Friday, August 31, 2012

Obama Should Be Very Concerned (InfoGraph)

Quick note: Some of you may be wondering why I haven't posted any analysis of the Republican 
Convention. This will be coming early next week as I have decided to wait and give that analysis as a whole, rather than as a day by day breakdown. Tune in next week for a more timely post! For now, though, courage...

As many of you know, I spend a good deal of my time reading political articles and blogs.On my daily read list is the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls. I noticed something very interesting in yesterday's polls. Take a look:

Image a Screen Shot of RCP average on 8/30/12 Note Abt Poll Sample Added by Blogger

Did you notice it? No, not the super-obvious thing I added about polling samples. Something else. Still no? Well, lets add a bit of emphasis to help you:

Image a Screen Shot of RCP average on 8/30/12 Note Abt Poll Sample and highlight of Obama Numbers
Added by Blogger
Do you get it now? No???

OBAMA STILL ISN'T ABOVE 50%, even in the four polls that use samples ridiculously stacked in Obama's favor using a fantasy Democratic skew, President Obama cannot get above 50% in any poll.

Friends, I'm usually not one for conventional wisdom but I do know that incumbents who cannot get above 50% in ANY POLL (at least without a ridiculous sample skew) are in deep trouble. If I was the Obama campaign, I'd be very worried. Especially since, now that Mitt Romney is OFFICIALLY nominated, he can start spending money. And he has plenty of it. Game so very on.

Note to my regular readers: If you are not already a fan of Biblical Conservatism on Facebook, you might want to Click Here and like us. In addition to posting each day's blog, I'll now be posting a selection of the many news articles I review daily for you to peruse on your own! It's my version of Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff!"

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Obama IS NOT a "Nice Guy"

The Republican establishment wants you to hear them saying "Obama is a nice guy...he's just incompetent!" There's only one problem: There is no evidence that Obama is this sweet guy with no clue.

Jimmy Carter is a nice guy who was an incompetent President. President Carter is a man who I personally admire but politically could have never supported if I had been around to make that choice. I wasn't, of course, even born yet, but you get the point.

Nice Guys don't claim that their opponent is somehow responsible for the death of a man's wife due to cancer because the company he owned (and was not running at the time, mind you) laid off this man years before his wife contracted cancer. (Ignore the fact that she had her own insurance for about 18 months after the fact.)

Nice Guys don't claim that their opponent "wants to push Granny off a cliff" with a Medicare reform package THAT DOESN'T EVEN EFFECT CURRENT SENIORS!

Nice Guys don't say that the Republican plan is for "'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance."

The fact of the matter is President Obama is most definitely not a nice guy. He is in fact a bully. He is a man who will lie about his opponents to win. He is a man who will demagogue his opponents to win. He is a man who refuses to accept that anything is his fault but always, in his narcissism, blames someone else, no matter what the truth of the matter otherwise shows.

Obama is most definitely incompetent, as his record shows, but to say he's "nice" is to prove that one is not paying attention. Period.

Note to my regular readers: If you are not already a fan of Biblical Conservatism on Facebook, you might want to Click Here and like us. In addition to posting each day's blog, I'll now be posting a selection of the many news articles I review daily for you to peruse on your own! It's my version of Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff!"

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Obama is Losing in a COOKED WaPo-ABC Poll!

You read that right, my friends! Even with a fantasy electorate, Obama is still losing in a new poll.

According to a Washington Post-ABC Poll released on Monday, Governor Mitt Romney is leading President Obama by 1%. The poll found Governor Romney receiving 47% of the vote with the Likely Voters they polled and President Obama receiving 46%. While this is reason enough to be cheerful, then one should look at the polling sample. Are you ready?

Democrat: 31%  Republican: 22%  Independent: 39% 
Now let's remind you of reality, shall we? According to Gallup's most recent poll of party affiliation 
(not registration), 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrats (so the Democrat sample is fine) but 29% consider themselves
Republicans and 38% identified as Independents (so the Independent sample is just fine).

So why THIS poll is claiming is that 9% of Americans identify with a third party?  Why are Republicans
undersampled? Even with a ridiculous undersampling of Republicans, once again, Obama is losing!

While we're at it, let's talk about the breakdowns of ideology (as opposed to party). According to THIS poll their 
ideological sample was:

Moderate: 41%   Conservative: 34%   Liberal: 21%  

So let's once again look at the Gallup poll of personal ideology (since once again Gallup is the only game in town
to poll this topic).

Conservative: 40%   Moderate: 35%   Liberal: 21%

So this poll undersampled conservatives by 6% and similarly oversampled moderates by 6%! So now the Drive-
By Media, instead of oversampling Democrats, is now undersampling Republicans and conservatives! You want 
to know how ridiculous the Washington Post-ABC numbers are? The lowest conservative rating in recent memory
was 1992. The last time self-described moderates hit 40% was 1996. (Source: Gallup)

Either way it's just a new little trick from the Drive-By Media. Instead of living in an imaginary world where there are 
way more Democrats than Republicans, now they're imagining that Republicans and conservatives either don't
exist or won't vote (which is even sillier, since Republicans and conservatives are the most reliable voters groups!)

Friends, this is yet another telegraph of how worried the Drive-By Media is and how worried the Democrat Party
is...and that those of us who are pointing out that there won't be an 11% Democrat turnout advantage, or an 8%
Democrat turnout advantage, or a 5% Democrat turnout advantage...or likely a Democrat turnout advantage AT
ALL in 2012. So now, they're trying a new tactic. They'll undersample Republicans. They'll pretend the electorate 
is in terms of ideology looks like it did TWENTY YEARS AGO. 

The bottom line is this: The Democrat party is in deep, deep dog doo in 2012, both in terms of the White House
and in terms of Congress. The Drive-By Media's poll cooking proves it. This is our year, friends. I'll once again 
quote the same video I used yesterday:

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Another Cooked Poll: 3 Swing State Poll with Stacked Sample

Well friends, it's becoming almost comical how frequently the Drive-By Media keeps giving us cooked polls. This one's about a week old, but with so much going on, I haven't had time to delve into it. But today campers, we're going to be doing just that.

The perpetrator this time is a CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac Poll of three critical swing states: Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. One problem that presents right at the start is that it's essentially three polls in one and it only has about 1200 "likely voters" in the poll. If you figure that it's only 400-500 individuals per state, that makes the margin of error ridiculous. The poll claims the following:

                           Obama                            Romney                                    Result

Florida                  49%                                46%                                     Obama +3%

Ohio                     50%                                44%                                     Obama +6%

Wisconsin             49%                                 47%                                     Obama +2%

So all three are pretty close. However, all three polls have oversampled Democrats significantly, especially for a poll of Likely Voters, not Registered Voters. As we've discussed time and time again, Republican voters are more reliable to the tune of about a 2-4% swing in the GOP's favor whenever the poll goes from Registered to Likely voters.

