We have a Marxists in the White House whose true identity is still a mystery regardless of whether or not he was born in the US. The opposition is hell-bent on nominating a “moderate” flip-flopper whose real beliefs will probably remain unknown until he’s finally sworn in and starts governing – that’s if he can actually win.

I’ll watch the Super Bowl; but I’ll probably be working on the laptop while sipping an adult beverage and occasionally glancing at the score. The half-time show featuring Madonna will definitely be turned off! I’d much rather watch the mating rituals of Antarctic penguins on the National Geographic channel.

In the end, I believe that the Patriots will probably win, if for anything, to avenge the Giants fluke win the last time the two teams met in the Super Bowl. There, I said it! I know that I probably just lost half my readership, but I refuse to self-censor, so there!

Did I say I wasn’t going to make a prediction?

Hmmm… So that’s what it feels like to be a politician.

Read piece here.

I wasn’t what was written in the post that caught my attention, but rather the first comment on the post by a man named Milo Cooper. Mr. Cooper’s comment nearly had me jumping off my couch. I immediately called my wife and read it to her. In my opinion, Mr. Cooper’s comment says it all about the current Republican primary, so I want to share it with everyone.

Here it is:

There’s no way I could have said it any better! Have we learned nothing from the historic Tea Party led victories of 2010? Why do Republican voters make the same mistakes over and over again? Why do they quiver in fear whenever the MSM blows its nose? Why are they always on the defensive?

Mr. Cooper also points out the Republican establishment’s fear of the so-called Independents. Can’t win without the independents, yada, yada, yada… Why is it that the Democrats don’t seem to worry too much about them?  Screw the independents! Republicans/conservatives should call their bluff; let them vote for Barack Obama once again! Let them further destroy their standard of living by supporting more radical left-wing initiatives – go ahead!

During a snapshot in history when boldness of both ideas and spirit is desperately needed to even start to pull our nation out of the cesspool that the Marxist-Left has put us in, Republicans want to play it safe and select a “moderate” as their candidate. A moderate that won’t buck the establishment, but as Newt Gingrich likes to say, will ’just manage the decay.’

Since NY is out of play, I will not go out on election night to pull the lever for Mitt Romney. I will either stay home and relax with a glass (or two) of wine, or I’ll go cast my vote for an alternative party candidate; Libertarian, Constitution, or Natural Law.

I refuse to be part of this historic blunder!

Now the pollsters have weighed in and are saying that Obama clearly beats Newt Gingrich in the so-called swing states, while Romney is in a virtual tie with the current squatter in the White House.

While I may not be Ivy League educated like most of the experts in the establishment and the media, I do have very strong BS radar as well as plenty of good old fashioned common sense.  In other words “don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Let’s see…one of the many opinions masquerading as facts that are being thrown out there by the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, and Brit Hume is that Gingrich can’t win the vote of the preciously pious independents. Really now?

The reality is that these pure as the wind driven snow independents are mostly made up of people who have little to no conviction. They vote solely on the issues that affect them at any given time. For example: if they don’t have health insurance at around the time of an election, they want to know what the candidates are going to do for them as far as getting health insurance. It matters little as to what effect a promise or proposal from a candidate will have on their own long-term future and on future generations; it’s simply all about them in the here and now.

So let’s see…these independents whose wallets, bank accounts, and home values have probably shrunk considerably over the past 3 years won’t vote for Gingrich because some former colleague from the Congress says that he isn’t a nice guy. They’ll stick with Obama because an ex-wife decided to come out during the primary process and make some seedy allegations. And of course, these independents won’t vote for Gingrich because he sat down on a couch during a commercial with Nancy Pelosi? Excuse me, but aren’t independents supposedly the ones that detest partisanship – the ones that believe everyone in Congress should all just get along? Gee…wasn’t it Newt Gingrich that worked with (bi-partisanship) Bill Clinton to bring us that great economy of the 90’s when everyone’s 401K grew faster than Rosie O’Donnell’s waistline?

