My take: Congratulations Mr. President, but It's really over for all of us

The only thing right today is that moderate Republicans 

don't win presidential elections.

Well, the people have spoken and I'm genuinely surprised — and shattered. Everything I believed was utterly wrong, beginning with that sure as hell "Romney victory" factoid. And if Obama won - he really won - there's isn't much we can do anymore since this is the best we can do. The republican electorate wasn't motivated — it was fired up at its utmost. The despair was at the other side. The positivism for a better future was Romney's, not Obama's.

Well, the people have spoken and I'm genuinely surprised — and shattered. Everything I believed was utterly wrong, beginning with that "polls are wrong" factoid. They were pretty accurate. And now I believe that all what pundits and experts talked about time and demography against Republicans and conservatives is completely true. The left has won its long-term battle. Don't expect big changes in the future, since the european welfare state is what people really want.

And if Obama won - he really won - there's isn't much we can do anymore since this is the best we can do.

Well, the people have spoken and I'm genuinely surprised — and shattered. Everything I believed was utterly wrong, beginning with that "common sense will prevail" factoid. Paul Krugman (Paul Krugman!) wasn't a deluded fool in this case. Elizabeth Warren won her Senate race. Apparently, Massachusetts still owes big time the late Teddy Kennedy and doesn't really care about making up your background and plagiarizing as a lifestyle pays big as long as you're progressive enough. Todd Akin got his just desserts and that's pretty much it. Having half of one of the branches of public power is not enough to stop anything. Kagan and Sotomayor will be known in the future as the "moderate faction" of the new Supreme Court.

Well, the people have spoken and I'm genuinely surprised — and shattered. Everything I believed was utterly wrong, beginning with that "Benghazi will sink Obama" factoid. The MSM won this round, too. They are now entitled to get away with everything they feel they can do. They are not paying the price for their dishonest misdeeds. Why should they? 

I'm giving the political punditry for a long, long while. I might be still right but the electorate said I'm wrong. And I don't want to be right for what it might be coming. Now Obama has all the flexibility he really wanted  — Russia can rush to make that phone call again. Israel is now officially isolated and  Iran can finish that little nuclear program — and any other nation feeling entitled to it, too.

If there's anything we have learned in the past four years, it's that the United States of America can survive a long time without a proper budget. The fiscal cliff and the trillion deficit are still awaiting for an answer that didn't come these last four years. The investment climate is non existent — except for cronies. Obamacare will really take place, America will make full transition to european social democracy (Greece, make some space for America, please) and John G. Roberts has nobody to thank for that but himself.

Yeah, I was wrong when I expected a Republican to win this time. But that won't make the actual problems disappear. People have chosen to made them even worse. 

Brace yourself, Mark Steyn. This is what you were talking about.

Related articles

• Because they don't want democracy to work
• Paul Krugman: Triumph of the Wrong?
• Palestinians congratulate Obama, urge peace efforts
• My take: Congratulations Mr. President, but It's really over for all of us

Romney won the second debate (according to Fox News) - but wait, there's more!

Yeah, every warm body that reads the New York Times and watches MSNBC knows Fox News is "false and unreliable", not "fair and balanced." Yeah, every person fed on the MSM fountain knows it's filled with hateful conservatives and republicans (but nobody seems to realize it's filled with card-carrying liberals, too). And Rupert Murdoch (he's eeeeeeeeeeeeevil, you know).

But Fox News knows its audience: it's already in the tank for Romney. The Fox News-junkies don't need reassurances, they are energized enough and they wouldn't have been demoralized if Romney would have really lost the second debate. They will go out and vote on November 6th, with a vengeance.

Now, consider this (if you are still here). Full Disclosure: Romney wasn't my favorite candidate in the Republican primaries:

Romney won the second debate | Fox News: But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive:

1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama's economic record and Obama's rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.

2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.

3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.

4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses

5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.

6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone's satisfaction.

7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.

Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.