We're going to be a little imprecise due to lack of data on what the samples OUGHT to be, because the best I can find in those three states are statistics of their party registration. We'll then use a conservative estimate from that registration sample of +2% to the Republicans to account for likely voters.

                   Democrat             Republican           Advantage             Adjusted Advantage with Likely Voters

Florida           41%                     36%                   D +5%                                   D +3%

Ohio               36%                    37%                   R +1%                                    R +3%

Wisconsin       38%                     34%                  D +4%                                    D +2%

So friends that's our baseline. Florida with a Democrat +3% Advantage, Ohio with a Republican +3% advantage and Wisconsin with a +2% advantage. We can expect likely a bigger swing in favor of the GOP considering, at least nationally, given that when Independent leaners are added into party registration you end up with an even split.

So let's look at what the Poll used as THEIR party sample:

                   Democrat             Republican           Advantage              OVERSAMPLE vs. Baseline                                                                                                                      (Without Baseline Adjustment)

Florida           34%                     28%                   D + 6%                            D +3%   (D +1%)

Ohio               34%                    26%                   R +1%                              D +11% (D +9%)

Wisconsin       32%                    28%                   D +4%                              D +4%  (D +2%)

The most ridiculous is Ohio, that oversampled Democrats by 11% against our Likely Voter baseline! Even if we don't use our baselines, there's still a 9% oversample of Democrats! That's just plain ridiculous! The rest of the oversamples happen to be JUST ENOUGH to turn the polls in Obama's favor.

So let's go right ahead and adjust that poll, considering that if we added the proper number of Republicans back into the poll, and presuming (and this is a conservative estimate) that 3/4 of Republicans will vote for Governor Romney, shall we:

                          Obama                           Romney                                  Result (vs. Cooked Poll Result)

Florida                  47%                               48%                                     Romney +1% (Obama +3%)

Ohio                     43%                                51%                                    Romney +8% (Obama +6%)

Wisconsin             46%                                50%                                    Romney +4% (Obama +2%)

Now isn't THAT interesting? When you remove the party biases and oversampling of Democrats, now all of a sudden, shock of shocks, Instead of winning these three crucial swing states, now Obama is LOSING these three states! Amazing!

Friends, this exercise we've just performed is by no means intended to be scientific. However, I believe it does do a fair job showing the difference in the Drive-By Media's outcomes with completely cooked samples vs. honest samples based on voter registration and voter probability.

Rest assured on this final note, my friends: The Drive-By Media wants you to think Obama is winning. As we have continued to show you in poll after poll, the facts simply do not show it to be true when looking at a real electorate and not a fantasy electorate that come from the mind of a liberal news manager's imagination.

I leave you with this final thought, from the classic baseball movie "A League of Their Own":

Monday, August 27, 2012

Registered Voter Polls – The Drive-By Media’s Other Favorite Trick

Friends, the election is less than 3 months away. Traditionally, by this time, who is "likely" to vote is fairly well established. Yet the Drive-By Media has managed to generally eschew polls of Likely Voters in favor of continuing to poll all Registered Voters. The problem with that is simple: A significant amount of those registered to vote do not actually show up on Election Day. Furthermore, and this is important, multiple studies show that polling Registered Voters instead of Likely Voters tilts the poll 2-4% in favor of Democrats, since Republican voters are historically more reliable voters. 

The standard argument is that six months to a year before elections, who is a Likely Voter is tough to determine, so they continue to use Registered Voters. But now that we're so close, and the polls are so close (usually within the margin for error) it becomes increasingly important to focus on the Likely Voter. Yet Drive-By Media sources keep publishing those Registered Voter polls. 

Even using those less reliable polls, they are only showing President Obama ahead of Governor Romney by a point or two. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means that when we poll those who are actually going to show up to vote, we're looking at Governor Romney tied or winning by about two points. And don't forget, as we've continually established, the same Drive-By Media sources are using fantasy party samples that give Democrats an advantage of anywhere from 6-8% of the sample in the less egregious cases and as much as a +11% advantage in some of the more ridiculous samples. 

Now no political scientist worth their salt is going to honestly predict that the Democrats are looking at a +8% turnout advantage like they did in 2008. Actually, if one is being honest based upon voter engagement, they would predict that the Republicans will see the turnout advantage. So to oversample Democrats is just plain sophistry. 

One might wonder why the Left would be so dishonest in their polling samples. It's a very reasonable question. The answer is actually quite simple. They want to SHAPE public opinion with their polls, rather than reflect it. Especially, as we've discussed, in light of the phenomenon of the Real Clear Politics (RCP) poll average. There are a few reliable polls out there that AREN'T using bad samples and Registered Voters. Rasmussen, for example, was incredibly reliable in 2008, and always polls Likely Voters. Furthermore, Rasmussen does a daily poll of over 1500 people and publishes a 3-day rolling average. Gallup does the same type of daily poll with a rolling average. They do use Registered Voters, but they also use a sample that is triple the 1000 or so voters that most polls do (Gallup uses 3000) so the size of that sample makes the margin for error significantly smaller. (Liberal polls like to use even smaller samples on a regular basis, which increases the likelihood of unreliability). 

These two polls especially along with smaller reliable polls in individual states like Purple Strategies manage to undo a lot of the false reporting of the Drive-By Media polls and bring down the President's less than accurate leads to almost nil. Many many voters use the RCP average as do many news organizations. When Liberal polling agencies skew their own polls they skew the average. It makes it look like the President is doing better than he is really doing.

So what does this do to the electorate? I mean, after all, it's not going to disenfranchise conservatives from voting for Governor Romney, right? That part is correct. But what it will do is reduce their likelihood of CONTRIBUTING to the Romney/Ryan campaign, both financially and with their time. That will make a difference in an election, friends. It's not just the vote, it's the investment of money and time to get OTHERS to vote for your candidate.

So friends, when you see these polls of Registered Voters, I recommend you throw them out the window. It's just the Drive-By Media doing their best to convince you the fight is going badly for our side. And here's the news you need to know: Quite the opposite is happening. Momentum is on our side, and we are on the verge of taking back the White House!

Friday, August 24, 2012

Romney Takes the Lead: Quick, COOK TWO POLLS!

I touched on this on Wednesday: After ten full days of liberal polling organizations not publishing polls (all the while with Gallup and Rasmussen showing Governor Romney taking a lead over President Obama), my suspicions were confirmed by two major Leftist polling organizations coming out with two skewed polls (both with identical skews, by the way, although different results).

The first culprit:  An NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll claims that Obama is leading Romney 48% to 44%.

The second culprit:  The AP Poll has Obama leading Romney by the far more believable 47% to 46%.

HOWEVER, a quick check of the polling samples in both shows that both polls oversampled Democrats by 6%. And if you're wondering, these are "party identification" not "party registration" so, based on what we demonstrated empirically earlier this week, it should be an EVEN SAMPLE of Democrats and Republicans.

