage. Out here in public, you will observe the definition that the federal government authorizes.”