Engage DC, a Washington, D.C. political consulting firm, analyzed where people go on the Internet and came up with some interesting predictions.
If you’re a Spotify user, for example, they predict you are more likely to be an Obama supporter. Farmville? You’re in the Romney camp.
Click here for a bigger chart.
Engage DC’s Patrick Ruffini explains:
Over the past few months, we’ve crunched countless “Likes” from thousands of users of Trendsetter, our first-of-its-kind platform that ties together polling, social influence data, and consumer preferences. We’ve used it to map the politics of the social web, analyzing the political partisanship of the user bases of various social properties. Using predictive modeling of Facebook likes, we tied political preferences and engagement to one’s choice of social media.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
10 Responses to Where You Click Reveals Your Politics
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
The open source Google app fanboys who use free streaming sources of digital and intellectual content are Obamaphiles.
The Microsoft Empire of buyers who purchase their media and respect intellectual property rights are Romneyphiles.
It’s an entitlement versus an earned respect thing.
Conservatives spend more time….playing Farmville!
its interesting to know that even the click on social media determine this thing!
No Farmville here but I do use Wikipedia. It has a bad left tilt but then again so does this newspaper.
Bill Whittle has nailed it.
He has spoken the truth about how liberals view conservatives (skip to the 1:55 mark for this part):
Liberals think that conservatives are:
a) Old
b) Stupid
c) Evil
d) Some of the above
e) All of the above
Indeed.
When I was a liberal, this was exactly the way I saw conservatives.
Let’s start with Evil.
I would have a knee jerk reaction to any conservative assuming – knowing – they were rich, greedy, uncaring, selfish, and arrogant. Oh, and they liked to go to war just for the hell of it. In a word: Evil. I would not listen to conservatives talk on any issue because of my rock solid belief that they were horrible human beings who cared not a whit for others.
In this way, a feedback loop was created such that when a conservative would speak, I knew they were evil and felt no desire to listen. (Why get aggravated, right?) Or, if for some reason I was compelled to listen for a few minutes, every word that came out of their mouth was tainted with the awful truth that I knew. Yes, they were evil.
Next up: Stupid.
Like my conviction that conservatives were evil, so too was my firm belief that they were also, for the most part, stupid. (If a conservative somehow managed to squeak past my stupid label, it didn’t matter because they were at the very least, evil.) There were all sorts of ways stupid played out. For sure, if they were from the south, they were dumb. If they were from the mid-west, well I just knew they couldn’t be that bright. I mean, the great plains? How could anyone from there be smart? Any other geographic pockets of conservatives were also stupid because of the obvious fact that they were stupid. (Yeah, I know. Really pathetic.) In my view, only people from major cities could be smart. And then, only the highly educated. The intelligentsia.
As a student, I expected my professors and fellow students to be super liberal. If I got a whiff of anyone who seemed like they may not be toeing the party line to the fullest, I was disgusted. I also looked down on those who viewed college as a place to get job training. College was about study. It had nothing to do with anything concrete related to functioning as an independent adult in the real world.
(sigh)
And lastly: Old
Old was often part of a larger category that was about blandness and sameness. Conservatives were old, but also male, and also white. This fueled my feedback loop because all of these things were, well, you guessed it. Evil.
I would scratch my head in wonder about how any black person could be conservative. I thought
J. C. Watts was insane. I simply could not fathom how any black person could be a Republican. I felt bad for him. It seemed as if he was bamboozled. Yup. He was an Uncle Tom without a doubt.
Needless to say I did not appreciate the hypocrisy of my views. I was liberal. I was about freedom and opportunity for all. Yet here I was holding a view of a black man that dictated he must think a certain way.
I also had an incredible sense of entitlement regarding the media. If a conservative was interviewed, I was outraged. How dare they give that person air time! And if a conservative was interviewed on NPR, well that was just way over the line.
Seriously. This was my thinking.
All the while, I felt an extraordinary sense of self-righteousness. America was about liberalism. There was no room – no room! – for conservative ideas.
Needless to say (again), I did not appreciate my own hypocrisy. Here I was walking around, taking full advantage of living in a free and open society, while having a view of our society that was not free and open at all.
But of course I didn’t see that. I didn’t see any of it.
I’ve traveled a long journey since then and I would like to express my gratitude to American Thinker for being such an important place that helped me along the way.