Translation: If these two polls were using honest samples, it can be presumed that Romney would be beating Obama by at least a couple points in both polls.

This, friends, demonstrates precisely what I spoke of in my post on Wednesday. The Left is seeing bad news for President Obama, and they need to reverse the Romney momentum. So they put out two polls that give President Obama a 6% electoral advantage. To assume that the voter turnout this election will be anything CLOSE to the 2008 turnout of +8% for Democrats is pure sophistry. 

Considering that the Republican interest in the election is far higher than Democrats and while Democrats are losing interest. I will give you an example. So the idea that there will be a huge advantage in 2012 by Democrats is foolishness.

Time to consider a REAL electorate, not a fantasy one. And with the real electorate, Obama's in deep dog doo.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Poorly Stated: What (I *Think*) Todd Akin Really Believes and Why

It was a terribly bad quote by Missouri State Representative Todd Akin, referring to the instances of pregnancy from forcible rape (as opposed to statuatory rape, by the way) and how the woman's body "shuts down" in the case of rape.

For the record, this is biologically unsound...of course pregnancy can result under the right circumstances (the rapist emits his...errr...genetic material...inside the woman and the woman is ovulating at the time). The idea that anything but this would be true makes no sense.

However, I would like to state for the record what I believe is the root of this argument from with Mr. Akin. (Yes I believe he does genuinely think that "a woman's body shuts down" as incredulous as it sounds.) I believe Mr. Akin is the type of person who only talks to people who share his beliefs. (Before you liberals get started, there are PLENTY of liberals who do this, which is why so many believe such ridiculous statements as "Republicans are declaring war on women!" (by defending the right of unborn children to live).
I believe the idea that a woman's body "shuts down" came from one such circle, this time of well meaning conservatives who are staunchly opposed to abortion, so much so that they believe even in cases of rape, abortion is wrong.

For the record, I agree with the following concept: The unborn baby has DONE NOTHING WRONG. It is still a human being and has the right to life. To do otherwise is to punish the child for the sins of the unfortunate father. It is simply saying, in short "We believe that any unborn child who has been conceived, under whatever circumstances, is a human being. Human beings have, above all other rights, the Right to Life. Ergo, it is not acceptable to destroy a human life, despite the circumstances of how it was created."

When you look at it by THAT measure, all of a sudden the "horrible, terrible" position of not wanting a rape exception to abortion isn't so horrible and terrible, now is it? It's just a lesser of two evils position that holds as it's highest ideal protection of human life.  (Now I am even okay with having some sort of public service to help a woman who is impregnated under such circumstances with the costs involved, along with preferential adoption for the child.)

For those of you who don't think I get what this means to a woman, it turns out I do. I'm going to be a little bit graphic here, so if you're easily offended you may want to stop reading and come back tomorrow.

I know a woman who, it is speculated, may have been conceived from her believed grandfather having incestually raped her mother as a teenager. This woman (the child, not the mother) is one of the most wonderful, loving women on God's green Earth. She is, in fact, my own personal Rock of Gibralter and a wonderful mentor to me and many many other people. She is my grandmother. The incestually raped teenager was my great-grandmother, and the man in question was my great-great grandfather.

All of this is speculation, of course, especially because my great-grandmother (the teenager from the story above) passed away when I was a baby. This theory is the product of my mother, a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's Degree in Social Work from Syracuse University. Mom has spent more than thirty years in family social work, including fifteen years of working with children in foster care. So she has a solid basis of expertise for her theory.

The bottom line of this true illustration is this: Irregardless of how my grandmother was conceived (whether our theory was correct or if we're entirely wrong and my great-grandmother was simply impregnated out of wedlock by some high school boyfriend), my unborn grandmother was and is a human being. She had the right to live.

Today, my grandmother is less than a month shy of her 80th birthday. She married a wonderful man, my grandfather, and had three children (including my mother). She also has today eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren (so far). Three of those grandchildren and one great grandchild are through marriage, but even so, a total of NINE living, breathing people between the ages of 8 years old and 56 years old would not exist (including me) if it was for a "rape exception" to abortion laws, had my great grandmother made that "choice." Even setting aside the NINE PEOPLE who have, to-date, sprung from Gram's branch of the family tree, had that "choice" been made, one of the single most wonderful people I have ever known would not have been born.

Thankfully, back in 1932 when Gram was born, abortion WASN'T legal in Maryland, where she was born (or any other state, I think). Thank God Gram WAS born, married my grandfather, lovingly conceived and raised my mother along with my aunt and uncle; all three each got married and in agregate conceived five children, including me, and one of those grandchildren, my cousin, now has an eight year old son of his own. 

Now, what I have just done is given a GOOD explanation for the conservative position that says abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. I want this to be contrasted with what Todd Akin said. Both my story and Representative Akin's had the same goal: to protect unborn children, irregardless of if they were conceived under highly unfortunate circumstances. My story explains the realities of the the abortion discussion; specifically that it's not JUST about the woman (although please don't understand me, the rape victim deserves to be considered)'s also about the child!

Representative Akin's story, on the other hand, comes with both a bad, unsubstantiated argument AND a poor explanation of the real crux of the matter. And THAT is the problem with what Mr. Akin said. His position is more than defensible, it is admirable. He wants to protect human life. There's nothing wrong with that. Lots of conservatives think that way. However, it's time conservatives learn how to articulate our perfectly reasonable point. It's either that or continue allow liberals to present complete straw man arguments. It's our choice.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Why Aren't Liberal Polls Publishing?

Like so many other political junkies, I like to check polls in Election Season on a daily basis. Specifically, I check the Real Clear Politics Average, since it shows multiple polls in one easy location.  And I noticed something: Since Paul Ryan was picked as Mitt Romney's running mate, the only new polls published* are the reliable Gallup and Rasmussen, who each publish a daily tracking poll.

Other than those two who are as reliable as the tides in their daily polls, do you know how many other polls have been posted? ONE. And that was published yesterday.  As of the writing of this post (on Tuesday, August 21st, for the record) it has been ten days since the Ryan pick and only one poll aside from Rasmussen and Gallup has been published. Just over two months shy of election day. Intriguing, no?

What Gallup and Rasmussen show, as of the writing of this blog is Romney beating Obama 45% to 44% (Rasmussen) and Romney beating Obama 47% to 45% (Gallup)...certainly a happy trend for those who share my ideology. 

The only other poll, noted is a Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun poll that shows Obama beating Romney 46% to 45%. All three are within the margin for error. The sample on Monmoth is indeed slightly skewed to Democrats, as well, friends, giving them a 6% advantage. As we showed here on Monday, even if this is based on party registration not party leanings, the Democrats have only a 4% advantage. Which is intriguing because if we, for the sake of argument, assume that subtracting 2% Democrats and adding 2% Republicans to be at the party registration line alone, you could reasonably expect that Governor Romney would gain AT LEAST 1-2% in the poll, putting him again above Obama in THAT poll.

