guardiansrealm.us

Having my own opinions about why Barrack Obama won re-election, I can't help but try to articulate them here.  The first thing I would say is that I think President Obama began his re-election campaign the day after his inauguration in January 2009.  I believe that everything, every speech, every trip, every executive order, every statement to the press, every policy decision, was made for the sole purpose of Barrack Obama's re-election.

Then in 2010, then the Tea Party movement ousted Democrats from the House, replacing them with true conservatives, Obama realized that his two years of Liberal/Redistribution polices were being rejected by the American people.  His response was to change his campaign from one of promoting Liberal polices to one of demonizing Conservatives and making fun of their beliefs.

When Republican primary candidates began competing, Obama and his machine, knocked them off one by one, flinging dirt, mud, and lies at each until only Mitt Romney was left.  But Romney had already been sullied by the Chicago Machine with calumnies about Bain Capital, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's slanderous lie that Mr.  Romney hadn't pay any Federal Taxes.  Dispite what pundits, like Juan William, Bob Beckel, and others say, Obama's campaign was the lowest, dirtiest, smear campaign of any in at least the last 100 years.  Barrack Obama is a liar.  The proof is in one of his statements during the Presidential debates, "We got back every dime of that money."  Whoa!  He was referring, of course, to the bail-out of GM, but guess what, GM still owes $26 billion to the taxpayers and we'll probably never, every get a dime of it back.

I also must say, and I think problem of Republican Presidential candidates goes back to Bob Dole.  Our Republican candidates for President are Establishment Republicans.  These candidates are not real, true Conservatives, with a capital C, and when the Republican party puts them up for elections the Conservative voter looks and sees someone who doesn't hold solidly to the principles of smaller government, free markets, personal responsibility, personal property rights, freedom OF religion (not freedom from religion).  They see a these candidates as not willing to take on the tasks of real tax reform, real intitlement reform, and serious spending cuts that reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.  They see them caving to Liberals, giving up principles in an attempt to be likeable, or to precieved as working to get things done.  Millions of Conservatives throw up their hands and either don't vote, or voted for a third party candidate.  To be sure, I believe that Mitt Romney, from all evidence and none to the contrary, is a good, decent man.  He would be an excellent president, but millions of conservative voters saw him as the same as George W.  Bush, who didn't seem to be able to veto a single Democrat bill.  And we are still  "Searching for Ronald Reagan"

And finally, here it is - "Everybody in Cleveland know minority got Obamanphone, keep Obama in Prresident, you know.  You sign up, you on food stamps, you on social security, got low income, you got disability, he send you a phone.  Romney, he sucks… bad."  Obamaphone lady youtube

As a wise man said this week, "When you're running against Santa Claus, you can't win no matter what you do."

---

The Party of "Old White Men"

The Republican party has great people - Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice; Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State; JC Watts, ex-congressmen of Oklahoma; Herman Cain, past Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Board, and a Presidential candidate in 2012; Ann Richarson, Governor of Texas.  And, there are more, so many more, examples of Republicans that put the lie to the stereo-type of the GOP being "Old White Men".

Take a look at the Senate Democrat Web site.  You will fine 40 white men, most of them old and white, and twelve white women.  Now, admittedly, the Republican list of Senators is pretty much the same, but why is it that ONLY the Republicans get called "Too old, Too White, and Too Male"?, when the Democrat party makeup is virtually the same?

Check out the Republican Governors.  You'll find names like Susana Martinez, NM; Eddie Calvo, GU; Bobby Jindal, LA; Benigno Fitial, MNI; Luis Fortuno, PR; and four Governors are women, including Ms Martinez.

ABC's political commentator, George Stephanopoulos recently said on November 7th that the GOP is, "To old, too white, and too male."  This is a continuing stereotype being perpetuated by Democrats that needs refuted as often as possible.

---

More Myths about Republicans

Check out this artical from August 2012 by Jennifer Rubin in the Charlotte Observer.  A couple of items from the article are listed here, along with my opinions about some of her conclusions.

The GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party.  As in the article, Republicans chose the least conservative candidate in the primary.  And, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, got majorities (including the vast majority of freshmen) to pass a continuing resolution and then the debt-ceiling deal.  The GOP continues to support budgets that spend more money every year (they slow the rate of increase) and extol Medicare and Social Security.  This is the one myth that should be true!  We lost this election because our candidate was the least conservative.

The GOP is obsessed with social issues.  Mitt Romney barely talked abou social issues.  Republican Bob McDonnell, during the 2009 Virginia Governors race, talked bread-and-butter economic issues while his opponent and the media raised social issues to try to turn off independent voters.  (McDonnell won by 17 points.)  It's my opinion that conservatives believe the Federal government should not be legislating social issues.

The GOP's entire agenda is about tax cuts.  Obama says this quite a bit, but he's wrong on two counts.  First, Republicans have plenty of other ideas, including domestic energy development, entitlement reform, school choice and increased trade.  Moreover, Romney has explained that he wants tax reform (flattening of the rates and broadening the base), which would be revenue neutral.  Conservatives are looking for REAL tax reform.  Closing 'loopholes', adjusting rates, giving credits, etc., are NOT what we think is tax reform.  REAL tax reform means repeal of the 16th Amendment, or at the very least, a complete overhaul of the IRS and the current tax code and it complicated, burdensome regulations.

All of these stereotype are refuted in Ronald Kessler's article at Newsmax.com of February 7, 2011, The Biggest Myths About Republicans

---

Demonizing Conservatives

Over the years, Democrats and the mainstream media have fashioned an array of myths about Republicans.  According to those stereotypes, Republicans and especially conservatives are racist, homophobic, uncaring about the poor, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish, and intolerant.

Thus, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former labor secretary, has said that conservatives are selfish and "pander to the worst of us."

Sen.  Charles Schumer said on Bill Maher's HBO show "Real Time," "There are some, you know, there are some anti-Semites in this country, but most of them would vote Republican anyway."

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said conservatives and Republicans are "evil," "corrupt," "brain-dead," and "not very nice people" who have "never made an honest living in their lives."

Katie Couric has said that during the Reagan era, "greed and materialism was the norm."

HERE is an treatise I've written about Democrat/Liberal campaign tactics

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L.  88-352, 78 Stat.  241, enacted July 2, 1964)

A landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.  It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.  Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.  The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B.  Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

Now, lets take a look at the votes of Senators and Congressmen as this landmark legislation moved through the Congress.

The original House Version:

• Democrats - 61% to 39% (152-96)
• Republicans - 80% to 20% (138-34)
• If 61% of Republicans had voted NO, the bill would have been defeated 211 to 209.  Almost three times as many Democrats voted against the Bill as did Republicans.

The Cloture in the Senate:

• Democrats - 66% to 34% (44-23)
• Republicans - 82% to 18% (27-6)

The Senate Version:

• Democrats - 69% to 31% (46-21)
• Republicans - 82% to 18% (27-6)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

• Democrats - 63% to 37% (153-91)
• Republicans - 80% to 20% (136-35)
• This vote is virtually the same as the original House vote.  And, again, without the majority of Republicans voting for the Act, it would have gone down to defeat.

The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W.  Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.  Add to that the fact that when the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senato,r led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC).  On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

This evidence shows that more Republicans, by a margin of a minimum of 11 percentage points and as high as 19 percentage points, approved of, and voted for the Civil Rights Act.  And yet for some reason people, maybe a majority, don't associate Republicans as advocates for Civil Rights and seem to think we're all "Old White Men".

For more information about the Civil Right Act of 1964 click here.