How Soon Before HuffPost Pulls THIS Poll?

Earlier this evening AOL/HuffPost ran the following poll:

"The federal government is mere hours away from shutting down for the first time since 1995/1996. Who is most to blame for the potentially devastating impasse?"

 

I am certaiun they expected their liberal readership to blame Republicans by a wide margin.

 

Surprise! Here are the results so far...

• Republicans, because they are being unnecessarily stubborn and divisive.

  48%
• Democrats, because they simply won't compromise on Obamacare.

  52%

   

   

  Looks like even liberals understand...

   

  /

MORE Bogus Polls From The Liberal Left

Today on AOL/HuffPost was this dubious headline: "Obamacare Polls: Little Support For Defunding"

If not so dishonest and pathetic, it would be comical, since all legitimate polls show a minimum of 53% of Americans - a mix of Republican, Democrat and Independent alike - want ObamaCare gone.

And even the far-left liberal polls, which are designed to cater to the liberal bent, also show a huge number want ObamaCare gone.

The polls Huffington Post cites are (5) polls by very far left organizations whose followers are obviously biased in favor of liberal ideals:

PEW - only 50% were opposed to defunding, in spite of PEW readers being liberal

Kaiser Family Foundation - only 56% opposed to defunding, even though you cannot get more liberal than Kaiser

CBS/New York Times - only 56% opposed to defunding - not surprising considering how liberal these pollsters are

CNBC - Only 44% opposed, meaning most of their readers - liberal - want ObamaCare gone

HuffingtonPost/You Gov - Only 42% opposed in spite of their far-left readership

What these polls show is that even among liberals, almost 50% of those polled would like to see ObamaCare defunded, although the HuffPost headline would have you believe otherwise.

And when a true, representative cross-section of Americans are polled, anywhere from 53% to 76% want ObamaCare repealed.

The point - Before putting much faith in polls, know the SOURCE, and know how the questions were actually phrased.

.

Female Dem Senators Again Playing Bogus "War On Women" Card

This is getting really old. It seems Democrats - and more particularly female Democrats - just can't help themselves and keep blathering about the supposed "war on women", "war on children" and "war on just about everyone" that the Republicans are supposedly waging.

The reality ios the opposite, as I proved in an earlier post. It is the Democrats that wage war on minorities, the poor, the children and women. But I digress..

Today, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told reporters that the Senate will unequivocally reject a provision sent to them by House Republicans this weekend that would allow employers to deny women birth control coverage for moral reasons. "It truly defies logic."

Now for what these partisan blatherers left out - birth control violates the religious tenets of many people. It is a "moral" thing. The only thing Republicans are saying is that in the event an employer objects for religious reasons to provide contraception, the government has no right to force the employer to violate his/her religious beliefs. In fact, the First Amendment is very clear on that - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In short, the government may not infringe on anyone's religious liberty. The government simply cannot legally force any citizen to go against their religion. Period.

A note to those Senators - it's not about women's health, or even contraception. It's about protecting the religious liberty of every citizen to choose for themselves what their religious beliefs allow them to support.

But then, these Senators - and most Democrats in Washington - have no use for the Constitution except when it benefits them. They are all for eliminating Christmas in public, claiming the so-called "separation of church and state". But when a Christian WANTS separation between church and state and wanmts government to stay out of their religious beliefs, those same Senators say "NOPE"!

Senators Boxer, Stabenow and Hirono are hypocrites. That are also anti-Christian and anti-Constitution. As such, they have no business being Senators, as every Senator must pledge to UPHOLD the Constitution, whether they like it or not.

But does that really surprise anyone???

Why Do Global Warming Nuts Insist On Being Wrong?

In spiute of several proven facts that the Earth is currently in a cooling mode (Antarctica has increasing ice mass, the most ever seen, and the mean temp of the Earth has been cooling for at least 16 years), the Global Warming fanatics insist on pushing their agenda.