But wait, there's more! Wayne Allyn Root, Vegas oddmaker predicts a landslide victory for Romney and argues that:

* The news media is ignoring signs of mass revulsion towards President Obama. In the West Virginia Democrat primary, a felon got 40% of the vote versus Obama. In deep blue Massachusetts and Connecticut, GOP Senate candidates are even, or leading in recent polls. In pro-union Wisconsin, Walker won by a country mile. But worst of all for Mr. Obama, several recent polls show Romney competitive in Illinois -- Obama’s home state. Romney is actually winning by a landslide in the suburbs of Obama’s Chicago. Even in Cook County, the country’s biggest Democratic stronghold, Romney leads by double digits among independents (43-31) and white voters (53-40). These are very bad signs for Obama.
*  In 2008 Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the majority of governorships. Today Republicans control the majority of Governorships. Presidential elections are always steered in each state by the governor -- the most powerful force in state politics.

 *  After the 2010 census, electoral votes were added to states that lean Republican in elections: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. Deep blue Democrat states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts lost electoral votes.

*  That brings up an interesting point. Why is everyone running away from these ultra liberal, high tax states in the first place? Isn’t that alone proof of the failure of Democrat ideas?

*  Next, follow the money trail. Yes, Obama is raising plenty of money, although there is now a major question about whether it's coming from illegal foreign contributors. But forget all that. What matters is that in 2008 Obama overwhelmed McCain by out-spending him 10 to 1 down the stretch. That won’t happen in 2012. Romney is even, or can out-spend Obama, in the last 2 weeks of the election. That makes a huge difference in the outcome.

*  Christians will turn out in record numbers this year. Obama has offended Christians again and again. Last election 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian President in US history. How motivated are Christians? Did you see the long lines around the country to support Chick-fil-A this summer? You’ll see those same lines on election day.

*  Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states -- particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like 2008.

*  Which brings up another important question. What kind of political party relies on felons and people illegally in the country to win elections?

*  The “Enthusiasm Factor” for Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated, and enthusiastic. Democrats turned out for Obama in record numbers in 2008. Today they are demoralized. A big edge goes to Romney on Election Day as conservatives, white voters, middle class voters and independents turn out in record numbers for Romney.

 *  I know several people who voted for Obama in 2008, but never again.  Does anyone know a McCain voter who will vote for Obama in 2012? There are none.

* Finally, history proves that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on election day -- just like Reagan did versus Jimmy Carter in 1980. Romney’s fantastic debate performance gave them confidence to choose the challenger.

Now you can go back to your Huffington Post (if you're still here). Or come back to mock me on November the 7th. Have it your way, pal.

Mitt Romney wins the presidential debate: MSM biased coverage of the elections, hardest hit

Mitt Romney wins the presidential debate: Did the Republican nominee have one good night or has he changed the race against Barack Obama? - Slate Magazine: When Barack Obama entered the debate hall at the University of Denver Wednesday night, the air was clear and warm. When he left, the winds where whipping and the temperature had dropped 20 degrees. Coincidentally, that was also the same number of undecided voters who thought the president had a good debate.

The sipmac team's impression is that the Democrat camp shouldn't fear at all, because the MSM's "McOrdained" polls somehow will manage to tell (after a couple of days) that the electorate miraculously will stick with Obama. A new "teflon candidate" narrative will be the talk and triumphalism will make a big comeback.

Sometimes I wonder which election is covering the MSM, and who should I trust: them or my lyin' eyes...

Related articles

• Mitt Romney wins the presidential debate: MSM biased coverage of the elections, hardest hit
• Video: Obama: I didn't debate "the real Mitt Romney"
• New Obama ad hits Mitt Romney for his fact-free debate performance
• Watch: Jim Lehrer Tangles as Debate Moderator
• U.S. Presidential Debate: Pro-Obama Media Suffers Major Defeat (Le Figaro, France)
• LIVE: Obama And Mitt Romney Are About To Go Head-To-Head In The First Presidential Debate
• Last night, Mitt Romney lost. Yes, you read that right

Chameleonic, ideological mix: Orwell would have smiled

How do we define liberalism? It depends on the landscape. Without going further in analyzing tenets, here’s a small trip around the world and around political definitions/labels: American-style liberalism is called socialdemocratism in Europe. Of course, in America the term liberal has acquired such pejorative connotations that now the preferred word used by liberals to define themselves is "progressive." Just like The Finch and Hillary Clinton like to call themselves.

