Obama’s sick psychological experiments on voters affect us all

Conservatives have known for a long time that liberalism warps the human mind and the human soul, turning individuals with unlimited potential into human gerbils whose only aspiration is to get their hands on the next government pellet. Now, as details leak out about President Obama’s 2012 campaign, it’s clearer than ever that he sees his supporters as a bunch of lab rats.

Ask yourself: Would the founding fathers ever favor a United States of America where career politicians are so hungry for power that they would assemble a “Dream Team” of behavioral scientists to figure out the best way to manipulate the minds of registered voters?

For their part, consortium members said they did nothing more than pass on research-based ideas, in e-mails and conference calls. They said they could talk only in general terms about the research, because they had signed nondisclosure agreements with the campaign.

In addition to Dr. Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

At least some of the consortium’s proposals seemed to have found their way into daily operations. …

“Mr. Jones, we know you have voted in the past” — acts as a subtle prompt to future voting, said Dr. Cialdini, a foundational figure in the science of persuasion. “People want to be congruent with what they have committed to in the past, especially if that commitment is public,” he said.

Got that? President Obama is watching you. Correction: President Obama has been studying you. His campaign has been sifting through your public data and putting together psychological profiles that could be unlocked, disassembled and then put back together into a reliable Obamabot. It’s downright creepy.

And yet, it gets worse. Your digital history is fair game, too.

What data did [Obama’s team use] — and were they tracking you across the web?

It’s still not clear. …

To pinpoint voters who might actually change their minds, the Obama campaign conducted randomized experiments, Slaby said. Voters received phone calls in which they were asked to rate their support for the president, and then engaged in a conversation about different policy issues. At the end of the conversation, they were asked to rate their support for the president again. Using the results of these experiments, combined with detailed demographic information about individual voters, the campaign was able to pinpoint both what kinds of voters had been persuaded to support the president, and which issues had persuaded them.

Avi Feller, a graduate student in statistics at Harvard who has worked on this kind of modeling, compared it to medical research.

“The statistics of drug trials are very similar to the statistics of experiments in campaigns,” he said. “I have some cancer drug, and I know it works well on some people — for whom is the cancer drug more or less effective?”

One official with knowledge of the campaign’s data operation said that the campaign’s experiments also tested how long the “persuasion” effect lasted after the initial phone conversation — and found that it was only about three weeks.

This is what we have wrought. No matter who you voted for, these tactics are scary. The government has grown so expansive and we have abdicated so many responsibilities to a ruling “elite” in Washington, that they will now go to any length to win. They will say anything, or do anything that experiments — on you — tell them to do, if it means another two or four or six years in power.

In President Obama’s mind, your free will is a cancer, and the “drug” is the “tested” combination of “experiments” that will get you to pull the lever for him. But it’s not just President Obama; these tactics will be used in 2016, 2020 and beyond by both parties. Republicans and Democrats will seek to play Jedi mind tricks on millions of our most gullible citizens. And as they perfect their craft they will “win” more elections — not because they are the better candidate, or the candidate the country needs — but because they are the candidate who could pull your psychological strings like a mad puppeteer.

Are Republicans any better than Democrats in this regard? No. If they are, it’s not by much. But the difference between conservatives and liberals is, the conservative casts a perpetually suspicious eye on all politicians and seeks to limit the power of the federal government; the left quixotically puts their trust in princes.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some reading to do on President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List.” For some reason I don’t believe his canvassers or experiments addressed that one.

Romney has given 110% — Now it’s your turn

Is there a conservative alive who can say that Mitt Romney hasn’t given 110% to this campaign? Regardless of the disagreements I have with him, I must say that he has put forth an honorable, inspiring run for the highest office in the land. I believe he would make a fine Commander in Chief.

Now it turns out that he’ll be making one last whirlwind tour through a few swing states to encourage turnout, and I have to say: If you are a conservative and you don’t find a way to the polls tomorrow, you should hang your head in shame.

Aides said Mr. Romney would visit campaign offices in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Until now, his staff had said that a rally in New Hampshire Monday night would be his last event of the campaign.