"The INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) of the United Nations states "Human influence on the climate system is clear." A new report by the IPCC says it is extremely likely that humans have been the dominant contributor to observed warming. In numbers, "extremely likely" means a probability of at least 95 percent. The report warns the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would linger for centuries and that the Earth is set for further warming, sea level rising and more. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the report provides new evidence for governments to take action. "This new report will be essential for governments as they work to finalise an ambitious legal agreement on climate change in 2015." A recent U.N. deal stipulates that governments reduce emissions by the end of 2015. Outside the conference, activists say the world must stop arguing and start acting. (SOUNDBITE) (English) AVAAZ CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, LUIS MORAGO, SAYING: "We are very worried that there is a false media debate, spreading doubt about climate change, but today with the report coming from the IPCC, scientists are telling us that it's 95 percent certain that climate change is manmade and is leading to a catastrophe unless we act now." The report also said temperatures are likely to rise by up to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century"

Thinking people realize that this report by the IPCC is pure bunk, but the question is "Why" do they continue?

The answer is in their statement. It's all about the money. LOTS of it. The U.N. wants to bill rich countries (i.e. the United States) and give that money to other, lesser countries (i.e. mostly our enemies). It's income redistribution on a global scale, with Americans picking up the tab. As long as they can scare other idiots into believing global warming will kill us all, they would have carte blanche to rob us blind.

Bear in mind, most of the nations in the U.N. are enemies of the U.S., enemies of capitalism and enemies of democracy.

But hey, just for kicks, let's say global warming is actually real. What would be the real effects? A boon to Mankind. Throughout history, every warming trend has resulted in great strides for Mankind, and every cooling trend has resulted in devastation. If anyone doubts that, just Google LIA (Little Ice Ice), which ran from the 1300's until the 1800's. And note, too, that over the life of the Earth, over 85% of the time the Earth's mean temperature is ordinarily much higher than today. In other words, a warm planet is natural and normal.

Anyone who actually studies such things, rather than just letting liberal morons brainwash them would know these things. But alas! Most Americans do not bother learning the truth - they prefer to get hand-fed their "facts."

And that is why our enemies will probably win.

Another Bogus Poll From Huffington Post

We all know how far-left the Huffington Post is (Arianna Huffington is a declared socialist), so it is not surprising that polls emanating either from them or those they agree with would be, shall we say, corrupt?

Well, now they have a poll conducted by the far-left University of California that says a majority of gun dealers support expanded background checks.

Setting aside the liberal bent of the pollsters for a moment, let's look at their "data":

1) They identified 9700+ dealers in 43 states, but only sent their survey to 1600+ - I would wonder how they determined WHICH 1600 would get surveys

2) Of the 1600, only 590 responded. When you consider that most people only respond to surveys they agree with, I would not be surprised to find that the bulk of the remaining 63% were OPPOSED to expanded background checks

3) Of the 590 respondents, only 327 said they support expanded background checks.

So, let's see - of 9700 dealers, of which 1600 were contacted and only 590 responded, only 327 support expanded background checks.

Even if we assume that is 327 of 1600 (instead of the 9700), that's still only 20%. So I find it disturbing that UofC and HuffPost somehow consider that a "majority".

I have often said you can make any poll or set of statistics "prove" anything you want. To substantiate that, I had two people run a poll on alcoholism. One was stationed outside a Baptist church, and one outside a popular bar. The one outside the chuirch indicated that no one is an alcoholic, while the one outside the bar showed that everyone is an alcoholic.

And the far-left is really, really good at skewing polls and statistics.

/

HuffPost "ObamaCare Poll" Gone Bad

It's always nice to get a good laugh first thing in the morning.

Huffington Post/AOL decided to runm a poll on ObamaCare, asking readers if they though the Republicans were right to try and defund it. Being far-left liberal, HuffPost assumed THEIR readers would mostly vote that Republicans are wrong.

Here are the current results of the poll:

58% agree with Republicans that "ObamaCare will have a devastating effect ".
28% Said ObamaCare was the best solution
14% said it's "too early to tell."

All I can say is, HuffPost should be careful about what they ask for. They just may get the truth!

/

A BIG Problem With ObamaCare

A friend of mine approached me a bit ago with a huge issue. He earns about $40,000 per year - too much to get any substantial subsidy for Health Care under ObamaCare. He is self-employed, and therefore his health costs are completely on him. Insurance for him and his wife would run nearly $15,000 per year.

