Obama's harsh Muslim punishment

Obama stoned. 

(Edit: I know, I know.  Nyuk nyuk nyuk.)

Obama's glass house

The Obama campaign, and Barack Obama himself, have made Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital a target of their attacks.  In a recent Washington Post column, Marc Thiessen has shown that Obama might want to reconsider throwing rocks in his extremely vulnerable crystalline palace.  From the story: 


 "...if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.  Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions."

The steps to every Liberal argument

A North Carolina teacher got caught on video telling a student that he could go to jail for insulting Barack Obama.  From the story:  "The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s  “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked: “Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”


And then the trouble started. 


The video actually only catches the audio of the conversation, but here it is:







From the recording, it's clear that the Liberal teacher followed the typical Liberal steps of argument almost perfectly, leaving out only the last step.


Step #1: State a lie, rumor, innuendo or misrepresentation as a "fact."
Step #2: When challenged, immediately become angry.
Step #3: As soon as possible, start screaming and do everything possible to silence those who disagree with you.
Step #4: During the discussion, tell more lies, rumors, innuendo or misrepresentations to support your point.
Step #5: Call the other person a racist, sexist, homophobe or nazi. (This is the step the teacher omitted.)


Give credit to the student, who had to know what was going to happen. He spoke reasonably and truthfully. Best of all, he recorded it so the teacher couldn't deny what happened.  

Obama in trouble...with Democrats

In my previous post, I noted James Carville's observation that Democrats can lose big in November.  Then I read this story on HuffPo.  A convict in a Texas prison got 40% of the vote running against Obama in the West Virginia Democrat primary.  That's forty percent of Democrat voters who want someone other than Obama.  


Other Obama opponents in Democrat primaries also have done well.  Randall Terry got 18% of Democrat votes in Oklahoma.  John Wolfe received 18,000 votes in Louisiana.  And in Alabama, 18% of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama.


Most of the voters didn't know Obama's opponent was in prison. Emily Brown planned to vote for him until she found out his address was at Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution. "I'm not voting for somebody who's in prison," she said.  She was certain about one thing: "I just want to vote against Barack Obama."

Democrats and The Big Lie

If you want to know the depths to which Democrats will go to deceive themselves and others about the real world, check out a recent column ("Wake Up, Democrats") by James Carville.  The column's main point is valid -- Democrats can easily lose in the November elections, and lose big -- but his supporting points are absurd.  A couple of quotes:


"...the Republicans are raising not millions, not tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from the pollution industry as result of Citizens United v. FEC."  


The pollution industry?? Is there a Pollutions-R-Us store in your town? Maybe Pollution~Mart?  No?

But the supernova of crazy lies, presented as a Democrat's version of the truth, is this one:

"There is a full-fledged legislative agenda in many states to keep Democrats from even voting."

I assume that he's talking about voter ID legislation.  I haven't read or heard anything about having to pass an IQ test in order to vote. If you had to prove a minimum level of intelligence to vote, I can see where Democrats might think such a test was aimed at preventing them from voting. Carville doesn't explain what he means, he simply presents his nutty assertion as true.  

You don't expect a well-known (and well-respected by Democrats) political strategist writing on a national media website to act like a troll commenting in a regional blog, but there it is. You can bet that such silliness is already making the rounds as a "fact." One thing that you always have to look out for with Liberals is their use of The Big Lie.  And that one's already out there.