The move reflects just how close the contest remains — Mr. Romney is determined to squeeze as much time in swing states as possible before polls close.

Like any good businessman, Mitt Romney figured out what he needed to do to get his campaign running on all cylinders. He went from a “59 point” plan a year ago to a succinct, persuasive pitch to do the following:

  • Cut spending and work to balance the budget
  • Unleash American natural resources to become energy independent
  • Undo unnecessary regulations that burden small businessmen and take as many uncertainties off the table as possible — giving them a reason to take a chance on expansion.

The logistics in running a national campaign must be mind-boggling. To go toe-to-toe with a sitting president, who has a war chest and the bully pulpit at his disposal — and to expose him as a paper tiger during your first debate with him — demands respect. In one night — one night — Mitt Romney dismantled a narrative that President Obama spent millions of dollars and months to build. He went from someone the American people didn’t like, to even parity with the president, and he did it despite a corrupt media apparatus that has done its best to shield the president from his own words and his own record.

Personally, I am confident that independents are going to break hard for Romney in a matter of hours, and at the end of the day propel him to victory. Deep down, many of those moderates who pulled the lever for President Obama in 2008 know that he promised to reverse the rise of the oceans (literally), but what they got was high unemployment (7.9%), $16 trillion in debt, and yearly deficits over $1 trillion dollars. Alone in the booth, I believe they will vote for Mitt Romney tomorrow in droves.

Regardless of what happens when the final tallies come in, conservatives owe it to Mitt to do their part tomorrow. We owe it to the country to do our part tomorrow. Vote, blog, use any number of social media platforms, call friends and family members, or help out in whatever way you can. There will always be people out there who are smarter, faster and stronger than you, but there is never an excuse for not putting forth your best effort. There are many things that are outside of our control, but giving 100% to the task at hand is a choice you always have the power to make.

Tomorrow, I plan on voting for love of country. I encourage you to do the same.

Romney’s chances in Colorado — our political FUBAR

Anyone who follows this blog knows that while I work in Washington, D.C., I’m generally not a fan of the overabundance of pompous, fake, know-it-all pundits who live there. Washington is just like Los Angeles, except the fakes in the nation’s capital want to play “director” with your life. They see you as a prop, and your tax dollars as the studio budget. Given my desire to stay as far away from cocktail parties and networking events as possible, I decided that when it came to figuring out what Mitt Romney’s chances were of winning Colorado, that it would be best to ask a really, really smart … Coloradan. Luckily, I happen to know one. (I’m keeping his identity anonymous since I’m not sure he would like his name out there.)

Here’s his analysis:

Colorado is a state made up of maddening political contradictions. You have uber liberal Boulder county up north, and uber conservative Colorado springs to the south. You have Colorado University (compared to Cal Berkley by many), and then you can find Focus on the Family. You also have the aforementioned home base of a powerful evangelical Christian organization with one of the lowest (by state) percentages of people who regularly attend church (11 percent). Then you have a massive influx of liberal Californians moving in, mixing with a massive influx of conservative Texans. You have a state screaming for gun laws in the wake of The Dark Knight killings and Columbine going up against a powerful NRA lobby with mountain hunters.

Then you have Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party polling at 4 percent, I believe the second highest behind new Hampshire in political polls by state. Basically, we are a perfect storm of political clusterf***.

Two of Romney’s biggest talking points get blunted here:

  • The economy is better than national average and we have thus far survived the economic downturn relatively well.
  • There are few Jewish people here, so only conservative Christians would consider relations with Israel a voting issue (remember 11 percent, and not all of them are conservative). Also, by far our biggest minority is of Mexican decent, and they are by and large not fans of Republican immigration stances.

I will say (though it’s hard to quantify) that the “excitement” for Obama is not at the fevered pitch it was in 2008, partly (just as we’ve seen nationally) because he’s been president and you don’t have that same euphoria of getting your guy in there, and partly because we didn’t host the DNC this time around.

To be fair, even though the economy is decent here, Coloradans recognize it can be better and that it is still nationally sluggish — there are no quick fixes. This being said, Obama is still very popular with the Democratic base, whereas Romney is liked, but not venerated by the Republican base.