Sometimes I wonder, and perhaps some of you do as well: Are we just preaching to the converted on these blogs? Then I remind myself that I was a non-conservative who visited AT, peered in, and stayed a little while, reading articles and comments. And I returned. And bit by bit ideas began to percolate. And questions arose. Perspectives began to shift. I started to seek out information and views contrary to what was familiar to me. And step by step I strayed far away from a lifetime of liberal “thinking.”
Bill Whittle has it right about how liberals view conservatives. But change can, and does, occur.
Don’t underestimate the power of your comments on these threads. You never know who may read a comment, follow a train of thought, become curious, and maybe, just maybe, begin a journey.
In a statement to a predominately black audience, Vice President Joe Biden, while attacking Gov. Romney, uttered these words: “He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street! They gawn’ put y’all back in chains.
You would think it remarkable that in the year 2012, a powerful politician who is one heartbeat away from being the president of the United States could show such insensitivity for over 40 million black Americans and get away with it. Just as remarkable, but not surprising, is the deafening silence of the ultra-race-sensitive NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Congressional Black Caucus. Once we understand why calls of indignation are not forthcoming from this group, we can glean some important insight regarding the team strategy of today’s black and white liberals/socialist/progressives. For with this group of ideologues, it truly is all about Team.
Joe, due to his reputation of being a bumbling politician, cannot solely be blamed for his racial indiscretion. The mantra for the Obama campaign and their surrogates has focused on one thing regarding race, which is to take every opportunity to depict the Republican Party a group of rich white racists. The problem with giving this assignment to ole Joe is that his mouth habitually runs faster than his brain. He simply cannot be trusted without a teleprompter and a promise to read from it. Otherwise he’s apt to say the strangest and the most stupid things.
The strength of the team strategy that allows Joe and other white liberals to insult the black community and get away with it can be found with a group that W. E. B. Du Bois, in 1900, called the Talented Tenth. This is a group of professional liberal black elitists who consider themselves the “Best of their Race.”
Du Bois provides the perfect template for our present-day Black Talented Tenth members. He was a socialist with an ideological belief in the superiority of certain members of his race over others. This allowed him to embrace and introduce abortion into his community. He would give the original all-white, wealthy socialist originators of the NAACP a black face of trust to deliver for years their anti-capitalist message. He gave cover to the white liberal/socialist/progressive establishment’s design to unionize his race, and in the case of Margaret Sanger, to abort their babies. His compensation was prestige, a good job, honor within the integrated world, and the greatest enticement for any Black Talented Tenth: a reputation as an intellectual.
The Black Talented tenth is alive and well today, and its members are being called upon to play both offense and defense for the left: defense with their silence for buffoonish statements by Vice President Biden, and offense by coming up with a new word, “niggerization,” by MSNBC’s Touré to explain Romney’s racist propensity for calling President Obama an “angry man.”
This symbiotic cover can be seen in the arrogance of liberal white men joking about raping the first black female Secretary of State, Condi Rice, with no fear of reprisal. XM satellite radio hosts Gregg “Opie” Hughes and Anthony Cumia laughed as a guest they called “Homeless Charlie” talked about wanting to rape Secretary Rice. Cumia gleefully said, “I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice’s face…as you were just like holding her.”
The response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the liberal women’s groups: silence.
In Madison, Wisconsin in November of 2004, WTDY program director and morning host John Sylvester called Rice — then the nation’s first female national security adviser — “Aunt Jemima.” When asked to apologize by his critics, Sylvester said “he was planning a giveaway on Friday’s show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup.” “I will apologize to Aunt Jemima.”
Response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus: silence.
On November 4, 1994, Julianne Malveaux, black liberal/socialist academic, said of Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
Response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus: silence.
The success of the long-established relationship between the liberal/socialist/progressives and the Black Talented Tenth has been due to their commonality in commitment to an ideology and self-aggrandizement above all else. As black Americans continue to be insulted and dismissed by protected white liberals, the Black Talented Tenth will continue to benefit from political donations, speaking engagements, national media presence, accolades as the official Black Leaders, and perpetual gigs on MSNBC and CNN.
After all, it is all about Team.
Let’s go there: if Obama thinks he’s losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power “by any means necessary,” as a highly placed insider alleges?
Now, I’m truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they’re not crazy, and I’ve got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years — the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
By Democrat standards, I’ve got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.
Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise. So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.
In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1. Giuliani’s unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg. So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits? He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.
My point? Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.