So why would the liberal pollsters not be polling? You can rest assured they're conducting polls, friends. There's no way you can believe that this close to an election they aren't conducting polls. So my guess is their polls are bad news to Obama. It may also have to do with the Real Clear Politics average that is published daily.

Now, for the record, Real Clear Politics is not to blame for what I am about to note. Their average is based on the last half dozen or so polls. (Perhaps it would be better to go with the last 7 days worth of polls, no matter how many there are, but I will give RCP the benefit of the doubt and guess that they feel three polls isn't enough to give a fair average.)  So the current average, instead of including polls from the last ten days, includes polls from the last seventeen days.

Included in that average are polls that have polling samples skewed beyond the believable 4% Democrat advantage...and remember, that's only if you go based on party registration, not party identification, since party identification is statistically tied between Democrats and Republicans. They also do not include the gains made by the Paul Ryan pick as running mate.

So why would this be happening? Answer: Real Clear Politics is continuing to use these outdated polls in their averages, making it look like the President is still leading Governor Romney. They can continue to report a slim lead for the President "In the RCP Average" while not noting that the polls are sadly outdated. They can continue to pretend the President is winning, when he is, in fact, not. The more then can dishearten conservatives, the better the chance Obama has to win. Disheartened conservatives won't financially support Governor Romney, after all.

* Post Script: As I mentioned I wrote this article on Tuesday, August 21st. As if the Internet was trolling me, both NBC and the Associated Press published polls today (August 22nd).

- The NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll claims that Obama is leading Romney 48% to 44%.

- The AP Poll has Obama leading Romney by the far more believable 47% to 46%.

HOWEVER, a quick check of the polling samples in both shows that both polls oversampled Democrats by 6%. And if you're wondering, these are "party identification" not "party registration" so, based on what we demonstrated empirically earlier this week, it should be an EVEN SAMPLE of Democrats and Republicans.

Translation: If these two polls were using honest samples, it can be presumed that Romney would be beating Obama by at least a couple points in both polls. More on these two polls tomorrow.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Biblical Conservatism Officially Endorses Romney/Ryan Ticket

It's been a long time coming, friends. I spent a good deal of time in the primary season promoting different candidates. I had endorsed Newt Gingrich as my first choice to run against Barack Obama. Once Governor Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee, I found myself willing to back him because honestly, we need to stop the Obama agenda.

Then something happened. It was Saturday, August 11th, about 9:30 am. I strolled into my favorite barber shop for a haircut. The news was on. The headline read simply "Romney Announces Paul Ryan as Running Mate." I won't lie, friends, I did a fist pump in the air. "Game on!" I thought to myself. Governor Romney did it! He picked a running mate that told me what he really intended to do as President: Govern as a conservative.

It meant he wasn't going to run a pastel campaign. It meant he was on board with real reform. It meant he wasn't going to be a wimpy moderate like some other recent Republican nominees (looking right at you, John McCain.)

So now we've got a candidate with legitimate business experience whose successes don't require the moving of the goalposts to be considered actually successful. (Not "It would've been much worse if we didn't act" baloney, real results.) We're talking about a man who actually created jobs. A man who actually made payrolls. A man who made real world decisions in the private sector, rather than working in liberal Academia and being a professional protestor. Moreover, I took a look, and it turns out Mitt has, as he claimed, genuinely lived his life as a conservative. Which means more to me than fancy speeches!

We've also got a Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan, who wants to actually DO something about our problems with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security...not just band-aid it for a few more  years but actually make it sustainable. We've got a serious man who wants to actually make our entitlement programs sustainable.

Together, friends, we've got America's comeback team. We've got two men who have real plans and real ideas to bring America back to prosperity. I'm proud to officially endorse the Romney-Ryan Ticket in 2012. When you've gone in one direction for four years and things haven't improved, isn't it time for a change?

Or let me word it as a great American once put it: Are you better off than you were four years ago? If the answer is no, then vote Romney/Ryan on November 6th.

Biblical Conservatism is responsible for the content of this message.
It was not paid advertising and is not open to equal time requirements.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Numbers to Back Poll Cooking Accusations

It's a common topic here at Biblical Conservatism: Showing where Drive-By Media organizations have used polling samples that are skewed to favor Democrats in an effort not to name public opinion but to shape it, specifically by making discouraging conservative and Republican voters.

For as long as I've made this posts, I've been told I was wrong, that Democrats outnumber Republicans in voter registration, and that therefore these polls do in fact reflect the electorate. Well, it turns out there is data to point out how ridiculous the claim of Democrat superiority is in reality.

It is true that, in terms of party REGISTRATION, the Democrats maintain a slight lead of 4%. According to Gallup's poll, 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrat while 27% consider themselves Republican. A whopping 40% consider themselves independents.  HOWEVER, when you add in Independent leaners, it becomes a dead tie: 45% Democrat, 45% Republican.

In addition, this takes into account the fact that a) many states have open primaries so party registration does not matter at all or allow Independents to vote in their choice of primary each time and b) states like Kentucky (19% Democrat registration advantage) Arkansas (10% Democrat registration advantage) and Louisiana (26% Democrat registration advantage) are not only Red States but they are DARK Red States. Each of the three have not gone Democrat in sixteen years (the last time these were blue states was 1996).

You may find yourself asking yourself "Self, I wonder if there is corroborating evidence for this poll?" Well, it turns out there is indeed corroborating evidence!

According to Rasmussen Reports most recent poll asking individuals not "with what party are you registered?" but rather "with what party do you most closely identify?" the party indentification breakdown is basically tied. So once again, precisely as I have told you, it is ridiculous to claim that "Democrats have an inherent advantage." It's simply not true. Their 4% advantage in party registration is made up by the fact that more Independents lean Republican than Democrat (which explains how adding Independent leaners evens out the party lines). The most plausible explanation to this phenomenon is states where registered Independents can vote in primaries (at which point, as I said above, I would consider it a good decision to register as an Independent).

So friends, the next time you see a poll that gives a polling sample that is not even split of Republicans and Democrats, or perhaps +4 in Democrats if you're being generous, you might want to throw away that poll's results. You can rest assured your intelligence is going to be insulted by the outcome of the poll.


 Primary Source:

Friday, August 17, 2012

Predicting the Liberal Hypocrisy on Paul Ryan

All this week we've been talking about Governor Mitt Romney's great pick of Congressman Paul Ryan. The first move from the Left and the Drive-By Media has been to rehash the same silly lies about the Ryan Budget (which we discussed yesterday).

