Follow Me On Twitter!

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Polls. Polls. And More Polls.

One thing I've noticed in the last few elections is that the media loves to use polls. They love to use polls to show trends. They love to use polls to show one candidate ahead of another. But mostly they love to use polls to try to swing the election.

That's right, I believe the media uses polls to try to get you and I to vote for THEIR candidate. The drive-by, left-wing, liberal-biased media wants Obama to win, and if they have to manipulate a few polls toward that end, then by golly, that is what they are going to do.

A friend of mine pointed this out in 2000. Gore was leading Bush in the polls pretty much the entire election. It just didn't feel right, since even the majority of liberals I knew weren't that jazzed by Al Gore. Yet Gore was up, mostly by double-digits, until just a couple of weeks out.

2004 was similar. Kerry led Bush again by a fairly substantial margin. Even when the Swifties were in full swing, Kerry still managed to keep a lead in the polls just above the margin of error. Again until about 2 weeks out.

The media wants would-be Republican voters to believe the election is already lost. The media is hoping that those voters will choose to stay home on election day because their candidate has no chance. Ann Coulter recently wrote a column about how the polls always error on the side of the Democrat. This election cycle is no different.

This friend also pointed out that the polls always tighten about 2 weeks out. Interesting isn't it? Our (my friend's and my) theory is that the media is smart enough to know that if their polls are completely off then no one will pay attention to them any longer. Kind of like exit polls after the 2004 election. So they tighten the polls close to the election to give the illusion of accuracy, and thereby trying to save any perceived integrity the polls may still have.

This tightening seems counter-intuitive to the idea of the media trying to swing the election, but it does make sense. The media is counting on disenfranchising Republican voters well in advance of the final 2 weeks. The hope is that these voters will have given up and have stopped paying attention. Then when the polls tighten, those voters won't even notice. On election day, when the results come in close, as they did in 2000 and 2004, the media can point to their polls and claim that this is exactly as expected since the final 2 weeks of polling data was well within the margin of error.

As this election has gone on, the media has kept growing Obama's lead in the polls. But in these final 2 weeks, the polls have predictably tightened. If the election goes to McCain, the media will claim that Obama's lead was within the margin of error, and therefore the outcome was not completely unexpected.

And of course they will claim that Americans are racist.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama and Socialism

It seems that Barack Obama's most important campaign tactic is to lie, dodge, avoid, and deny. As more evidence comes forward, all involving Obama's own words, it is obvious he is a socialist at best, and a Marxist at worst. Yet he refuses to admit to that.

And the media doesn't dare ask questions related to that. The Obama campaign seems intent on shutting out any news organization that asks questions regarding Obama's socialistic philosophies. Joe Biden was asked tough questions in an interview, and the news station that conducted the interview was informed that Biden's wife would not be fulfilling her promised interview.

The funny thing is that liberals will do and say nothing about these tactics. Even though for 8 years they have accused the Bush administration of the same media strong-arming tactics. Yet we are to believe that John McCain is analogous to George W. Bush!

The fact is that Obama has a long history of writing and speaking about his socialistic philosophies. The rumors of these philosophies started trickling out slowly when his campaign first began. As the campaign has run-up to the general election, more and more evidence of Obama's socialism has come to light. The latest is audio of Obama saying that it is a tragedy that the Supreme Court hadn't pursued the redistribution of wealth in 2001.

The problem for the campaign is that they are denying that Obama is a socialist. Why not just admit it? Many of the people that are already determine to vote for Obama would probably agree with his socialistic views. But they are afraid of losing undecided voters, which according to most polls are still hovering around the 10% mark.

The tactic of lying, as more evidence comes to light, is just as bad. Further, their tactics of shutting out any media outlet that suggests that he is a socialist is even worse. But even more draconian was last week's tactic by the Obama campaign to try to say claims of socialism are based in racism.

The fact is that the Obama campaign is already guilty of tactics that liberals have accused the Bush administration of ever since Bush took office. Apparently they will turn a blind eye to the socialist Obama and his strong-arming tactics, while continuing to cry about George W. Bush allegedly doing the same thing.

In the end, Obama will do whatever he has to in order to get elected. Of course there are no guarantees if he actually were to win the election, and it seems apparent that he would try to lead this country down the road to socialism. Surely the American people will take a stand next Tuesday against such an anti-American concept.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Is Obama the change we need?

In this campaign there has been a lot of talk about change. Usually change is a word thrown around when things are going poorly. The idea is that people are miserable and want things to be different. The mainstream media has been trying to convince us, the American people, for nearly two years now that things are going poorly and that we are miserable. The fact is, things have been pretty good.

For instance, most people you talk to that are willing to be honest will tell you that they are better off today then they were 8 years ago. And even though the media and the Obama campaign have been trying to tell us otherwise, we have survived some pretty negative things in the last 8 years or so.

If people remember, oil prices, and resulting gas prices, began to rise in the year 2000. That was the last year of the Clinton administration's rule. This was on the heals of the dotcom bust that lasted until about 2003. The attacks of 9/11/2001 brought about many issues in its aftermath, including a stock market crash, two wars, and even higher oil and gas prices. Considering all of this the citizens of this nation have had it pretty good.

Yet the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media that so willingly do Obama's bidding, would have us to believe that our future is bleak. That our prospects are few. That peril lurks around every corner. Sounds a lot like the language of Jimmy "The Worst President In History" Carter.

And in the midst of these politics of fear, they point the finger at hard-working, freedom-loving, tax-paying American citizens and claim we are the breeders of fear. Supposedly we are "bitter", according to Obama himself. This hypocrisy is profound, promoting fear while making accusations of it.

