The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

...gonna site this quote, or just take credit for it yourself?

I always cite my sources and never take credit for something which was not my own. I have never intentionally plagiarize. My original posting of this article did actually contain a citation but I had to make an edit because the formatting was incorrect and somehow it fell off. My Bad! So in full disclosure....

This was a re-post of a comment made by a user going by the name of Golfendude from a blog post at The Fix. Now...whether it was his/her original thought I do not know.

I apologize for the omission. It was not on purpose.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Although a stronger word description is called for, for American citizens who actually believe that murdering babies is ok. The word "monsters" comes to mind.

If you watched the Iowa caucus tv coverage, most of what you saw, when the liberal media types allowed them to speak on camera, were thoughtful, concerned citizens.

I wonder how much of the following was lost on the average Dem/liberal viewer. Iowa is heavily Christian and heavily evangelical. And Iowa has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Now liberal talking heads will never connect those dots out loud - but are you personally too stupid to connect those dots?

But again, the baby-killer party? Yeah - lots of fools and monsters in that party.

"but are you personally too stupid to connect those dots?"...What am I missing?

Abortion is but one of many policies under this administration which I disagree with. Barack Obama made very clear his stance on abortion during the campaign when he stated:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby..."

I totally connected the dots way before the current POTUS was elected which is why he did not earn my vote.

The post was not critical of all voters. Only those who could not see through the lies, social engineering and dogma the candidate Barack Obama spewed during the campaign. They drank his Kool-Aid and voted him into office without connecting the dots. Now we all must pay the price for the ideologies he usurped upon us. It is these voters who are to blame for electing him.

We cannot blame a President for instilling what he professed during the campaign. Those of us who could see through his transparency knew exactly what to expect and most likely did not vote for him. We can blame those who did vote for him. Hopefully some of his policies can be undone if he is not re-elected. But, it can only happen if those who were blinded by his charisma and rhetoric can be made to once again see the truth for what it really is. Until then expect more of the same.

Ease up Farmgal. I think we are on the same side.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

I just don't like the broad brush of blaming the electorate in general.

I voted for neither McCain nor BO last time. I believed then and believe this election c ycle, that voters were/are increasingly conservative on the whole. But we never get a conservative candidate. It is manipulated to nominate a Republican liberal time after time after time. So the voters are left with no choice, other than to follow the party with which they sympathize the most. But this also causes lots of people to either vote 3rd party or stay home. Bush the first is the last major party candidate I voted for, and wish I could take that vote back.

I keep waiting for the presidential election that will provide a true conservative. That won't come from the Dems (EVER), because the litmus test for that party is that you have to be publicly pro-abortion. So that leaves the Republicans, or a third party. I voted for Pastor Chuck Baldwin last time (Constitution Party, if I recall correctly). I won't vote 3rd party this year - I won't help BO in that way, I consider him to be a disaster in every respect. But I may not be able to force myself to vote for Romney. 75% of the Republican party favaors a conservative candidate. What's so sad and frustrating is that Romney is not this big front runner, most-favored candidate by this party. His so-called lead is only by default due to the way the process works, not because a majority are voting for him. He's a RINO who is benefitting from the real conservative candidates forming a circular firing squad by which they are polishing one another off.

My biggest disappointment being Ron Paul. Who knew that he was so childish and petty? Now that the media has allowed him to be heard - his immaturity is showing big time. For a man his age, it's very unattractive. And his so-called pro life stance is very wishy washy. Publicly helping Romney because he dislikes the conservative candidates in general - shame on him.

Any real choice just isn't going to exist in November - UNLESS South Carolinians give Santorum a win. I have learned to kind of like Gingrich, but he has waaaay too much baggage. In real life, we live with the consequences of our mistakes. Same in politics & Newt is just going to have to accept that. If Newt were to support Santorum after SC, he could do the party and the country a lot of good. Don't know that he can bring himself to do that. He actually thought he was going to win Iowa until the shysters brought out the big guns, and he just can't seem to catch up to reality and deal with the fact that he is not going to be President.