Politics are dynamic, say politicians that like to change denominations just like they change shirts. Nineteenth century liberalism corresponds to actual libertarianism, of course, and that libertarianism pales in comparison to what was experimented in the late decades of the 19th century. Modern libertarianism equals modern liberalism in Europe, i.e., the old laissez faire. Meanwhile, classical liberalism would be now (via Hayek and Mises) the backbone of what is now considered conservatism in America.

Radical in Europe and Argentina is not even half of what a radical in America is. For European socialdemocrats and amid the current crisis specially, anyone who claims to believe in the free market and small government is labeled a neoliberal (a pejorative word strong in Europe and Latin America), and if he/she is not in favor of the European Union, becomes an ultra-nationalist, and if he/she is not defending secularism at all costs, then he/she is an ultraconservative.

Keep in mind that nowadays by definition any conservative in is an ultraconservative. A neoconservative or neocon is a recovering liberal. A paleoconservative is what people in South America call a “godo.” For the socialdemocrats and progressives alike, all conservatives all the same: extremists. But not ironically for conservatives, the liberals, progressives and socialdemocrats are all leftists, and if we have to use the word, commies. And as long anybody is not showing pictures of Hitler and swastikas, or is brandishing a weapon to establish a communist revolution (note that the extremes are asymmetrical), all are considered "center-left" or "center-right," although more than an knowledgeable experts gets in the same bag both the Nazis and the Communists as Nazi is an abbreviation for national - socialism.


The political struggle is easier when we are the reasonable ones are and the others are the extremists.

Related articles

• Chameleonic, ideological mix: Orwell would have smiled (sipmac.blogspot.com)
• And The Left Complains About Limbaugh...? (americanclarion.com)
• You know, when I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience......... (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• NICK GILLESPIE: It's Like Totally Different When a Liberal Blowhard Guy Calls a Conservative Woman ... (pjmedia.com)
• Conservatism & Liberalism: What is their relationship? What do they mean? (benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com)
• Hollywood's Power (theharvestprinciple.wordpress.com)
• Let this be the Beginning of the End for Liberal Socialism in America! (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Sibelius Spills the Beans (Liberals have to constantly hide what they believe to get votes) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• George Orwell's Rules for Writers (fashioncopious.typepad.com)

Mob lynching Herman Cain: because he doesn’t conform to the stereotype

By Marc Ipsula

Is Herman Cain Black?

Well, according to Al Sharpton, Harry Belafonte, Jesse Jackson and Kevin Blackistone among others, he’s not.

To Harry Belafonte, an avowed communist by the way, this is just mere routine: every black GOPer is by definition a “House Negro”, a strong derogatory term (early applied to those trusted slaves that could serve inside the slavemaster’s house instead of the plantation), akin to “Uncle Tom”, witnesses Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

The righteous prejudice-and-discrimination fighters ironically seem to embrace a very particular stereotype of the American black:

- An American black is a victim, will always be a victim. No matter what happens or does, the American black must always act like a victim.
- An American black must be angry and resentful all the time.
- An American black must expect everything spoon-fed by the government.
- Most important, an American black must embrace liberalism as the correct ideology and always vote Democrat.

As you may suspect, presidential hopeful Herman Cain is none of this. His attitude is one of amiable straightforwardness and perennial optimism. He grew up in the Deep South during the segregation era but he overcame this to become a mathematician and later a Master’s degree in computer science. The CEO stunt at Godfather’s Pizza was only one episode of a fruitful career in the private sector. Maybe Sharpton, Belafonte et al. could oversee all this if Herman Cain weren’t a Republican. And a conservative.

As I said, this is anathema to liberals in general. A black cannot be a conservative and a Republican. This contradicts the political narrative that keeps blacks voting Democrat as a bloc, election after election, as Lyndon B. Johnson boasted once (the n---s would vote Democrat for 200 years).