Now, let’s look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:
Super-High-Level Trial Balloons
USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] … You want people who don’t worry about the next election.” When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking. What a kidder!
Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled “Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy.” In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, “radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”
Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers. They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama’s most prominent Cabinet members. Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.
“Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?”
That’s the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.
According to Major General Curry, Social Security’s ammo spree follows the purchase by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 46,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Will they be shooting fish in a barrel?
Most terrifying of all, Major General Curry reports that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March, then subsequently ordered an additional 750 million rounds, including bullets capable of penetrating walls.
“This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen,” writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require “so many dead Americans.”
I strongly suggest that you read Major General Curry’s article for yourself, so you can appreciate the full horror of what he describes. After pointing out that Congress has done nothing to investigate these weapon purchases, Major General Curry, a 40-year veteran, concludes with these chilling words:
This is a deadly serious business. I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.
900-plus Executive Orders
Obama may not be fond of governing, but he certainly does enjoy issuing executive orders — more than 900 so far. As American Thinker’s Warren Beatty points out, these little-reported edicts reveal an all-too-predictable pattern: concentrating all national power and resources in Obama’s hands, in case of “emergency.”
So far, Obama has granted himself the right to control all transportation, including highways, airports, seaports, and railroads, and all modes of communication, storage facilities, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Not so coincidentally, he’s also given himself the right to control you. Executive Orders 11002, 11000, and 11004, respectively, give government the right to register all persons, assign them to work brigades, and relocate them.
Should you resist your work brigade assignment or relocation orders, rest assured that the U.S. government is now well supplied with bullets.
Openly War-Gaming against American Citizens
A recent issue of the well-respected Small Wars Journal featured an article titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” Written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert, the article helpfully game-played, in full operational detail, how the Army would destroy a local Tea Party insurrection.
The authors claim that should Tea Party rebels take over a City Hall, “Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas”; therefore, “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment.”
The brazenness of this scheme for the U.S. military to kill Americans created a small, temporary stir. The Washington Times editorialized, “This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.” The Washington Times also noted:
A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.
Active Partnership with America’s Foreign Enemies
Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.
A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, “Dishonorable Disclosures,” to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden’s death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran’s nuclear program.
Normally, presidents don’t want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information — but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day’s work for Obama.
And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he’ll have plenty of enemy partners to help. First, he’s got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, “This is my last election[.] … After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence. Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he’s placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government. Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.
And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns. Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama (“President Transparency”) has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.
Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol. Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!
Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups
When Louis Farrakhan met Ahmadinejad: now there’s a romance made in the bowels of hell. Toss in the head of the New Black Panthers and fifty radical imams, and you’ve got the “Beast Axis” that was forged in a Manhattan hotel on September 27, 2010, according to The Blaze.
New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz boasted on Black Panther Radio that he “stands on solid ideological ground” with “His Excellency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” who understands “the dynamics and the politics of world revolution.”
Apparently, Obama approves of these antics, because his attorney general, Eric Holder, dropped charges against the New Black Panthers, even though they were caught on tape allegedly intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 elections. Naturally, Holder’s Department of Justice then lied about its actions, covering up its political motivations.
Holder specifically protected King Samir Shabazz, who now serves as national field marshal for the New Black Panthers. Shabazz spearheads the Panthers’ ambitious new plan to “create inner city militaries that would go into nurseries and kill white babies and murder white people in the street.”
Let’s hope this “inner city military” is not what candidate Obama mysteriously referred to in 2008 when he pledged, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Imagine, for one monstrous moment, the destructive potential of this burgeoning alliance between the Obama-protected New Black Panthers, Obama’s old Chicago associate Louis Farrakhan, and the genocidally obsessed Ahmadinejad. If your blood didn’t run cold, you weren’t imagining hard enough.
A Tsunami of Voter Fraud
On June 15, 2012, Obama bypassed Congress and issued de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Suddenly, whole new vistas of voter fraud opened up to the Democrats. Admittedly, they’ve got to ramp up quickly for November, but this gang should prove up to the challenge.
Helping matters along, Holder is busy suing states that require photo ID to vote and attempting to disenfranchise the military. Together, these well-coordinated efforts should provide Obama with the means to pull off staggering amounts of voter fraud.
“By Any Means Necessary”
If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power “By Any Means Necessary.” This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report. Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again.
Well over a year ahead of any other media, The Ulsterman Report was informing readers that Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing. It predicted the emergence of obscure figures — Kamala D. Harris, who’s now attorney general of California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the newly named acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice, who’s being groomed as Holder’s successor.