It is a statistical tossup, and we really won’t know until Tuesday. If you forced me to bet, I’d say Obama wins by 2-4 percent. Sorry to have a wishy-washy conclusion, but that’s how I see it.

So there you have it. I really have nothing much to add. I devour news on a daily basis for work, and this is one of the most succinct, informative, non-wonkish breakdowns of Colorado’s political complexity that I’ve seen.

My only question would be for our Libertarian friends: Is there a particular reason why you don’t sink your resources into building a movement at a local and state level, first? Is it really helping anyone to put all your eggs into one basket every four years, self-righteously beating your chest about the “two party system” before disappearing into darkness shortly after the election is over? Good grief.

Anyway, thanks again to my eyes and ears on the ground in Colorado. Great job, my friend. Here’s to hoping that Independents break hard for Mitt.

Joss Whedon, hypocritical millionaire, attacks Romney

Joss Whedon likes to rant about corporations — unless they’re associated with Marvel and paying him millions of dollars, in which case he keeps his yap shut and pockets enough to keep him safely part of the “one percent” for the rest of his life. How many poor people had to shell out a large chunk of their paycheck to take the kids to see ‘The Avengers,” and how much of that cash is lining Whedon’s pockets? Don’t ask — he’s busy demonizing Mitt Romney.

It wasn’t long ago writer-director Joss Whedon, fresh off the $1.5 billion-plus grossing Avengers movie, went on a memorable anti-corporate rant for the ages.

“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” he told the [Comic-Con 2012] audience. …

Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.” …

We have people trying to create structures and preserve the structures that will help the middle and working class, and people calling them socialists,” Whedon said. “It’s not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal […] it’s some people with some sense of dignity and people who have gone off the reservation.”

Only months ago, you either agreed with the Scooge-McDuck-swimming-in-cash Whedon, or you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at $16 trillion dollars of national debt and considered the current “structure” unsustainable, you were “off the reservation.” If you looked at yearly deficits over $1 trillion dollars and what was going on in Greece and Spain and Italy and most of Europe and wanted to change course, you were “off the reservation.”

Now, just a week before the 2012 election, Whedon is back — and this time the witty, “dignified” director (who wears button up shirts with nothing underneath so you can see his “dignified” waxed chest) is using humor to attack former Gov. Mitt Romney.

You see, if Mitt Romney is elected president it will bring about the Zomney Apocalypse:

“Romney is ready to make the deep rollbacks in health care, education, social services, reproductive rights that will guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting: all crucial elements in creating a nightmare zombie wasteland. But it’s his commitment to ungoverned corporate privilege that will nosedive this economy into true insolvency and chaos, the kind of chaos you can’t buy back. Money is only so much paper to the undead. The 1% will no longer be the very rich — it will be the very fast. [Mitt Romney isn’t] afraid to face a ravening, grasping horde of subhumans, because that’s how he sees poor people already.”

Joss Whedon looks at our current national debt — $16 trillion and counting — and he doesn’t think we’re insolvent right this very second. No, it’s only after Mitt Romney is elected that we will be on the road to insolvency. Joss might be a good movie director, but he’s really lousy at math, perhaps because he has more money than he knows what do with. He could always give most of it to the government or poor people if he wanted … but he chooses not to.

The dirty little secret that Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to know about is that we’re already broke. We’re very, very broke. We are insolvent right now, and doing nothing will bring about chaos that “money can’t buy back.”

When is the last time you heard Joss Whedon talk about Greece, its debt, its riots, and the “chaos” that was brought about by the kind of “structures” that millionaire liberal movie directors crave for? Answer: Never.

While serious people try and figure out a way to uphold the promises the government made to current retirees, while changing the system to ensure its existence for future generations, Hollywood film directors spend their time trying to convince their fans that Republicans see poor people as “sub-humans.” The fact is, the United States makes social mobility easier than anywhere else in the world. I’m sure we can even point to a few of Whedon’s Hollywood friends as examples of  how one can go from rags-to-riches and from riches-to-rags, but that’s material for another day.