All of which is to say, I do not believe it is ignorance on the part of the vast majority of voters that is yet again bringing us a probable liberal vs liberal presidential contest. The bad choices are manipulated into being by behind-the-scenes processes and people the general public doesn't even know much about. Romney, by the way, did not win Iowa by even 8 votes. One precinct worker has the count in his caucus written down and posted on the inernet. That caucus/precinct officially reported 22 votes for Romney. The caucus voter says Romney got exactkt 2 votes in that precinct. Honest voters cannot be blamed for dishonest Chicago-style counts.


'75% of the Republican party favaors a conservative candidate'

Where and how do you come up with that percentage?

Probably from the current polls which show Romney's support nationally at about 25% (give or take) and subtracting that from 100 =75% who favor other candidates.

Of course this isn't scientific at all and the claim is refuted by a Gallup poll released today of self identified conservatives.

From the poll: 59% of self identified conservatives find Mitt Romney acceptable as a candidate, higher than all the other candidates and highest amongst self identified moderates and liberals. This is why the Romney-electability theme is such a big deal.

Now I'm not saying this means he wins the nomination. There's been plenty of front runners who have lost at this stage of the campaign.


ahead in at least one poll I saw in South Carolina. If he wins there, there's no stopping him. He'll get the nomination, and name a more conservative--perhaps much more-- runningmate in an attempt to placate Tea Party types. Betcha a beer.

Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18%

It will be interesting to see how much that shifts after tonight. South Carolina's primary is on a Saturday so there are a few extra days to campaign, but I'm not talking myself into things changing all that much. I agree with you McCaskey, if Romney takes SC, he will pretty much have the nomination sewn up. As for his VP, I agree that it will probably be someone who is more conservative, but not necessarily to placate the Tea Party. At this point though, outside of Rubio (who has continually said he has no interest), speculation to who could be on the short list has been all over the map.

Anyone know where a guy can get a good pair of nose plugs?

I tend to agree. If he wins SC I'd put his chances of the nomination at 90%.

Interestingly it will not be from him gaining momentum as much as it is for a lack of candidates dropping out. Perry should have dropped out in Iowa, last night should have killed Santorum's campaign, a poor showing in SC should end Huntsman and Paul.

None of them seem willing to drop out. Gingrich and Paul especially seem pressed to stay in until all the delegates are to be counted.

Unless candidates start dropping out Romney will win enough delegates with an average state win of 30%. His organization alone is enough to push him to the nomination in these circumstances.


Off topic but how big a problem is DU involving Gulf War vets..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Ronald Reagan served eight years as president as millions of the unborn were aborted. He did as any president, Democrat or Republican, should do, adhering to a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Patience is a great virtue.'s definitely a legalized genocide. To the tune of more than one million lives/year in the US

I've always said that Obama bet on the fact that U.S. voters were stupid enough to vote him in--and they didn't disappoint him. I remember the janitor at my company wearing his Obama t-shirt during the 2008 election and talking about how proud he was that a fellow African-American was running for president. I couldn't help but to think that an ivy league-educated man like Obama wouldn't give this janitor the time of day if he didn't need his vote. But much like Toledo, when the country reaches a point where 50 percent of the population gets some sort of government check, we know they will blindly vote soley for Democrats--the party that promises to give them "more."

U want a hopey changey tee shirt for yourself? go to the local good will. I got one there myself at christmas time. it made a hilarious white elephant gift...

DTOM, I want to address your off topic comment. DU? My only guess on these would be Ducks Unlimited (cuz I like to hunt) or Depleted Uranium?

From the context of your sentence I am guessing Depleted Uranium. From what I've heard it's been suspected as the culprit behind Gulf War Syndrome but this has not been proven. Additionally, depleted uranium munitions have been used and are still used in other venues without seeing a rise in health problems.

The problem is many will read one study and assume the theories it supposes are facts. (example: that immunizations cause autism). The truth is many times these claims are made by groups seeking more grant money as was the case with this story that hit when I was in Afghanistan

Now with that last case I had the privilege of serving and getting to know a reserve Naval Doctor, who in his civilian work is a noted expert in the study of birth defects, who I worked closely with for Safety and Preventative Medicine. Now the gentlemen in the article caused a huge stir with his preliminary report, yet the Doc I was with tested his own samples from a 100 mile radius of where we were and despite the even worse conditions the dust was determined to be safet than the dust found in Western Idaho, the Utah Desert, and Texas (not compared to Urban centers which have worse air quality).

So you have to take anything not substantiated with a grain of salt.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.