Most crucially, shortly after the bin Laden operation, the Ulsterman Report revealed that Valerie Jarrett had canceled three previous bin Laden raids. That information now has been confirmed by Richard Miniter in his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.
Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning. A section of their conversation follows below:
MI: Approximately two years ago…not quite two years ago…I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan. For 2012. After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives…specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership…indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama. That document’s title was…(pauses)
WSI: He can be trusted – I give you my word. Please proceed.
MI: That document’s title was “By Any Means Necessary”. It was unofficial – but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration. We confirmed that.
UM: What channels? Who are you talking about?
MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein. Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett. Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with…with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security…and…the U.S. military.
We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider’s warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria. Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I’ve described above.
The greatest asset of Obama and his investors has been their warp-speed audacity. We’re too stunned to believe what’s happening in front of our eyes, and too embarrassed to mention it. Who wants to speak up and be ridiculed as an unhinged paranoid, marching with the tinfoil hat brigade?
But our best bet — perhaps our only bet — is to frankly confront this ugly reality. As Iran prepares to go nuclear and the global economy teeters, any number of “national emergencies” can suddenly erupt, demanding unprecedented measures by Obama to “save” us. We must be prepared with skepticism, outrage, and defiance of any actions to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.
America remains the last best hope on earth. And We the People must keep our power, by any means necessary.
From Glenn Thrush’s new e-book on Barack Obama’s campaign for reelection (Obama’s Last Stand:
The president’s only complaint about [Peter] Rouse’s tenure as temporary chief of staff in late 2010 (admittedly, a big one) was that too many papers and people were making it through Rouse’s filter to the Oval Office, several current and former White House aides told me.
From his earliest days as an adult, Barack Obama has shown a marked aversion to…well…work. I wrote about this characteristic in Obama’s Work Ethic. As President he routinely outsources the heavy lifting to others, including the drafting and passing of Obamacare. Foreign policy decisions are delegated to the Arab League or/and the United Nations (“leading from behind”). Decisions are just punted (Iran) or just postponed until after the election (XL Pipeline) or just left in limbo (“the fiscal cliff”, “entitlement reform”, etc.). This is one reason why he has withdrawn from the prospect of projecting American power and influence overseas — that would involve way too much labor on his part.
He has all too often been found A.W.O.L. even when crisis approaches. His decision-making style has been marked by flaws on numerous levels (read, if you have a strong stomach, “How Obama Makes Decisions” for insight into how bad decisions are made). He has barely met with his Cabinet and has not met with his Jobs Council all year.
Among the reasons for his failure as President has been reliance on a small cadre of unqualified and very left-wing people , including his long-time consigliore, Valerie Jarrett.
With Thrush’s nugget above we see two of Obama’s worst failings. One is his reliance on a few people. Compare and contrast other Presidents (including Bill Clinton) who thrived on the prospect of listening to the top experts in various fields while formulating policy.
The second reason for Obama’s failure involves his lack of a work ethic. Mickey Kaus has noted that decision-making has often culminated in his few trusted aides giving him memos with boxes for him to check off regarding what to do regarding the important issue at stake. When I was in school we always liked multiple-choice exams because…well…they were so easy. If he were a chief executive of any company, he would have been fired long ago.
That is not nearly as fun as playing hoops, swinging a driver, lining up a putt and going to endless fundraisers and vacations, courtesy of the beleaguered American taxpayer. Lazy, over his head, and confused, what a LOL joke Hope and Change has become.
In ongoing correspondence with former NYC Mayor Edward Koch, a significant Jewish supporter of the Obama administration, Mr. Koch calls my comments on voter fraud “ridiculous” — this in a bid to discredit my contention that the Democrats are engaged in a desperate and ongoing effort to establish a permanent voting majority. The president’s recent executive order on an unconstitutional, if modified, “DREAM Act” has in mid-August green-lit 1.7 million non-citizens for work permits, drivers’ licenses, and green cards…and it has sped up citizenship processing. This is a cynical bid for plumping the presumed Dem voter rolls, in a sleazy effort for an airtight Dem stranglehold on the country’s electoral process.
Does anyone doubt that with a driver’s license and work stubs from some hapless employer, these illegals-with-benefits will be mandated to remain non-voters? Would you like to purchase a tall, gently used London Bridge?