He simply cannot afford to be forced into that. His mortgage, alone, is $18,000 per year, leaving him with about $22,000. Of that, almost $6,000 a year for all utilities (heat, electricity, cable, DSL, phone etc.), leaving about $16,000. If he were to buy insurance, he would only have about $1000 a year for groceries, clothing, transportation (car, gas, oil, insurance, registration, tax), life insurance and all other normal costs of existence.

Yet, ObamaCare mandates he get insurance or pay a hefty fine.

Just another reason ObamaCare should be dumped, and a better system developed. A system that lowers the cost, rather than putting everything in the hands of an incompetent and wasteful government.

/

Would You Kill Hitler?

QUESTION: If you could safely travel back to a time when Adolph Hitler was a child, and could get away with killing him, then return to your own time safely - would you do it?

If you answer "yes", you might just be a bigger monster than Hitler, inadvertently. Let's take a brief look at just one of the consequences...

70 million people died due to World War II. Had they lived, and each had an average of just 2 children by 1970, and each of those had 2 children by 2000,  each of whom had 2 children by 2025, the population of the world will have increased by a whopping 2.7 BILLION souls. That's an increase of nearly half what the current population is. And by 2050, the world population would exceed 16 billion.

At 6 billion today, we are having a difficult time feeding everyone. If the population triples, more and more land must be used for homes, workplaces, schools, roads etc, leaving even less land available for growing food. Food supplies would dwindle as the population rises.

Famine would spread, and as people perish from starvation, more disease would visit us. It could make the Black Plague look like a church picnic in the park. Billions could - would - perish.

And all because you went back and snuffed out Hitler. Who, then, would be tasked to travel back in time to murder YOU?

The good Lord knew what he/she was doing when we were created to be aggressive mortals. Imagine if no one ever died in ANY war, from Day One. Mankind would have become extinct hundreds of years ago, whereas the population would have reached tens of billions long before technology or science could have ever hoped to provide answers.

In order to survive, life must work in cycles, and those cycles include death. Too many rabbits results in more wolves being able to survive, resulting in a glut of wolves, which, in turn, reduces the rabbit population. As rabbits disappear, the wolves starve, and now it is their turn to see a reduction in their number. As wolves die off, rabbits are once again able to proliferate. And so the cycle goes. It may sound cruel, but it is the only way that life can sustain itself, and maintain a balance. Ebb and flow, just like the tide.

By trying to eliminate war - or even death - Mankind is inadvertently striving to make himself extinct, rushing headlong into a mass destruction of his own making.

/

Losing The Fight To Defund ObamaCare Is Essential

Think about this - imagine you are a conservative. You elect people to do a job. Those elected representatives decide they cannot win the fight, so they give up (as Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly suggest on the battle to defund ObamaCare).

Now tell me - if your reps are not looking out for you, and are not fighting the good fight - are you going to vote in 2014? Unlikely. Why bother, if they are not going to even try to do the job you hire them to do?

On the other hand, assume those reps do fight the fight, knowing, as did those brave men at the Alamo, that they would lose. But they fight because they stand on principle. Will you go to the polls in 2014 and help elect MORE like them? Of course you would.

And that is the point that people like O'Reilly and Rove just do not comprehend. They would have encouraged the men at the Alamo to surrender. "You can't win, Davey Crockett - run and hide" would be the mantra of the pundits. And the war would have been lost. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California would belong to Mexico to this day. (Yeh, I know - California is an appendage of Mexico, anyway).

Sometimes you have to fight a battle you know you will lose, in order to win the war. Sure, the MEDIA will vilify the Republicans. They will do that no matter what Republicans do. But REPUBLICANS around the country will rally and hit the polls next year if they know their representatives are fighting, and taking hits for them.

O'Reilly & Rove take note - if Republicans cave on this, they will lose the House in 2014. But if they fight, even though they lose the fight, they will gain seats in both the House and the Senate.

A single battle does not make a war, but not fighting that battle can cost you the war. If you want to take back America, the first thing you need to do is get your people to the polls. To do that, you need to give them a REASON.

/

Another Financial Meltdown On The Way?

Again the Federal Reserve has decided to keep the stock market propped up with phony fiat money and artificially low interest rates. This, in turn, makes the market go up. And that is a REAL problem!