Although the run-of-the-mill independent may not personally like Newt Gingrich, when they consider four more years of Obama and the destruction that his policies have had on their standard of living, they’ll much more likely than not, pull the lever for Newt. After all, Independents are pragmatists –right?

The propaganda being spewed, mostly by the Republican establishment, has little basis in reality. As Gingrich often points out, Reagan was down by 20 to 30 points to Jimmy Carter only a few months prior to the 1980 election. There were probably many independents and Democrats that didn’t really know much about Reagan (other than that he was an actor) and/or didn’t really like what they were hearing about him. But the alternative of four more years of Jimmy Carter was evidently enough to convince them to give Reagan a chance.

This entire Newt can’t beat Obama because Newt can’t get the independent vote is pure political propaganda meant to discourage Republican/Conservative primary voters from voting for him. If you’re not convinced, then please consider Nancy Pelosi’s threat to expose some big dirt on Newt that will ensure he can’t win the presidency. Why would she make that threat now instead of waiting until Newt is the nominee then coming out with the dreaded “October surprise?” In my humble non-expert opinion, it’s because she wants to prevent Newt from ever becoming the nominee. Does that sound like the Dems believe Obama will just roll over Newt in the general election? Not to me it doesn’t!

One thing that did stand out in the Jacksonville debate was the ugly face of ethnic politics. All of the candidates were flashing their “Hispanic appreciation credentials.” In other words, the candidates were kissing mucho culo.

Immigration was a hot topic (notice how now immigration=Hispanics) and “Hispanic-American” questioners shamelessly asked the candidates about what Hispanic they would put into their cabinet. Of course, all of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul gladly jumped into the childish game. Paul was the only one that didn’t drool over Marco Rubio saying that he would appoint the most qualified Americans – period.

Leave it to CNN to find a questioner from the audience who claimed to be a “Palestinian-American Republican.” The man assured the candidates that there were a lot more (Palestinian/American/Republicans) from where he came from.

My response to that is simply this:

The candidates seemed to share my skepticism over the man’s claim because they didn’t attempt to kiss his culo as they did with the Hispanic questioners.

I fully understand politics and know that the candidates were simply doing what most politicians do extremely well – kissing ass! But aren’t Republicans/Conservatives supposed to be against hyphenated Americanism? And why do “Hispanics” get all of the attention over all other ethnic groups? Can it be because there are a lot more of them than other ethnic groups? If so, why are there so many more, and is it fair that one group gets special treatment in regards to immigration over all others? Oh wait a minute, can this have anything to do with illegal immigration and all of the now “legal” anchor babies that it produced, and continues to produce?

Question: When was the last time a Polish, Hungarian, Czech, or Croatian American got his/her tukus kissed by a candidate for president? Just asking!

One of the candidates really missed a big opportunity last night to stand out from the crowd and to stand with the majority of Americans. One of the candidates missed the opportunity to say that unlike Obama, we conservatives don’t believe in racial and ethnic politics; we don’t believe in affirmative action and racial/ethnic set asides; we don’t believe that Americans should separate themselves into groups that compete for federal money and power; we don’t believe in hyphenated Americanism. But hey, politicians will be politicians.

Click here to view the embedded video.

My real time memory from back then is kind of fuzzy, but I do recall that the democrats were in serious pay-back mode after Gingrich organized the first Republican House victory in 40 years. The charges/accusations were coming at Gingrich almost every single day. It’s the same thing that happened to Gov. Sarah Palin in Alaska when she upset both the Democrats and Republicans in Alaska.

Sorry, I don’t see much here.

My question is: what do politicians and members of the media mean when they use the term Hispanic? To me it seems that the term is now almost exclusively used to describe Mexicans.

Being that it’s an election year, the word Hispanic will surely be ringing in the ears of the American electorate.

Some of the questions that will arise are: Will Obama continue to receive big support from Hispanics, as he did in 2008?  Which one of his potential Republican opponents will be able to garner the ever-coveted “Hispanic vote?” Will Hispanic voters reject any candidate that speaks tough on illegal immigration and border enforcement?