Mr. Mayor, now coming up on his 87th birthday, called assertions of voter fraud “ridiculous.”
“Ridiculous”? But for the fact they are both true — and ongoing.
Research the issue in non-leftist sources. The Democrats have a variety of excellent reasons to deny fraud, since they are perpetrating it. It would not do to have the general public become aware of their backroom balloting for impervious DNC permanency.
For an overall picture of the voter-fraud phenomenon, see here and here.
Unlike most national concerns, voting is the purview not of the federal government, but of the several states. Recent actions on the part of the Obama administration have all veered toward abrogating legal safeguards for the integrity of the voting process. Such lawsuits as the federal government has pursued with regard to nullifying the requirement for ID (Ohio, Pennsylvania) before one can vote, and the curtailment of legal days the U.S. military can cast ballots in early and absentee voting — presumably because this crowd suspects that the preponderance of the military will not be in favor of extending the current president’s tenure. Attorney General Eric Holder, sworn to uphold the rights of all Americans, has worked diligently to ramify the Democrat hold on the election process (as in the past he has worked to unseat, defeat, and enfeeble the rights of Americans in the furtherance of his and Mr. Obama’s unspecified larger agenda). There is little evidence for Holder’s or party functionary David Axelrod’s contention that at the heart of requiring simple voter ID is a desire to deprive true citizens of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
The presentation of proper ID, however, is a commonplace for practically any adult activity — including purchase of cigarettes or adult beverages, banking transactions, certain medications, leasing a car, buying a house, renting a video, leasing all manner of equipment (even a bicycle), and attending an adult film. You can’t board a plane without serious ID.
Not having ID, in fact, consigns one to a minority of oddities, like mountain men who live in the backwoods, unacquainted with toothbrushes or underwear. In many cities, one cannot even enter a commercial building without identifying documents. Thus, insisting that demanding proper ID is in any way untoward in order to cast a constitutionally protected privilege, voting, is little short of confounding.
There is no guaranteed government protection to lie or dissimulate in the effort to change a vote outcome. Why ought we render our precious four-year election process — now so crucial that the country is gearing up for all sorts of shenanigans as it seeks to ensure the process in this most impactful election in our lifetimes — worthless by letting all and sundry cast a vote without the right to do so? To let non-citizens interfere with our invaluable four-year process is to invite the mischief that impartial observers have long feared.
Chicago is of course infamous for thuggish tactics in elections and many other citizen concerns. Recent surveys of the voter rolls have shown more people registered to vote than exist in real life streets, and the Windy City now tops the charts for murder and violence capital of the lower 48. Felons, criminals who have been caught, are not accorded the privilege of voting, yet somehow they managed to get onto the Illinois rolls in excess of several thousand inhabitants of our fine incarcerative institutions. Where voting results are very close, as they have been during recent elections on both the national and local levels (Al Franken, anyone?), even one hundred extra votes can make the determinative difference. As the governor of Florida, Governor Rick Scott, stated on the morning Geraldo radio program (WABC) on 15 August, “[w]e can’t dilute our election process with noncitizens and ineligible voters casting a vote.”
Al Franken´s weeks-in-coming, highly disputed victory in Minnesota over his far more experienced and beloved opponent, Republican Norm Coleman, has now been vetted to have been due to the votes of several hundred felons who were not eligible to vote but voted illegally*. ObamaCare owes its passage to Franken’s 60th Senate seat vote, which seat prevented the Republicans from filibustering and thus stopping the highly unpopular and controversial legislation from passage (subsequently discredited by a majority of the country on many grounds) — and let us not forget that the onerous law is now ignored by the current Democrat candidates, as they realize it is not a winning election issue.
The ramifications from this illegal victory are still ricocheting. The recount for the “win” of former SNL comic Al Franken took two months and cost millions. Other voter and ballot aberrations were uncovered after the election was sealed and signed off on.
Franken’s disputed election on falsified voter ballots cost the country, in effect, billions in a changed health care system via legislation that became impervious to rebuttal, with the bulletproof 60 senatorial votes on the Democrat side of the fence. Untold damage has accrued over this 60th senator, and the history of the country has been swerved to a unacceptable degree by Franken’s unfortunate, corruption-borne senatorial advent.
A new Democrat association, the Voter Participation Center, has been formed to register the heretofore unregistered. They have mailed hundreds of thousands of voter registration forms to prospective Democrat voters, with accompanying how-to letters listing names that they suggest the recipients fill out and mail in. Many of these forms are already pre-filled in, lest the recipient not be conversant with English, or writing, or the necessary numbers and addresses required by the forms. These names are often those of the deceased, household pets, and myriads of undocumented illegals. This organization is especially active in Florida**.