But we also know that the Left loves to by hypocritical (especially when they know the Drive-By Media won't call them out on it). Who can forget "Sarah Palin doesn't have enough experience to be Vice President!" Even though Barack Obama had similar amounts of political experience and far less private sector experience. (Apparently it takes less experience to be President than Vice President.)

So I'm going to go out on a limb here (a very very sturdy limb, only a foot from the ground) and predict some of the great hypocritical claims the Left is going to make about Congressman Ryan:

- Ryan has little to no Public Sector experience! Neither did President Obama. I guess it didn't matter then because...ummm....

- Ryan doesn't have enough experience to be President! Paul Ryan is currently serving his seventh term in the House of Representatives (this is his 13th year in office). Barack Obama, by the way, had only 11 years of political experience, only 4 of which were on the national leve.

- Ryan doesn't have any executive experience! You know how many years Barack Obama has of executive experience? Three and a half. You know, since he was ELECTED PRESIDENT.'

- Ryan is a "Radical Extremist!" One, no he isn't. Conservatism is the most prevalent ideology in America. Two, Obama is what, exactly if not radical?

- Ryan's Plan will "fundamentally transform Medicare!" Yes, it does. So will Obama's LACK of a plan, because Medicare will be bankrupt in two decades. Even if you believe the Obama claim that Obamacare pushed back the fall date a few years, IT'S STILL HEADED FOR BANKRUPTCY!

- Ryan's budgets are extreme! As opposed to Obama's budgets, which have yet to get a SINGLE VOTE in the Senate. And the Democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama took office.

- Ryan is a divisive running mate! Have you SEEN who Obama's running mate is, friends?'

It's not hard to predict the hypocrisy we'll see from the Left. Some of these predictions have already come true (a problem that comes with a three day lag between writing and posting). But when your liberal friends break out these bumper sticker slogans, remember what we've learned in class today.

Some of this hypocrisy has started. Some is yet to come. Either way, it will be as hypocritical as the day is long. Par for the course for liberals.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Let the Liberal Lies About Ryan Plan Continue!

Why not? It doesn't matter how many times it's disproven! Liberals in general and the Obama campaign in specific are absolutely committed to repeating the lie that Paul Ryan's Budget cuts traditional Medicare and takes it from senior citizens, etc.

The truth, of course, which you can say until you're blue in the face and not be heard, is that a) The Ryan Plan doesn't affect anyone currently in the Medicare System or anyone who will enter it in the near future and b) IT DOESN'T END MEDICARE OR EVEN CUT IT!

Here's a big bowl of Truth which the Drive-By Media is completely loathe to repeat: The Ryan Plan won't affect anyone who is currently in the system or anyone who joins the system for the next ten years. Then, in ten years, the plan will open up the OPTION of going to a private Medicare program through a premium support payment program, wherein a senior may CHOOSE whether or not he or she wants to stay in the current public program of Medicare (which is fully covered by the premium support payments) or they may choose to look at other private programs and take their Medicare money to those private programs.

Let me give those of you from Palm Beach County, FL a quick and simple explanation of how this would work.  Let's make pretend that the cost of public Medicare is $1000 per month (I picked this number out of the air because it's nice and round.) Mrs Senor Sit-Essen (say it out loud so you can see how clever I am) now has the following options:

Option A) Opt for the traditional public Medicare program

Option B) Opt for a private Medicare Insurance Plan like Blue Cross's (fictional made up) Medicare Insurance Plan Alpha, which that costs $1000 per month. Mrs. Sit-Essen still will pay $0 out of pocket, just like if she chose public Medicare.

Option C) Opt for private Medicare Insurance Plan Beta (I made that up too) which is run by (oh lets say) Blue Cross. Blue Cross' Insurance Plan Beta which costs $1005 per month and comes with a free toothbrush, package of floss, three rolls of basic toilet paper and spanking new plastic kazoo each month as an added benefits (none of which comes with Blue Cross' Insurance Plan Alpha, hence the extra $5 per month).

Now, if Mrs. Sit-Essen picks Options A or B, NOTHING CHANGES! She doesn't have to write a check or collect cans or cliff dive in a wheel chair or anything! She has simply chosen her plan and her allotted Medicare money goes to either A) the traditional government Medicare plan or B) Blue Cross for Plan Alpha.

If Mrs. Sit-Essen picks Option C, she will be billed by Blue Cross for the balance. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that DOES NOT MEAN she now has to pay $1005 per month!  Rather, she will be billed for the very reasonable amount of $5 each month (not a bad deal for a new toothbrush, a pack of floss, 3 rolls of basic toilet paper and a spanking new plastic kazoo - actual retail value $6).

This is the truth that the Drive-By Media continues to ignore, including the facts that A) Traditional Medicare continues to be a perfectly available option and B) Medicare WILL BE BANKRUPT in a matter of a few years if we don't act. But it does take willful ignorance to maintain liberal mentalities on the Budget.

So let the liberal lies about the Ryan Plan continue!

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Left Would've Attacked Any Republican VP This Way

I can hear it now, primarily from wimpy moderate Republicans, bemoaning how Governor Mitt Romney picked a "lightening rod" like Paul Ryan for his running mate. I'm hear to give you a newsflash, friends: The Left would've attacked ANY Republican this way! It's what they do.

Don't believe me? Remember how the Drive-By Media treated John McCain BEFORE he was the Republican nominee? He was their favorite Republican, on account of what a wimp he was on many important issues. They loved the McCain-Feingold Law and it's restriction of Freedom of Speech.  Then he became the Republican nominee, specifically running against the Drive-By Media darling and liberal "Messiah" Barack Obama. They ramped up the same laundry list of attacks they always pull out. 

The reality is the Left has no new ideas. It's always some form of "The Republicans are mean spirited! The Republicans want old people to die! The Republicans want to take away your XYZ!"

The only advantage the selection of Paul Ryan gave the Left was about a ten minute head start. That's it. Fact of the matter is Governor Romney could've picked Santa Claus and liberals would similarly bemoan the choice. I can hear it now:

"The Romney/Claus ticket is biased against non-Christians!"  (Because, remember, atheist liberals are laboring under the ridiculous impression that Santa has anything to do with Christianity for some reason. Don't look for logic. They're liberals.) 

Bottom line: Mitt made a good choice. Don't let panic set in.  In fact, be excited! Governor Romney made a bold choice to actually be strongly conservative!  He didn't chicken out as I feared he would!  Remember back in July when we talked about the running mate potentials (The Good, the Bad and the Wild Cards)? He actually picked someone from the Good List!

As far as attack ads? Well, the Left would've done this anyway, whether we picked a wimp or a solid conservative. So be glad we now have a solid conservative.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Romney Knocks It Out of the Park with VP Pick

Paul Ryan.  Bam!  With one fowl swoop, Governor Romney picked the perfect running mate.