I have always been puzzled as to why “Hispanics” from Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain, and Portugal who came here legally would somehow be upset  if the United States secures its border with Mexico, or deports illegal immigrants that are predominantly from Mexico. Do the elites in the media and in Washington truly believe that just because people share the same language they automatically side with each other, no matter what? Do legal “Hispanic” immigrants that aren’t Mexican really want special privileges given to Mexicans? That would border (no pun intended) on racism, or better put – languagism. Wouldn’t it?

I wasn’t born yesterday so I realize that there are some Hispanics, just as other groups, that will always defend other Hispanics regardless of the circumstances. The half Puerto Rican Geraldo Rivera quickly comes to mind. Again I ask this question: Would Geraldo feel the same way if Poland was at our southern border and Polish people were sneaking in? I somehow doubt it!

The fact is that the MSM purposely pushes the myth that all “Hispanics” are for open borders, illegal immigration, bilingual education and amnesty. Part of the reason they do this is to intimidate Republicans (Conservatives) into caving in to the open borders amnesty crowd.

Finally, if you are a “Hispanic” who is legally living in the United States, and if you respect the rule of law, then please don’t defend other Hispanics who have broken and continue to break our laws. If you live in America your allegiance should be to America and your fellow Americans, not to your country of origin or native language. And please don’t let the media and the Democrat Party use you as political pawns.

Note: I’m of the same background as Dennis Kucinich. I would never, under any circumstances, vote for him. I’m an American and I try to base my decisions on what I think is best for America.

It was also mentioned yesterday that Mitt Romney called Santorum to congratulate him on his re-count victory in the Iowa Caucus. But the Romney campaign claims that the call was not a concession.  What???

Not only is Santorum being disrespected by his Republican challengers, but he’s also being “dissed” by the media as well – Fox News included!

For reasons only known by the brass at Fox, and maybe Karl Rove, Fox News has been on the Romney bandwagon from the get go.  This afternoon Fox anchor Martha McCallum went to commercial with a tease on the upcoming segment. The tease basically stated that tomorrow (Saturday) was a “big day” for Mitt Romney. So, Saturday’s South Carolina Primary is only big for Romney? I guess it is if you’re rooting for him.

Excuse me if I’m missing something, but if Santorum wins he’s ahead in the win tally and the undisputed frontrunner. No?

As far as I’ve been able to decipher, the main reason for the support of the Republican establishment for Romney has been based on his supposed “electability.” Their argument seems to be that Romney would match up well with Obama and his billion dollar machine.

Really?

I don’t fancy myself as a political consultant, but I don’t believe that playing defense against Obama is a wise move.  And from what I’ve witnessed over the past six thousand Republican debates, Rick Santorum is just as capable of smacking Obama down in a debate and defeating him as Romney and Gingrich are. If not more so.

Unfortunately for the Republican establishment, this nominating process is far from over. Why should it be when 48 states didn’t get to have their say yet?

I know that what I’m about to say will outrage whatever liberal happens to stumble upon this blog, but I have long ago shed the fear of being called names, even the horrifying R name – racist!

So let me just come out and say that I do believe that most young black people suffer from a lack of work ethic. That’s about as blandly as I can put it. Sorry, Jaun Williams!

First off, how can one realistically expect them to have a work ethic when the vast majority of them come from single parent households where the father is AWOL? Where’s the example?

Second, how can you expect them to have a work ethic when the vast majority of them are exposed to the trashy lifestyle referred to as Hip-Hop before they even learn to walk? Just where does work ethic fit in with this so-called culture that promotes drug use, violence, misogyny, materialism, lawlessness and hate? How can you get a job when you walk around with your underwear showing, with a constant scowl plastered on your face, and with language skills that require an interpreter in order to be understood?