One needn’t be a nuclear physicist to figure out what is happening, or why. Only the most naïve Democrat, or the least attentive independent or Republican, can blink the obviousness of the game. The dirty business of politics has not cleaned up its act since the unfortunate advent of the Hope and Change jeremiad with the diamond-dense and concrete-thick “transparency” pretense.
Hispanics are the presumed minority that is, according to AG Holder, in danger of being “deprived” of votes. But Hispanics from a dozen countries are here illegally, in the mega-millions, working and driving and not paying taxes. Having them suddenly and illegally enfranchised is no gift to the republic, as ought to be exceedingly clear. The federal government fancies that these “discovered” voters will vote Dem, as a thank-you valentine to the people who gave them “immaculate votraception” without the annoyance of citizenship or swearing fealty to our country’s laws.
I teach voting law, and NYS, by virtue of stringent controls and accounting procedures, does a pretty fair job of defeating fraud attempts. Other states are not so vigilant; the case against continuing efforts to defeat true voter rights — transparency and integrity in the system, that is, not the “right” of felons, Kitty and Rover, and the dead and illegals to cast votes — is heavy.
Chicago has thousands of the long-dead and convicts voting, mysteriously. Florida Democrats wage a determined effort to avoid the common and normal practice of purging the polls of redundant, deceased, or moved voters. They were attacked by Holder, et al. for their efforts to merely count the actual live and legitimate voters in the state.
This is a particularly noisome election, as we all know, and if the Democrats can pack the polls with the dead, the ineligible, the handout-takers, the aliens, the noncitizens eager to make a dollar from Democrat flacks eager to supplement the legitimate vote, the non-18, or similar not-voters, they can hope to influence the vote in a way that wrests the true will of the people away from the voters and toward their appalling candidate, a secretive and beyond-the-law, arrogant man who has impoverished and betrayed the nation unprecedentedly with his decadent debt to other nations, and his embarrassingly ignorant or nefarious economic and political “policies.”
Voter fraud is real.
Telling us that the reality is “ridiculous” does not obviate the ongoing disgrace of the partisan Democrat machinery to steal an election they deeply fear they will lose. This well-loved “Democrat with sanity” (as he styles himself) ought to face the facts, and not let his colleagues pull the wool over his lever.
Even though almost every major figure in the Republican party and the conservative movement has condemned him and called for him to leave the race, Democrats are now accusing Republicans of condoning rape and a “war on women” because of Missouri GOP Senate nominee Todd Akin’s clueless comments on the subject.
So it’s worth looking at how many Democrats treat the crime of rape in the real world.
As anyone with direct experience knows, whenever you find a politician, judge, or lawyer raging about the harshness of the criminal justice system, pushing rehabilitation and parole programs for child-molesters and sex offenders, rallying behind cop killers, or working to disarm or prosecute people who seek to defend themselves from becoming potential victims, it’s almost always a Democrat.
A case in point is the stance Virginia Democrats have taken against a popular state law providing for mandatory sentencing of child rapists.
In March, the Virginia state legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that imposed automatic life sentences for any adult convicted of raping a child under the age of 13. It was in response to an appalling statistic — more than half of all rapes in Virginia are committed against children under 13.
According to the bill’s sponsor, Delegate Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville), “[i]n the past two years we had 228 offenders; only 10 got life sentences. They were appallingly short.”
The figures on recidivism for this type of crime vary between 52% and 88%, depending on how the figures are calculated.
The bill passed by a large majority. Twenty-one state senators and delegates, all of them Democrats, voted no on the bill.
Included among them were Obama surrogates and supporters State Senator Louise Lucas; Delegate Mamye BaCote, a leading member of VA Women for Obama; and Delegate Scott Surovell, a member of the Obama campaign’s Truth Team. All of them are prominent in the Obama campaign’s efforts to carry Virginia, and unlike what has happened regarding the treatment of Todd Akin by Republicans, none of them has been disavowed by the campaign, much less by President Obama.
Ask yourself this question: who’s really more involved in the war on women and condoning rape? Is it Democrats who want rapists freed and women disarmed, or Republicans who want women to be able to defend themselves and want convicted rapists off the streets and in jail, where they belong?
The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.