If You Don’t Vote Obama You Are An Unpatriotic Racist
Sep 19, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier about the line I have heard for a while and that is, if you don’t vote for Obama you are a racist. This is becoming a more common theme as The One fails to take control of the election and faces the real possibility that he will lose. His surrogates are out in full force and they are playing a complete deck of race cards and they are dealing from the bottom. The sleazy Obama campaign used Rush Limbaugh’s words out of context so it could pander to Hispanics. Limbaugh had this reaction.
Today, two more Obama surrogates from Ohio came forward to call Democrats and Independents who will not vote for Obama racists and said that not voting for him would be unpatriotic:
Monday afternoon, state Representatives Bob Hagan of Youngstown and Tom Letson of Warren met with reporters.
They argue many voters who call themselves “Democrats” or “Independents”, but won’t vote for Obama, have only one excuse, with Letson saying, “I would say that a lot of it is they’re not going to vote for ‘the black guy'”.
Hagan called the issue “unpatriotic,” adding those not willing to vote for Obama need “to face that fact. That that’s not acceptable in America.”
Both men say they will work to convince those “swing voters” to change their minds between now and election day.WYTV
I think it is worthwhile to take a look at this. Since only Independents and Democrats are mentioned, Republicans who do not vote for Obama are not racists and they are patriots.
If we accept that not voting for Obama is unpatriotic and racist as true then it would mean the converse is also true. Those who vote for Obama are not racist and are patriots. Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate, said that it is patriotic to pay more in taxes.
So, a vote for Obama is patriotic and paying more taxes is patriotic, therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for more taxes. No surprise there.
However, let me educate these two dim witted liberal morons. There are plenty of people who do not care what color Obama is. They oppose his policies and what he wants to do to this country or they feel he is not experienced enough for the job. There are many, many reasons that people will not vote for Obama and NONE of them have to do with being racist. This is nothing more than a strong armed tactic designed to play on white guilt and try to make people believe they are racist if they don’t vote for The One. Remember people, the ballot is secret so you may vote for whom you want. Also, you are not racist because you do not vote for Obama anymore than you are an ageist or a sexist if you don’t vote for McCain/Palin.
This is the way the left thinks. They believe that their views are so natural and so good that there must be something wrong with a person who will not vote for their candidates. In the case of Obama, race MUST be the only reason because, naturally, no person in his right mind could disagree with his positions. It never occurs to the left that people could actually disagree with their views.
I am a conservative Republican so, according to these guys, I must vote against Obama so I won’t be racist or unpatriotic. Happy to oblige!
For you Independents and Democrats who don’t want to vote for him then don’t. If you are worried about the racist tag, this will ease your mind. Obama is half white so just vote against that half of the man.
As for your patriotism, you are displaying it when you go out and vote regardless of who the vote is for. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
BTW, would these people be unpatriotic racists?
Tags: Obama, ohio, racism, unpatriotic, vote
Murderer’s Last Words; Vote Obama
Jul 25, 2008 Political
Dale Leo Bishop was sentenced to death for his role in the beating death of Marcus Gentry. Bishop did not deliver the fatal blow but he was part of the attack on Gentry. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.
Bishop was put to death by lethal injection but the last words he uttered were for people to vote for Obama so that the death penalty will be taken away.
“For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice,” Bishop said Clarion Ledger
Isn’t it amazing that a man who helped to beat someone to death wants people to vote for a candidate who will reportedly end the death penalty? Bishop indicated that Obama has people working behind the scenes to end the death penalty. Even if this were true, how would this inmate know it? Behind the scenes indicates that it is kept out of the public’s eye. This was more likely an attempt of Bishop to convince the anti death people to vote fro Obambi. Regardless, he won’t be here to see who wins anyway.
I still find it remarkable that the murderer wants to do away with the death penalty but has no problem with beating people to death. He could have avoided the death penalty by not participating and by reporting the incident. Instead, he took the decision to murder. There is no such reprieve for victims who are beaten to death with a hammer so why should the people who did the beating get a better sentence?
It is nice to know that along with the terrorist vote (Hamas and Iran support Obama) the Messiah has the murderer vote in the bag.
SCOTUS Upholds ID to Vote Law
Apr 28, 2008 Political
For the longest time Republicans have been trying to pass laws that require people to show an identification card prior to being allowed to vote. This has met with resistance from the ACLU and the Democratic Party, both of whom state that an ID requirement will make it harder for people to vote. The claim is that the poor and the elderly are not likely to have a driver’s license so they would not be able to vote. This is hogwash because there are many forms of identification that may be used.
Many states offer an identification card from the motor vehicle administration. It is a state provided ID and may be used for voting. The argument goes that the elderly and the poor, particularly minorities, do not have these IDs and they have no means to get them. Again, this is hogwash. First of all very few people are without an ID. People need them to board planes, to cash checks and to get into some state and federal buildings. People who get welfare or have food stamps have to provide ID to use those hand outs so trust me, they have an ID. Those who are complaining because they do not have one would certainly get one if the government said they would give $100 dollar bills to people with an ID. Ids are not hard to get and most people have them. Those poor minorities that the Democrats cry about need ID to cash welfare checks (or to open a bank account for the direct deposit).
The real reason that Democrats and the ACLU oppose IDs to vote is because requiring an ID reduces the amount of fraud that takes place. People cannot vote as another person because they must have a photo ID. ID requirements mean that dead Democrats will no longer be allowed to vote and which will be a novelty for cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The ACLU and the Democrats oppose this because removing the ability to cheat drastically reduces the chance that liberals win office.
Today, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. This is a common sense rule and does not conflict with the Constitution but the liberal idiots on the court were, of course, against the whole idea. Justice Souter wrote:
“Indiana’s ‘Voter ID Law’ threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens,” wrote Souter, who predicted that “a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting.” The Hill
He is, of course, wrong. I have already pointed out how the arguments against are wrong. I would also point out that these very liberals who say that we are imposing non trivial burdens on the voting rights of citizens have no objection to imposing non trivial burdens on the rights of people to keep and bear arms. If a person must show an ID to buy a gun and then go through a background check and this is seen as reasonable then why is it unreasonable to expect a person to show ID to vote?
I would like Justice Souter to explain this but he is preoccupied with his bout of rectal-cranial inversion.
What do you need an ID to do in this country?
- Apply for a passport
- Board an airplane
- Enter a federal building
- Open a bank account
- Buy alcohol
- Buy tobacco
- Cash a check
Certainly voting is more important than any of these things. Certainly our system of voting is important enough to be safeguarded from illegal activity.
The next important step will be for us to require proof of citizenship before one is allowed to register to vote. We have to prove it to get a job (which makes me wonder how so many ILLEGALS slip through the cracks) so proof of citizenship to register to vote only makes sense. The law says only citizens may vote so why not have a way of proving they are the only ones doing it?
One step at a time. This is the first and it is a good one.
Tags: democratic fraud, ID, requirement, Stop the ACLU, vote