Now I know the Obama people and their willing counterparts in the Drive-By Media are going to act like they’re thrilled with the pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate. They’re going to say that this is a gift to Obama.  They’re going to act super confident. But here’s the reality of what was said by the campaign behind the scenes:

News Report: Mitt Romney announces Paul Ryan as his running mate!
Obama Campaign: Crap! Double crap!  Crap crap crap crap! Crapapalooza!
You know WHY the Obama campaign is genuinely concerned, no matter what they tell you publicly? It’s simple. Mitt refused to pick a wimp. The Drive-By Media would’ve called a pick like a Rob Portman “serious.” Rest assured, friends, when the liberal media calls a candidate “serious” they mean “wimpy moderate.” They called Jon Huntsman a serious Presidential candidate, remember?
Governor Romney showed with the pick of Paul Ryan that he wasn’t going to run a pastel campaign. He picked the man whose budget plan sent the Left into spins of ridiculousness in rhetoric that was last rivaled only by their panicky ridiculousness when Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America passed Welfare Reform.  At that point the cuts were “draconian” and the Republicans were “mean spirited.” With Paul Ryan, the Left started claiming that the Ryan Plan, quite literally, wanted to “push Grandma off a cliff.”
Friends, when the Left gets ridiculous, you know you’ve hit a nerve. You know you’ve upset them. You know you’ve hit a nerve and really, really worried the Left when they start to pull out cartoonish bumper sticker slogans. It’s because liberal Democrat’s ability to hold on to power is entirely predicated on one thing: buying the votes of one group of people with someone else’s money, either taxed or borrowed.  It was modern liberalism that changed the focus on taking care of “taxpayers” to taking care of “voters.” Specifically, liberals take money from taxpayers to give different government services (some genuinely needed, most not needed) to “voters” who don’t pay taxes.  If we ever get our finances really in order for good, then their jig is up. (And for the record, the reforms of the 90s were not from President Clinton. Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, into those reforms. Then he took credit for it. Stupid reality always goes against liberal talking points.)
Paul Ryan scares the living crap out of the Left.  He’s intelligent and articulate. He’s got a real plan that will work that includes real, reforms that aren’t “draconian” or “mean spirited.” They’re just logical reforms to preserve Medicare and Social Security and balance the budget.  This is the man who is about to be our Vice President, friends.
This is the precise sort of pick Governor Romney needed to make. He’s a strong conservative who can effectively communicate conservatism. He’ll take it to Obama and his record of abject failure. He’s also, as conservative commentator S.E. Cupp noted on Twitter, is the only pick that would make both the conservative base and the Republican establishment happy. The guy who is officially the next in line politically is the exact type of person we need.
Friends, trust me when I say, no matter how much the Obama campaign pretends they are happy about the pick of Paul Ryan, they aren’t happy. Not one bit. Bottom line: Mitt Romney knocked it out of the park by picking Paul Ryan. Game so very on!

Friday, August 10, 2012

Obama Super-PAC Ad Shows How Little the Left "Understands" Business

In yesterday's blog, we discussed the ad that the Obama Super-PAC put out entitled "Understands," specifically how the ad was completely packed with lies. Today, I want to examine something else important about the ad: It shows how ridiculous the liberal mentality is about employment and business.

Buried deep within the ad is a liberal mentality: People are OWED a job and OWED health insurace from their employer, and if you lay off an employee due to perfectly legitimate business reasons, you are denying that person the paycheck they are owed just for breathing and denying them health insurance they are owed just because they work for you which they are owed because they are breathing.

Friends, as I stated repeatedly, I am not without sympathy. I am very sorry Mr. Joe Soptic's wife Ranae died of cancer. I really do feel bad. However, to blame Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, or pretty much anything besides CANCER is absolute ridiculous.

Just as importantly, this attitude that Bain Capital failed Mr. Soptic by laying him off in any way is absolute baloney. Here's how employment works, for you liberals out there: A business starts producing a product that people either need or desire that they can sell for more than it costs them to produce. Business is going well, so now they have more demand for the products they sell than they can keep up they hire more people! So a job is created! The employer then finds a person they want to hire. They agree to a contract. The contract is this: The employee sells his labor to the employer. This labor can be purchased in currencies that include both monetary compensation and other benefits. One of the most popular benefits is Health Insurance. 

This contract can be terminated by either party, pretty much at any time. The employee can decide they want to go sell their labor to another company at any time. The employer can also terminate the employment, whether it be because the employee is not fulfilling his end of the contract or because the employer no longer needs to purchase labor because the demand for the product has dropped. That, my friends, is known as LIFE.

But liberals like Mr. Soptic believe he was OWED a job and health insurance.  Honestly, that's the only reason you could legitimately blame Bain Capital or Mitt Romney for a woman dying of cancer; theoretically due to lack of insurance; is if you believed Bain or Romney OWED Mr. Soptic a job. And frankly, friends, that's just not how life works.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

In addition Being in Poor Taste, "Understands" Ad is Packed with Lies

For the record, this is not an Obama campaign ad, it's a Super-PAC ad.

The commercial, entitled "Understands" includes a man named Joe Soptic, worked for a company that was bought by Bain Capital and ultimately lead to the man being laid off, losing his health insurance. Shortly thereafter, at least according to the ad, his wife Ranae was diagnosed with advanced cancer and died. The insinuation of the ad is that Mitt Romney is somehow responsible for the death of this woman because his company had to lay off this man which caused him to lose his health insurance and therefore they couldn't afford proper medical care.

This ad is in INCREDIBLY poor taste. First and foremost, one cannot blame an employer for daring to lay off an employee due to business reasons for a medical condition that the employer did nothing to cause. Furthermore, Mitt Romney WASN'T RUNNING BAIN when this happened, so even if you bought the baloney chain of causation argument, you STILL couldn't pin it on Mitt with an ounce of truth.

There are more huge lies of ommission in this ad, as well. According to the liberal Washington Post's fact-check page:

In the ad, Soptic says: “When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare, and my family lost their healthcare. And a short time after that my wife became ill.”
The operative phrase is “short time.” The plant closed down in 2001. Politico first reported that Ranae Soptic died in 2006—five years later.

Wait just one darn're telling me she died FIVE YEARS after the plant was shut down? And what, pray tell, was Mr. Soptic doing for five years? For that matter, was Mrs. Soptic possibly working and insured?

Well, as a matter of fact, she was, according to the above Washington Post fact-check page:

CNN reported that, from speaking with Soptic, it had learned that his wife had continued to have her own insurance after the plant was shut down. She later lost the coverage in 2002 or 2003 when she left her own job because of an injury.

So wait a minute...Mr. Soptic losing his job DIDN'T cost Mrs. Soptic HER insurance?  She had her own for another 1-2 years?  So Mrs. Soptic wasn't even covered by her husband's insurance in the first place?