And their end goal? Change. That word, which on the surface sounds so promising, is a roaring lion going about seeking whom it may devour. Because do you know what is Obama's version of change? Socialism. Wealth redistribution. Draconian taxes. The removal of the 2nd amendment from the bill of rights. No protection for the unborn. Erosion of freedom of speech.

That is not fear-mongering, that is calling a duck, a duck. Some of the above mentioned tenants of change the Obama campaign admits to. Some of the above they hide and lie about. But make no mistake, an Obama administration with a Democrat majority in both houses of congress would bring about many of those "changes" and others like them.

No where is there a better example of change like that illustrated in a recent change Obama made in his tax plan. When conservatives pointed to the plan, which gives tax rebate checks to those that pay no taxes, and called it "welfare", Obama responded by adding a work requirement to his plan. How quickly he changes for political expediency! And there is no doubt that if he is elected, that same plan would be altered again, this time to remove that same work requirement.

And as further evidence of Obama's character, or lack there of, is the fact that he is already planning for his transition to power. And spending millions on an election night party/celebration. Dishonest and arrogant, what a wonderful combination.

Obama is a liar. He is a socialist. He cannot be trusted in the least. His change is not change that most Americans can stomach. An Obama administration would be disastrous for this nation. If Obama is elected, say goodbye to your money, guns and religious freedom. But hey, at least some poor people will be even more addicted to free government money.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Why is Ray Schoenke lying?

Another day, another entry about someone lying for political benefit. This time ex-NFL player Ray Schoenke. Schoenke played for the Washington Redskins, and that should probably be our first clue that he can't be trusted! But seriously, Ray Schoenke is not what he seems to be.

Ray Schoenke is hunter. Therefore, it would seem, he'd be a pro-2nd amendment conservative that would have the best interests of gun owners and sportsmen alike at heart. So imagine my surprise when I heard a radio ad with Schoenke supporting Barack Obama?!? Another conservative Republican supporting Obama? Surely you jest.

Well, you see, the joke is on us. The us being sportsmen and gun owners. Ray Schoenke is the founding president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The name of that organization sounds promising, correct? However, all you need to know is that the Brady Campaign considers the AHSA to be complementary to its own goals.

When Schoenke's radio spot for Obama came on I was interested to hear what he had to say regarding Obama's anti-gun record. To my shock and dismay, Schoenke, and I quote, claimed that "neither Barack Obama or John McCain would take our guns." He then went on with a litany of reasons why he was supporting Obama, all of which are bunch of hogwash.

How Schoenke could make the assessment that Obama wouldn't try to take our guns is beyond me. View Obama's record for yourself on this issue: Obama on gun control. There is no way one could reasonably conclude that Obama wouldn't try to take our guns if elected based on his gun control record. Obama has been staunchly for almost any and all forms of gun control in his short amount of time in office.

I find it ironic that Obama would want to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but has never gone on record to say that explosives should be kept out of the hands of his friend and confidant, and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.

Getting back on point, Ray Schoenke uses the economy and jobs as reasons to support Obama. Someone should point out to Schoenke, who is fairly well off himself, that Obama's cure for our economic ills is to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Socialism has never helped anyone economically, nor been a boon for a jobs market. After all, who needs to work with the government providing everything you need?

The fact is that Ray Schoenke is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a liberal, gun-grabbing, socialist that has no idea what is important to the average hunter and sportsman in our country today. Ray Schoenke and his cronies are exactly what is wrong with our country. They support Barack Obama because he is as big of a liar as they are.

If they had a shred of honesty in their bodies, both Obama and Schoenke would come clean about their real motives when it comes to gun control. Then again, that would be asking too much of people such as them.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Sorry, but Colin Powell is lying.

Colin Powell is lying.

As best I can tell anyway. For instance, he claims to be a Republican. But yet he makes the statement: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration."

What? A Republican wanting liberal appointments to the Supreme Court? Sorry I am not buying it. Either Colin is not a Republican, or he really doesn't mean what he says about Supreme Court appointments. Could he just be saying it to make his endorsement of Barack Obama sound more credible?

That last question is interesting since Colin claims the following: "
And I’ve said to Barack Obama, “I admire you. I’ll give you all the advice I can. But I’m not going to vote for you just because you’re black.” We -- we have to move beyond this."

To quote Shakespeare, methinks the lady, or the Colin, doth protest too much. Why would anybody actually voice that unless that is exactly why they are voting for Obama, and they don't want anyone to know it. A sort of preemptive strike, something Colin was for before he was against, if you will.

So is the first lie a ploy to cover for the second lie? Is Colin Powell lying about not wanting conservative Supreme Court appointees in order to cover for the fact the he is voting for Obama because he is black? It makes you wonder. After all this is a self-proclaimed Republican that served as Secretary of State for President George W. Bush.

Some may disagree that Powell is only voting for Obama because he is black. But ask yourself why a conservative, pro-military Republican would endorse, and vote for, a liberal, anti-military Democrat? Is there any other reasonable explanation other than the fact that Powell is black and Obama is black. As far as this writer can tell, that is the only common bound between these two.

In closing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Colin Powell voting for Obama because he is black. However, it is wrong to not admit to that as being the reason, and worse, out-and-out lie about it.

Thursday, October 09, 2008


On opening day of bow season I was lucky enough to take a 6-point buck. Thanks be to God for providing the opportunity and giving me the ability to make a well placed shot. In a future posting I will tell the entire story of how it happened.

Needless to say it was a very rewarding experience. And it put meat in the freezer.