Poor people are definitely not “sub-humans,” but government programs that surreptitiously convince individuals to abdicate important life decisions have the potential to rob them of their humanity. The end result of the kind of programs Whedon seemingly advocates for creates, for example, Obamaphone Lady. Joss Whedon doesn’t want you to acknowledge the insidious changes to the human spirit that government dependence creates, because he wants you focused on the shortcomings of corporations.

So ask yourself: Would the world be better off without Marvel? Would the world have been better off without the WB Network, which aired Whedon’s television series Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? It seems as though Joss Whedon likes when money exchanges hands — particularly his hands — but doesn’t like it that other people are perfectly free to spend their capital as they see fit.

If anyone is acting like a mindless zombie these days, it’s Joss Whedon.

Related: The Avengers: Marvel’s finest hour
Related: Joss Whedon: Now that I poop $100 bills, let’s embrace socialism

End game: Obama courts women willing to wear giant birth control costumes

This is how President Obama’s campaign sees women — weirdos who are willing to dress up as a giant package of contraceptives at the direction of Planned Parenthood or White House political adviser David Plouffe.

With less than three weeks before the election, polls for Mitt Romney are looking good. Trend lines have given conservatives a boost of confidence, and the liberals who once said this election was in the bag are suspiciously quiet. Some, like Bob Beckle, are still saying “it’s over,”  but the prediction now applies to Mr. Obama. While I am on record as saying that the first debate was Romney’s “Rocky IV” moment, there are aspects of his momentum that can traced to the Obama campaign’s strange calculation: Most women are single-issue voters who are one Planned Parenthood roll call away from buying a giant contraceptive costume to wear to a campaign event.

As National Journal notes:

[W]ith white women, several polls suggest that Obama’s advantage has narrowed or vanished since his disastrous first debate.

Most ominous for Obama is evidence that the slippage has occurred not only among usually Republican-leaning blue-collar white women but also their white-collar counterparts. Largely because most college-educated white women hold liberal views on social issues, the Democratic nominee has carried them in four of the past five presidential elections; in 2008, 52 percent of such women backed Obama. Until Denver, national surveys consistently showed him winning a majority of these white-collar women. Number-crunchers in Romney headquarters believe their candidate is unlikely to prevail unless he can reduce that margin.

Several polls since the Denver debate say that Romney has done just that. Both this week’s ABC/Washington Post national survey and the cumulated results from the past two weeks of Gallup nightly tracking polls found that Obama had fallen behind Romney among college-educated white women and was attracting 45 percent of them or less, according to data provided to National Journal.

The Obama campaign saturated the airwaves early on with attack ads that painted Mitt Romney as some sort of cutthroat businessman who looked at people and saw numbers on an accounting spreadsheet. They painted Romney as a guy who dreamed he was Scrooge McDuck, hoarding gold coins acquired from the exploited “masses,” and the stolen uteri of unsuspecting females.

And then Denver came — and Romney said this about deficits:

“I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.

And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral,” 

So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way, (Mitt Romney, 4/10/12).

When you intellectually hit someone over the head with the fact that not only are we bankrupting the nation with reckless spending, but that it is morally bankrupt to leave our kids and grand kids saddled with a mountain of debt, it resonates. That is something women care about. Because they’re smart, they know that the nation has a spending problem, as opposed to a revenue problem. Because they’re smart, they know that if you lower the tax rate on small businesses and it jump starts economic growth, the nation will actually see its tax revenues increase.

The Obama campaign once had promoted an ecard that read: “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” While this was thrown down the memory hole in Orwellian fashion when it blew up in their face, there is an aspect of the line that rings true. Our kids are a part of us. Our grandchildren are a part of us. And so, in that sense we should vote like our “parts” depend on us. Mitt Romney treats women like complex spiritual beings, as opposed to myopic drones mentally stuck in 1920.

While Mitt Romney obsesses about job creation, the Obama campaign obsesses about binders and Big Bird. We’ll see how that works out for them in only a matter of weeks.