Bottom line is this, friends: Even the liberal Washington Post gave this ad Four Pinocchios. What does that mean? Well according to the Washington Post Fact Check Page's explanation of their ratings:

One Pinocchio:  Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios:  Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios:
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios:  Whoppers.
(That would be outright and complete lies, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL. Also a hamburger served at your local Burger King.)

So basically even the Liberal Washington Post is pointing out that this article is laced with blatantly false conclusions that attempt to paint Governor Romney as somehow culpable in the death of Mrs. Soptic. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't back it up.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Only Good With a Fantasy Electorate

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that one of my favorite things to do is dissect polling samples from the Drive-By Media which clearly come from Happy Imagination Land (since they have no bearing on reality. Do I do this because, frankly, it's an easy post to put together and there's a ton of source material? Partly. But also so you realize how absolutely ridiculously prevalent this is from the Drive-By Media.

You see, friends, despite what the same media sources who give you these skewed samples claim, polls are not an attempt to guage public opinion. Rather, it is an attempt to SHAPE public opinion. Sure, Mitt Romney is pretty well guaranteed the conservative VOTE. But the vote isn't all that matters, as I've told you time and time again.  It's about passion. It's about donations, too. If conservatives with money vote for Romney but don't donate, it's going to be a rough election. Ditto for conservatives who vote for Romney but don't volunteer or help convince their friends to vote for him. If the Drive-By Media can convince you that Romney's campaign is a lost cause, people who do a whole lot less donating, volunteering, and convincing.

So we get these polling samples based on a fantasy electorate. Consider this Pew Poll (which likely would've been the subject of a post if I wasn't on vacation last week).  It claims Obama has a 10% advantage over Governor Romney. There's only one problem: It claims that there will be a 19% advantage of Democrats over Republicans in voter turnout. NINETEEN PERCENT! Now let's give you a nice fat reality check, from

In the best election season Democrats have enjoyed since Nixon resigned, 2008, the Democrat advantage was only D+8, but Pew is now attempting to hustle us into believing the turnout this  year is going to be D +19.

To be honest, here in the Real World, there's about as much chance of the Democrats seeing a +19 advantage in turnout this time around as we do of seeing Barney Frank purchase a Chik-Fil-A franchise as part of his retirement investments.  Friends, assumption that we're going to see a Democrat turnout advantage on par with 2008's +8 advantage is not going to happen!

Why do I say this? Well, how about the fact that Republican voter has risen 16% since 2008, while Democrat voter enthusiasm has dropped 22% since the 2008 election.  For the record, in 2008, Democratic Voting Enthusiasm was at 61%, and now it has dropped to 39%. In 2008, Republican Voting Enthusiasm was at 35%, but today it's up to 51%. So even though Republican Voter Enthusiasm has spiked, and Democrat Voter Enthusiasm has plunged, we expect the 2012 election to see Democrat voter turnout that exceeds even the best advantage in recent memory four years ago? Go ahead and pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, too.

Bottom line, friends, is that Obama is hanging on by a thread at this point. He's got small leads in polls of Registered Voters. (20-30% of registered voters won't show up to vote, by the way...and Republican voters are more reliable than Democrat voters, historically.) Friends, do not believe the Drive-By Media poll cooking samples. We are on our way to win.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Letter Bag: Government's Job Isn't to Create "Fairness"

Recently, I received the following comment on the post "Understanding Infrastructure in Government Of, By and For the People."

He paid more money because he makes more money. I don't get your point. We all pay our share of taxes. Unfortunately, the wealthy pay less in proportion to their income than the middle class and that is not fair. - Anonymous (Henceforth referred to as Trogdor - you might want to google it before reading on so you get a lot of my included jokes.)

Dear Trogdor:

Your entire comment is illogical on two fronts. Let's start with the obvious one: Despite what you're being spoon fed on MSNBC or CNN or whatever Drive-By Media source you're regurgitating, it turns out the wealthy pay more in taxes both proportionally and in terms of dollars than those with less.

You see, Troggy, we have a progressive income tax system. Those in the top tax bracket pay 35% of their income in taxes, while those in the bottom bracket pay 10%.  There are also three additional brackets in the middle. Each one has an income level associated. The more money you make, the higher percentage of taxes you pay. Furthermore, the top 1% of wage earners pay 35% of all taxes, so they are paying a significantly larger percentage of the burden than their proportion of the population.

Then we come to your statement about what's "fair." By your logic, the government should take money it doesn't need just to make life "fair."

Now I'm not sure where your Mommy and Daddy were when they were supposed to be teaching you these things, Troggy, so I guess I'll step in.  (I assume they were out burnanating something.)  Please pay attention: LIFE ISN'T FAIR.  Moreover, it isn't the government's job to ensure some arbitrary definition of "fairness." It's job is to a) protect our God-given rights from all threats to our liberty, both domestic and foreign and b) For THE PEOPLE to co-op together to handle services we all need like roads and police departments (the latter falls under "a" as well).

Despite what President Obama wants you to believe, that wealthy person with a business pays significantly more in taxes toward that infrastructure. Furthermore, a business person does not use those roads and other infrastructure to even a relatively proportional degree more than the average consumer. Sorry to keep bursting your liberal bubble, Trogdor, but roads don't actually incur more wear and tear when a business vehicle uses it over a regular consumer vehicle. And while you can argue that a business vehicle is on the road more than the consumer vehicle, I'd like to once again repeat: THE BUSINESS OWNER PAYS MORE IN TAXES!

I know, I know, I'm asking you to think about taxes instead of buying a bumper sticker slogan that sounds smart, Trogdor, instead of just repeating an Obama catchphrase that validates confiscating money from those who have earned it and giving it to you in the form of free goodies. But you see, it's no more just to burninate the money of the wealthy as it is to burninate the money of the peasants.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Life in Danger and Rape Exceptions Don't Require All Abortion to be Legal

Yep...we're going to talk about abortion. Again. Specificially I'd like to discuss the common objection to overturning Roe v. Wade of "what about rape cases" and "what if the mother's life is in danger?"

First and foremost, I'd like to state again that there is absolutely zero rational person on the planet who argues against a life in danger exception. Simply stated, doctors should save the more viable life. That is almost always going to the the mother. That's basic medical ethics.

Now to the rape exception. I've made the point countless times that I do have an issue with this concept because of the very reason I am opposed to abortion: I believe the unborn child is a human being and therefore has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon (except in the above more viable life situation...and that applies to any two humans if only one life can be saved). Specifically, it's noting that the child has done nothing wrong. The unfortunate father has done the wrong. I cannot find my way, morally, to saying that it's okay to correct one huge and horrible crime (rape) by committing another huge and horrible crime (murder of an innocent human being).

That being said, in the interest of pragmatism, I could accept a compromise that only allowed abortion in cases of forcible rape and, of course, life in danger. It would need to be a very well defined exception, because such exceptions can be easily manipulated.