When the market is based on phony rates and the printing of phony money, it is a house of cards. The minute the Fed decides to stop - and sooner or later they must - the market will tank so badly it will make the recession of 2007 look like a church picnic.

Moreover, it is the liberals - the people who are creating this new "bubble" - who complain the most about income inequality, and how the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. Yet it is their own stupidity that creates that situation - or does anyone really think it is POOR people who are pumping money into the markets? Not likely. The rich are getting richer because the Fed is propping up Wall Street in order to try and make Obama look good. So, the rich get richer...thanks to liberals who simply cannot help themselves - they must try to destroy capitalism by whatever method they can, because their socialist agenda cannot survive in a capitalist society.

The short take - eventually, the Fed must back off. When they do, the economy of the United States will tank, perhaps beyond repair. And then the socialists will move in, making promises to all the wailing masses. And in desperation, the masses will succumb to socialism in an attempt to make things better.

They will not get better. Not if socialism takes over.

If you have read the writings of socialist Saul Alinsky, you know that, for liberal progressives, the first step is to destroy capitalism by bankrupting the nation. Look around, people. A 17 trillion dollar debt, unfundable entitlements, phony money being printed, interest rates kept artificially low - this administration has taken every step that Alinsky laid out.

Brace yourselves, folks! It's only a matter of time.

/

Putin Pulls An "Obama" On Obama

Over the last few years we have seen countless times where Obama and his minions would make a phony offer to Republicans that sounds really great, but includes a poison pill to insure Republicans would say "no". This allowed Obama to blame Republicans for on\bstructing just about everything.

ObamaCare had a few good things in it, but tons of bad things. When Republicans balked at trhe bad things, Democrats would accuse them of wanting people to die.

Same thing happened in the fight overr the debt ceiling. And again over the sequester.

Well, now it seems that what goes around, comes around, as Vladimir Putin is doing the same thing to Obama. First, he offers to get Syria to give up its chemical weapons, and when Obama grabs for that lifeline, Putin snaps it back, saying he will only do that if Obama swears not to attack Syria, regardless of the eventual outcome.

As President, Obama simply cannot agree to taking military action off the table. So, it ends up with Putin looking like he TRIED to do a good thing, and WANTED to, but that big, bad President Obama refused to cooperate.

Sound familiar? I wonder how Obama likes being on the receiving end of such subterfuge! He and the Democrats have been pulling that sort of thing on Republicans for years. I once posted a story about this sort of thing in 2010, concerning a land I called "Pindarovia".

Putin's stature rises in the world, while America's stature shrinks...

How The Left Is Destroying Our Children

If you are not aware of the moves the left iis making that are ruining our children and their chances for success, then you simply are not awake.

A child works hard to be the best at soccer. But the game does not permit scoring, as that would somehow shame the losers. So, everyone wins. Except, of course, the children who actually work hard at it. They receive no sense of fulfillment or accomplishment. They get the same reward as the child who spent his time playing video games and eating Twinkies. So the child grows up believing that it does not pay to work hard at anything, or to be better.

Lefties all over the country are banning things like dodge-ball at school. They say it is to protect the children (none of whom have ever suffered any real injuries from dodge-ball). But in their misguided effort to "protect" the children, they are robbing them of the essential need to compete, and to become strong. Dodge-ball, King-of-the-Hill and other such games teach our children the value of becoming strong, and how to strive for what you want. I'll bet the soldiers who stormed the hill on Iwo Jima and raised the flag had learned a lot from having played King-Of-The-Hill.

The uber-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that parents have no right to decide what type of instructions their children get on sex, or when they should receive such instruction. They also decided that a child as young as 12 could get an abortion without informing the parents.

Teachers in many states no longer grade a child's paper or test, for fear of causing shame. I guess no one ever told the idiots on the left that "shame" is a strong motivational factor that actually HELPS people to improve.

Over the last few years there have been literally hundreds of such instances where the left has taken actions designed for the sole purpose of weakening the strong, to create a level playing field for the weak. That is back-asswards. We are supposed to be strengthening the weak, not weakening the strong.

Political correctness and the wussification of America has gone too far. If you are unwilling to stand against the onslaught of the left to destroy our children, then you get what you deserve - a nation of weaklings that will never again be great.

"Only the strong can afford to be gentle and kind." Kahlil Gibran

/