Binders and Big Bird: Obama campaign becomes Billy Madison

The Obama campaign has become all about kid stuff: Big Bird and Binders. While Mitt Romney obsesses over job creation and debt, Obama’s supporters obsess over which passing reference from each debate can be turned into a multi-news cycle punchline. They’re like Billy Madison without Adam Sandler’s likability.

The Obama campaign is in trouble. Big trouble. And that’s because it is increasingly making itself about small things. Kid stuff, like Big Bird and binders. Forced to defend President Obama’s dismal economic record over the past four years, his disciples look to latch onto anything that could be turned into a meme or a Saturday Night Live sketch.

There’s one problem with their strategy: independent voters with half a brain aren’t in the mood for jokes. The United States had over 40 months of 8 percent unemployment. Currently, the jobless rate stands at 7.8 percent. The nation is $16 trillion dollars in debt and we just had an American ambassador slaughtered in the Middle East by terrorists. The guy who ran on the soaring vagueness of “Hope and Change” now has a record to defend, and it’s not one that has your average American in the mood to crack jokes.

Immediately after the second presidential debate, a liberal friend of mine said it was a bad night for Mitt. I told him to take off his partisan goggles, and he made a joke about binders. Fair enough, but it’s illustrative of where Obama’s supporters are at the moment, which happens to be somewhere outside the realm of reality.

For a guy who didn’t do so hot last night, the CNN snap-poll and the MSNBC focus groups seem to suggest otherwise.

Obama won the overall debate, 46-39%, but Romney beat him senseless on all the important individual issues like the economy, health care, deficit, and taxes.

Unlike the CBS poll, CNN polled registered voters, not just undecideds.

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%
Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.
Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.
Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.
Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%.

The worst news is that 25% of voters switched their vote to Romney and 25% went to Obama. In other words, Obama didn’t move the ball, which is what he needed to do.

Romney’s goals last night were nothing like Obama’s. Romney simply needed to look presidential. He needed to look a like a reasonable, intelligent man who could be trusted in the Oval Office. The first debate established his credibility with 70 million Americans, and the second was an opportunity to further flesh out his ideas and win over voters. He did that — and then some.

When voters are alone in the voting both they will think first and foremost about the economy. Romney pounded the president on that all night, and he landed some serious blows.

He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan. Didn’t get there.

He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. …

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

These are the issues that concern the American people at this time. They do not care about Big Bird. They do not care about how Mitt Romney phrases an anecdote about his attempt to hire highly qualified women for his cabinet. And as long as President Obama’s supporters want to laugh at trivial matters while the country faces serious issues, they will be setting themselves up for a crier on November 7th.

Johansson, Longoria and Washington: No on Romney, yes on China’s one-child policy

Kerry Washington wants to talk to you about Mitt Romney, except Moveon.org has disabled the ability to leave comments on its Youtube video. Regardless, the cross-wearing Washington wants women to know that they should vote for President Obama so their “right” to kill babies is safeguarded. Too simplistic a stance? Disagree? Unlike Hollywood celebrities, I don’t go out of my way to terminate a good debate.

The great thing about the presidential election season is that without a doubt Hollywood liberals will come out swinging for the Democrat. Just three weeks before voters get to choose between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington have taken part in MoveOn.org’s multi-million dollar campaign to convince you Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to control uteri.

As was the case with “Sesame Street,” the false dichotomy rears its ugly head once again. With PBS, the argument goes that if the government stops funding the very lucrative character known as Big Bird, then he will cease to exist. Now we’re told by The Black Widow and one of the Desperate Housewives that if the government doesn’t fund Planned Parenthood it too would disappear from the face of the earth — aborted, if you will — by the population at large.

Mitt Romney believes life starts at conception. If one believes that, it follows that the individual would want to protect the right to life of the most vulnerable among us (i.e., unborn babies). We can argue whether or not life begins at conception, but I’m reasonably sure that Ms. Johansson would have reservations about a woman who wants to be able to abort her child all the way up until contractions begin. If that’s the case, then she has tacitly agreed that the government has a vested interest in protecting the unborn — it’s really only a matter of deciding at which point in development it has the authority to step in.