For example, a mother's life in danger exception should be defined specifically as genuine, physical danger to the mother that would cause her life to be actually extinguished. It should not be defined as "the mother's emotional health is in danger...she could become mentally unstable" to justify an abortion.

Similarly, a rape exception needs to be well defined. This is why I specifically note forcible rape. Forcible rape is the criminal act of physically forcing yourself on another person in a sexual manner. This may or may not involve a struggle, depending on the power situation between the two individuals. Statutory rape in many cases is very, very different. In the majority of cases of statutory rape, the participation of the minor involved is consensual in everything but name.

The average age of a female minor in a statutory rape case is 14-15 years old. A teenager in high school, most likely a freshman or sophomore. About 65% of the male offenders are 18-20 years old. In other words, those offenders are also often in high school, probably a senior based on the age, perhaps left back a year.  Translation: a huge number of these cases are both high school students with the male being a couple years older.  This is not a forced situation. This is consensual in everything but name (legally speaking). 

To include the above situation in a rape exception is intellectually dishonest. It's a person making a choice that had a consequence.  A consequence that is a human life that deserves to be protected. It's not like having a tattoo of Mr. Spock you had put on your posterior lasered off, friends. It's a human life. Just because statutory rape is legally a crime doesn't mean the female involved in the above type of cases (again, two high schoolers, one over age one under...not talking about forcible incest people) should get a pass on the consequences of her decision when that consequence is a living human being.

I digress, friends, but I think I've made my point. If you believe it is important to have a rape and life in danger exception to abortion does not mean it needs to be legal in all cases. There are lots of laws with exceptions built in. Killing of another human being in the streets is generally illegal. However, if you kill a person who is trying to kill you in self-defense, that is a very reasonable exception. Needing or wanting exceptions does not mean any action needs to be legal in all cases. Including abortion. Rape and life in danger exception? Fine...I can live with that. Doesn't mean you have to approve of the action in all cases.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Did the Flintstones Come After the Jetsons?

From Monday, July 30th to Friday, August 3rd, I'll be on my annual vacation. So this week, as we've done in the past, we'll be featuring the Best of Biblical Conservatism!

Today's post was originally published on April 4, 2012.

Most of the time, this blog is about serious political analysis and keeping the Drive-By Media in specific and the Left in general in check.  Yet once in a while, we like to have some fun, like comparing the GOP hopefuls to Jim Henson's Muppets or announcing that Tim Tebow won the New Hampshire Primary.  Sometimes, once in a while, anyway, you've got to just throw away the seriousness and have a little fun.

So today, Internet, we're going to discuss a pet pop-culture theory of the sort that I think about when I'm home alone and the power is out: I think the Flintstones occurred chronologically after the Jetsons.  In the storylines, I mean, not the actual historical runs of the two shows.

We already know that the Jetsons and Flintstones do in fact live in the same timeline. The 1987 movie The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones proved that. The common assumption is that the Flintstones are from the distant past of the Jetsons.  After all, the Flintstones live in the Stone Age, and the Jetsons in our future, right?

I must admit I labored under that assumption most of my life, too. Then I stopped and I thought about it.  What if the Flintstones is from a time not too far after the Jetsons where two very important events have occurred:  One, scientists perfects the ability to clone and genetically engineer long-extinct animals and a massive nuclear war (or some future, more destructive technology) has wiped out civilization, leaving only a few survivors to rebuild society.
What would those surviving individuals do, after they secure the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing?  Would they not try to bring back the comforts of their previous society?  What sort of make-shift creature comforts would they create?

How about cars? Modern appliances? Entertainment sources?  Heavy equipment for building?  Look at the technology substitutes in "The Flintstones." Here are a few examples:

Think about it, friends: The Flintstones is packed with makeshift technology!  How did they come up with it?  Do you think they somehow invented the record player centuries before the real thing came to be?  Or is it more likely that a few generations back the people lived in a world with technology and recreated that technology with what they had available?  It reminds me of nothing better than the Professor on Gilligan's Island building a radio out of a coconut.

The aforementioned cloning and genetic engineering would also explain the apparent intelligence of the animals that were being used as showers, cranes, bridges and flights of stairs.  These at least modestly intelligent creatures are used for menial labor.  Now unless you're going to tell me that also in the past that animals had the ability to talk, again, this goes with my theory.  These animals are both intelligent enough to talk and to know that their jobs are lousy!  The best explanation is some level of genetic engineering. (Whether cloning then engineering their brains or Elroy Jetson built a time machine and brought dinosaurs forward in time and then their genes were restructured to be able to think intelligently/complain.)

Does this explanation make perfect sense? Of course not.  Then again neither did the Wacky Races or the fact that Donald Duck being properly covered on his bottom half has something to do with him wearing a shirt...

Anyway, Internet, can't wait to hear your thoughts. Or, tune in tomorrow for a much more serious and newsworthy post!

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Why This Radish Would Make a Better President than Obama

From Monday, July 30th to Friday, August 3rd, I'll be on my annual vacation. So this week, as we've done in the past, we'll be featuring the Best of Biblical Conservatism!

Today's post was originally published on March 5, 2012.

Last week, we spent time discussing why each of the four remaining candidates would make a better President than the one we have now.  Today, we're going to discuss why this radish would in fact be a better President than the one we have now:

- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obamacare.

- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Dodd-Frank.

- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to cut taxes.

- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obama Era regulations.

- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to open our domestic oil fields.

- This radish is without question, naturally born in America. I've seen the garden it's from and it's in America.
- This radish will not take a vacation every couple months on the taxpayer's dime.

Is this radish a perfect candidate for President?  Of course not.  For starters, it's only got a two week shelf life.  Secondly, it's not Constitutionally eligible to be President since it hasn't attained the age of 35 years old.  Also it's a radish.  But still, it would be a better President than the one we have now. 

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Just for Fun - The GOP Candidates & Their Muppet Dopplegangers

From Monday, July 30th to Friday, August 3rd, I'll be on my annual vacation. So this week, as we've done in the past, we'll be featuring the Best of Biblical Conservatism!

Today's post was originally published on December 22, 2011.

I mentioned last week after the Fox News/Iowa Debate that a few friends of mine and I have come up with a little game we play during primary debate season where we decide which one of Jim Henson's Muppets each candidate looks like.  So, just for fun, here is a picture of each candidate with their Muppet doppleganger!

Michelle Bachmann and Red from Fraggle Rock

Jon Huntsman and Grover from Sesame Street

Mitt Romney and Sam the Eagle from the Muppet Show

There was some debate about which Muppet Newt was, so here he is with both! 

                                                Newt Gingrich and Fozzie Bear/Rowlf

Ron Paul and Rizzo the Rat from the Muppet movies (no, I'm not calling Ron Paul a rat)

Rick Perry and Ernie from Sesame Street

Rick Santorum and Bert from Sesame Street.

It's a fun game, isn't it?  Well, Merry Christmas, friends!