Civil Rights laws have always been seen as a Democrat achievement, and Republicans always failed to claim their due credit. As they fail to pinpoint the fact that the most reactionary, vocal (and material) supporters of segregation in the civil rights advent era, i.e., the likes of Bull Connor and George Wallace, were Democrats. As Al Gore always manages to duck the fact that his father was as unreconstructed as J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s political mentor) or Jimmy Carter could be. Do you doubt me? After Barack Obama’s election, Teddy Kennedy leaked the fact that when Clinton was looking for the dying senator’s endorsement to Hillary’s campaign in 2008, he tried to convince Kennedy by affirming that Barack Obama should be serving them coffee.

These are the people that, with no little help from Sharpton, Jackson, Belafonte et al., will attempt to lynch Herman Cain before he has a chance to spread his message, the very opposite of those spoiled kids occupying Wall Street. The character assassination just began, by declaring him “not black”.

FULL DISCLOSURE 1: @sipmacrants decided to follow @THEHermanCain WAY before it was trendy enough. I should credit Dr. sipmac with this witty decision.

FULL DISCLOSURE 2: Marc Ispula’s ancestry is as diverse as Barack Obama’s or even Tiger Wood’s. Yep, arawak, black, Spaniard and Italian ancestors are in the mix.

Related articles

• All eyes on Herman Cain in tonight's presidential debate - CBS News (news.google.com)
• Herman Cain 2012: 'I Left The Democrat Plantation A Long Time Ago' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Herman Cain Threatens Empire of Victimhood (dakotavoice.com)
• Harry Belafonte Calls Cain a 'Bad Apple' (abcnews.go.com)
• Herman Cain Rips Harry Belafonte And Cornel West: 'They Don't Want Black People To Think For Themselves' (mediaite.com)
• Mob lynching Herman Cain: because he doesn’t conform to the stereotype (sipmac.blogspot.com)
  

Cooking the Global Warming Books 2: What's next?

Could be Manmade Global Warming theory in the same level as the Piltdown Man? Should Al Gore give his Nobel Prize back? Should he rectify his film publicly? Should the CRU accept the manipulation of data and accept the consequences? Well, it is sure the honorable thing to do. But that surely won’t happen. Dr. sipmac wishes it would.

We were talking yesterday about the deep silence in the mainstream media. Now the people involved in the scandal feel shielded by the press trying conveniently to ignore and shut down what happened. As people say somewhere in Latin America: “cover up, cover up, cover up.”

That will hurt this particular cause and the cause of science in general by not realizing that by denying the manipulation the manmade global warming advocates are giving a debate-ready argument to people who assess that the earth is flat, that humans never went to the moon, and yes, to the creationists, too. The e-mail scandal will be then hung undeservedly on the honest, decent and dedicated scientists for decades to come.

Dr. sipmac cited the Piltdown man fiasco before for a reason. When the “archeological findings” were denounced as a fraud, it didn’t poke a huge hole in Darwin’s theory of evolution. On the contrary, new discoveries cemented the validity of the theory years after the exposé. But this Climategate looks more like the N-Ray case than the Piltdown man: scientists deceiving the people and/or deceiving themselves into believing something that isn’t there.

The other thing that demonstrates this scandal is that the scientists are human after all: prone to do the wrong things for fame, money, recognition and help further political agendas. To the global warming family: please man up, fess it up and take it up. Stop hurting science the way you are doing it now.

Dr. sipmac has ranted

Related articles

• Perry Campaign: Obama Criticism 'Outrageous' (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Nonsensus: 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in global warming? (junkscience.com)
• Good News On Manmade Global Warming (nationalspacestudiescenter.wordpress.com)
• The Real Al Gore and The Meltdown of the Manmade Global Warming Myth (rogueoperator.wordpress.com)
• Past Alarmism and the Future of Manmade Global Warming (pajamasmedia.com)
• Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming (rogueoperator.wordpress.com)
• Are Americans 'Allergic' to Global Warming? (abcnews.go.com)
• Rick Perry on Climate Change (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)