Question for our Hollywood trio: Does it bother you that Vice President Joe Biden doesn’t question China’s one-child policy (the one where millions upon millions of females are slaughtered due to a cultural preference for men)?

What we ended up doing is setting up a system whereby we did cut by $1.2 trillion upfront, the deficit over the next 10 years. And we set up a group of senators that have to come up with another $1.2 to $1.7 trillion in savings or automatically there will be cuts that go into effect in January to get those savings. So the savings will be accomplished. But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

Joe Biden indicates to our Communist friends that he doesn’t see life as precious — he sees it as a potential debt problem. Biden “fully understands” a policy that is predicated on the idea that humans are a form of economic punishment … sort of like President Obama.

It is telling that Hollywood celebrities don’t have time to raise public awareness for Pakistani girls like 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai, who was shot by the Taliban for wanting an education, but they do have time to tell voters Mitt Romney would “overturn Roe vs. Wade” (an odd assertion, since that would be something that would have to be done through the Supreme Court — the same body that couldn’t bring itself to declare Obamacare unconstitutional).

No, Ms. Longoria, I am not scared of men like Mitt Romney. My wife is not, either. However, I am very much afraid of liberal men like Bill Maher, who value death more than they value life:

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he’s “consistently pro-death” — and “not one of those people who thinks all life is precious.” Even dogs can create life, he said in an Oct. 7 interview on satellite radio. …

“I am for the death penalty, although I do believe in more DNA testing,” Maher continued. “My motto is, ‘Let’s kill the right people.’ I’m pro-choice. I’m for assisted suicide. I’m for regular suicide. I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving. That’s what I’m for.”

Joe Biden is cool with death, provided it allows the Chinese to pay their bills on time. Bill Maher is cool with death, provided it clears up traffic congestion just long enough for him to make that his 8:30 p.m. dinner reservation.

Barack Obama? Good question. I suggest listening to him discuss the Born Alive Act as a Senator from Illinois. My personal opinion is that a man who calls a baby a “fetus” after it’s been born is one confused individual, even more so than the vapid Hollywood starlets who offer their services for MoveOn.org attack ads.

When Biden channeled Goldwater on Afghanistan … and no one noticed

Joe Biden wanted everyone watching the vice presidential debate to know he was a “tough guy,” so he laughed and he smirked and he scoffed while Paul Ryan talked about a dead American ambassador, abortion and trillions of dollars in debt. And then … he inadvertently channeled Barry Goldwater. (Photo Credit AP)

Everyone is talking about the laughs heard ’round the world. Vice President Biden smirked and scoffed so much that the issue consumed most of the post-debate cable news coverage. However, what wasn’t mentioned was how Mr. Biden inadvertently made a strong case for Barry Goldwater’s conservatism when it comes to the nature of the welfare state.

Regarding the Obama administration’s hard and fast deadline to remove all forces from Afghanistan, Mr. Biden said: “Unless you set a timeline, Baghdad in the case of Iraq and — and Kabul in the case of Afghanistan will not step up. They’re happy to let us continue to do the job —- international security forces to do the job. The only way they step up is say, ‘Fellas, we’re leaving; we’ve trained you; step up.’ Step up. … That’s the only way it works.”

In a strange way, Mr. Biden seeks to apply Barry Goldwater’s conservatism to the people of Afghanistan, while simultaneously shunning it for freedom-loving Americans here at home:

 A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character [by the welfare state]. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.”

In America, cutting off welfare recipients who have turned a safety net into a safety hammock still leaves those people with the greatest opportunity for social mobility the world has ever known. In Afghanistan, cutting off our allies at the wrong time leaves them susceptible to populations prone to chopping off heads and planning terrorist attacks like 9/11. (Take your pick: 2001 in New York or 2012 in Benghazi.)

Mr. Biden believes cutting off the government spigot is “the only way that works” for pro-Western Afghans surrounded by the Taliban and al Qaeda, but not for Obamaphone ladies attending anti-Romney union rallies, or the millionaires behind the success of “Sesame Street.” If Paul Ryan made one error during his debate Thursday night, it was by not calling out Mr. Biden on his perverse application of conservative principles. …

Libya hearing exposes White House shell game

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi but were turned down by officials in Washington (Photo Credit AP).

At Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Chairman Darrell Issa’s questioning made one thing certain: The Obama administration’s initial explanation — that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were directly related to Islamic rage over a YouTube video — becomes more troubling with each passing day.

Before questioning began, Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a Special Forces site security team who was closely involved with operational planning for security in the region, testified to the increasing attacks on Western interests in the months preceding the Benghazi attack. He traveled to Benghazi after a successful attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, and was aware of online threats made against Mr. Stevens. And yet, months later, Stevens would die attempting to exit an escape hatch in a smoke-filled room. His would-be rescuers would then perish in a mortar barrage.

Referencing a July 9 cable from Mr. Stevens provided by State Department whistleblowers, Rep. Issa showed that Mr. Stevens requested additional security support but was denied by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, ostensibly because it wasn’t a formal request. Ms. Lamb maintained Wednesday that the U.S. Consulate had the “correct” amount of security on the day of the attack, even though, as Mr. Issa pointed out, the compound was overrun within minutes.

Read the rest over at Times247.com

Big Government hooks human gerbils on shiny pellets

Barry Goldwater warned us that Welfarism would turn “dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual beings” into animals. We didn’t listen, and now we have a nation filled with human gerbils looking for a government pellet every four years.

I went out to dinner with a Hispanic friend of mine two weeks ago and we were discussing the upcoming election. He’s well on his way to starting his first small business, and has had a conversion-of-sorts since voting for President Obama four years ago. As I dug into my steak, he spoke about the Republican Party’s inability to make significant inroads with certain minority groups. My response: “On some level it doesn’t matter, because if we fast forward 300 years it’s obvious that the future of the United States is not white. At some point in time these groups will be forced to embrace or shun the principles that maximize individual freedom.”

My children will not be white. My sister’s children will not be white. The U.S. demographics as they stand indicate that at some point there will simply be, for all intents and purposes, Americans. We are a nation of mutts, and in time terms like “white” and “black” will generally be rendered silly. And so, intelligent conservatives only care about a few basic questions: What will the Americans of the future believe? What will they stand for? Will Americans hold fast to the principles of our founders, or will they be citizens of a United States in name only?

‘Obama Phone’ lady is the latest example of a human gerbil, who is promised a shiny government pellet every four years in exchange for a trick (i.e., voting for the hand that feeds her). She is the end result of a failed ideology. Liberal blogs have of course tried to slime anyone who shows the video as racist, when the truth is that conservatives do not care about race. In fact, political correctness has reached a point where not caring about someone’s race is considered racist.

I care about a federal government that saps the will of its people. I care about a federal government that robs people of ambition and desire and the belief that they can do great things with their life. I care about the consequences of instilling in individuals a learned dependence that changes them from beings with limitless potential into hollowed-out husks that bump into each other for a few decades until death comes calling.

As Barry Goldwater so eloquently put it in The Conscious of a Conservative:

Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits — which, in the majority of cases, he pays for — he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power — the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. Even more important, however, is the effect on him — the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it. …

[We] can shatter the collectivists’ designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.

Conservatives should work hard to articulate the principles of free markets, limited government, and individual freedom, but they should never comprise those principles by offering ethnic groups “goodies” for a vote. MSNBC hosts who feed on racial swill like to say that Republicans live in an “alternate reality,” when nothing could be further from the truth. Tyranny is colorblind, whether it’s in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China. Only myopic little nitwits with names like Toure or Chris Matthews see serious public policy differences as a battle between “black” and “white”. The issue is Liberty vs. Tyranny, and conservatives are not the ones who are shilling for the tyrants.

My good friend, who has come to reject Obama’s ideology since 2008, is not alone. There are many like him. As election day nears, it’s up to you to find those friends and family members who fall into that category, and make a strong case for conservatism. If you’re pressed for time, I highly suggest reading Goldwater’s The Conscious of a Conservative. It’s a quick read, and essential knowledge for anyone who wants to better articulate their love for freedom and liberty.

Now get out there and change some minds.