For instance, it isn’t just a coincidence that every supermarket in my area has Hispanics stocking the shelves, cleaning the floors, and making the deliveries. With the unemployment rate among black youth at over 45%, why aren’t young blacks doing this type of work? Are all of these supermarkets and fruit/vegetable stands run by rabid racists? I had my first part-time job at around age 14. (Off the books) I stocked shelves, swept the sidewalk, and cleaned the storefront windows for a local business on the weekends. Believe me, I wasn’t thrilled with doing this work, but my father really didn’t give me a choice.

I did however manage to purchase my first brand new baseball mitt (around $75) with my meager earnings.

Finally, how can one expect America’s black youth to have a work ethic when almost all of them attend our great public school system? Our public education system is run by progressives and outright Marxists who care less about educating “minorities” than they do about indoctrinating them. Minorities are taught that they’re victims; nothing is their fault! This victim status creates laziness and an entitlement mentality. Today’s public school students are also being taught that they and their families, their pets, and the environment, can’t survive without the benevolence of the federal government.

I’m so sick and tired of the evil fog of political correctness engulfing our society. We are no longer allowed to make judgments based on what we see and hear – what we experience. I’m sorry if the fact that some groups are better at certain things than other groups offends some people. However, lacking a work ethic isn’t genetic. Work ethic can be learned and practiced if it is taught and encouraged. One need not suffer from it on an ongoing basis.

P.S.

Newt Gingrich had millions of Americans jumping off their couches when he put the racially obsessed Jaun Williams in his place on Monday. And yes, Barack Obama is nothing if he isn’t the Food Stamp President!

To which Mr. Gingrich replied:

Read Politico story here.

Whether Gingrich was just blowing off Mr. Glossop, or whether he’ll really stop his class envy attacks against Mitt Romney is yet to be seen. Mr. Gingrich would be very wise to take the advice. But one of his problems has always been listening to others. He’s always the smartest man in the room, town, city, state, country, hemisphere, world, solar system, milky way, universe…

This is the problem with many political candidates and their high-priced managers and advisors; they don’t really know how to listen to anyone but themselves.

The world is full of political consultants and campaign managers who have rarely to ever been part of a winning campaign, but are still somehow looked upon as experts. Bob Shrum and Bob Beckel quickly come to mind. Many of these people exist in a bubble; a bubble composed of their own ego. They’re very good at giving advice, but horrible at taking it. I should know, I’ve witnessed this firsthand when working (volunteering) for numerous campaigns in my area.

Mr. Gingrich and his high paid advisors and consultants would be very wise to listen to people like Reservist Glossop. But I can’t help but believe that the advice will go right through their left ears, and straight out their right.

I only hope that when Mr. Gingrich’s campaign self-destructs, and the smoke finally clears, Obama won’t be the last man standing.

I see a big problem when the other candidates attack Romney for being the cause of people losing their jobs when some of the companies that Bain Capital invested in closed.

This is not only a cheap attempt at simplistic populism, but it’s also big time ammunition for the Marxist Obama administration; ammunition that is sure to be used against Romney during the upcoming campaign. Not only will Obama use this against Romney, which he would have done anyway, but now he’ll claim that even Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum agree with him. Obama will use this in attempting to make the case for big government socialism (aka crony capitalism and fascism) against heartless free-market capitalism. Obama will claim that he saved thousands of jobs by bailing out GM and Chrysler, as compared to Romney who let companies go under and let people lose their jobs.

I know that politics is politics, but when did the other Republican candidates come to the conclusion that corporations exist solely to give people jobs? If any of them owned companies that were not performing and hemorrhaging money, would they keep them open and continue to lose money just so they didn’t have to lay off any employees? Somehow I doubt it.

In the general election against Obama and his Marxist army, the Republican candidate will have to make a strong argument for free-markets against big government. They will have to convince a lot of simple-minded voters that the way to long term prosperity is through expanding the private sector economy while severely slashing the size of the government. Obama painting Romney as a Scrooge-like capitalist may play very well to the desperate and naive voters – the original Obama voters.

Class-warfare stinks whether it’s coming from Maxits, or whether it’s coming from Republicans.