Obama Wraps Up Communist/Socialist Vote: Endorsed by Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro's Sister

One of the items of news last week was that Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez endorsed President Obama for re-election.  This blog previously reported, because I saw it in a CNN interview, that Raul Castro's sister (I tink, although my daughter thught it wsa Castro's daughter)--as one "citizen of the world" endorsing another--endorsed Obama early on  Raul Castro, of couse, is the Communist dictatior of Cuba.  His sister (or daughter) was in the U.S. on a "special visa" to support 'gay rights". 


We know that Obama is all about GROUPS, rather than individuals.  Thus, I saw a mainstream media interview, with one of the Zogbys, talking about the "important" Arab-American vote. Obama, and the mainstream media, like to "target" women, Hispanics, unionn members (including public employee unions), Africa-Americans, etc.  The idea is that we are in a zero-sum game, where you can win an "eletion' so long as you BRIBE identifiable groups, and propoose to HURT only people that are not liked (especially the "rich", but including "white males" and other scum, who are ot "saved" by being in one of the favored classes). Now that Oama has WRAPPPED UP the Communist/socialist vote, can we expect to see the mainstream media bragging about that?  What about a POLL as to how many socialists and Communists support Obama?  I would bet that his support among that "voting bloc" is at least 90%.


Then there are "independents" (ME).  I actually heard "independents" referred to again today as an imprtant "voting bloc" (I hink on thee unfair and unbalanced network, but I hear the same thing every day from ALL of our mentally challenged media peoiple.  I am sorry.  "Independent" "voting bloc" is an OXYMORON, brought to you by the regular morons in our media--a seslf-contradictory phrase. You cannot be an "independent", and be part of a "voting bloc'. 


Doubt me/  Never expose ourself as a fool that way.  As stated, I am an "independent".  Now Kenda, my older daughter, has said:  "Daddy, you are not an 'independent'.  You don't even support gay marriage.  It is Boston yuppies like me who are the real 'independents'."


Sorry.  My daughter has been influenced by Massachusetts/Boston first, and the dishonest, stupid people of the media second.  By definition, I AM an "independent".  I disowned the GOP, forever, in 2006, and said I would never, ever regard myself a member of that party again (although I MIGHT support individual GOP candidates).  I did NOT support either Hohn McCain ro Barack Obama in 2008--supporting the Libertarian cnadidate AFTER my first choice--a left-handed choice for the good of the countgr--failed to get the nominaiton:  HILLARY CLINTON.  You can look it up in this blog archives, if they are sitill there.  Unlike Rush Limbaugh--I came up with the idea first--I promised to vote for Hilklary Clinton in the general election (after John McCain won nomination). But Clinton lost, and I ended up supporting the Libertarian candidate. Again this year, I support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.  However, I am NOT a "libertarain", although I lean somewhat tto the libertarian side of conservatism.  I did NOT suppport Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination, although I could have supported Ron Paul (despite reservations) if the race had ever come down to a ral race between Paul and Romney (never gong to happen).  In actual fact, I supported Herman Cain and Rick Santorum, in that order, while naming Paul an acceptable alternative.  There is no way I culd ever be a Democrat. If I am not GOP, Democrat, OR Libertarian, what am I?  Right.  I HAVE to be an "independent", and I am. 


Did not Mitt Romney win the debate with Obama (our Liar-in-Chief).  Yep.  He won big.  But I did not comment on it in this blog--although I will comment on the aftermath here shortly--because it did not change my views at all.  I know Obama for what he is, and knew him in 2008. My problem is that Romney merely again confirmed for me who HE is, and I can't support hmi.  OH. I have never thought Romney was "unlikable".  I don't care about the LIES about Bain Capitabl and taxes. And I do think the debate shows that Romney IS a better "manager", who might actually WORK at the JOB of being President (instead of watning to be merely a speech maker and CELEBRITY with the title of "President"). Not enough for me.  Later articles will get into the Obam/mainstream media LIE about how Romney 'changed" his positns.  If you have listened carefully, as I have, Romney did NOT "change" his positions.  He has always been a "moderate"--GOP estalbishment person--and he still is.  He jsut emphacized the "conservative" side of his rehetoric while running for the GOP nomination, and now puts somewhat more emphasis on his 'moderate" rhetoric.  The mainstream media actually HELPED him with that in the nomination  The POSITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED.  Why do o think I did not support Romney in the nomination, and said I would NOT vote for him?  I KNOW where Romney 'stands", and so should anyone.  Some of you may even like ti.  When Obama says he was "shocked" by Romney lies at the debate, what Obama is really saying is that he was "shocked" taht Romney did not present himself as the CARICATURE/CARTOON that Obama has been MISREPRESENTING him to be.  No.  Rush Limbaugh is NOT that cartoon.  But it has always been an absurd LIE to suggest taht Romney is some sort of letist idea of a conservative cartoon character.  romney has ALWAYS been a "moderate" (yes, even in the GOP debates, as this blog told you), even if he was smart enough not to really scream that in the GOP nomination fight.  Even McCain was smarter than that. Obama is now complainging about Romney not buying into Obama's LIE:  a LIE upon which Obama has based his entire campaign.  It is abusrd to suggest ANY conservative would be "against the middle class", and for policies that make the "middle class pay for the rich".  When yu base your campaign on a LIE, you can hardly complain that your opponent does not cooperatte by endorsing the lie. More on this in later articles. 


Still.  Obama's attempt to appeal to GROUPS, instead of individuals interested int eh future of this country, is obviusly WORKING  He has clearly sewed up the Communist/socialist vote.  He may have a big advantage int he Arab-American vote (Zogby seemed to suggest so).  I have questioned whehter women--the most practical of sexes and least likely to STAY BOUGHT--will end up seling ut their country because of BRIBES and supposed "attitude".  In the end, I thik women will vote what they perceive to be their OVERALL self-interest.  I don't see them, as a ssex, believing that Obama really is likely to hellp their future (bribes or no bribes).  Again, women are the most practical of creatures. Romney should really appeal to them more than I think he should, as I don't think Romney has an ideological bone in his body.  And then there are Hispanics.  Do Hispanics really VOTE on who most identifies them with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?  I don't think so.  So this Obama idea of pitting groups against each other, and almost everybody agaisnt "the rich", has major flaws.  But the media is trying to MAKE IT WORK.  And Obama had these LIES (Biden actually said that Rmoney faovred a $2000 increase on the 'middle class"--an outright LIE) that have been pushed in all of those negative ads.  That is Obama's debate problem.  He NEEDS the MEDIA to PUSH THE LIES.  If he has to actually debate the FACTS, Obama can't  First, he does not KNOW the facts. Second, khe likes to make speeches that ignore the facts altogether.  Unless the media debate questioners--like Wolf Bitzer in his interview of Romney today--PUSH the LIES, it is hard for Obama to really debate Romney (so long as Romney has command of tkhe facts).  Is Obama, by the way, "writing off" white males?  Seems so.  I still don't see a 25% difference in the votes of men and women--which is what CNN was pushing.  Something wrong with that. 


P.S  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).