Republicans Continue to Spin Election Results to Claim Obama Lacks Mandate

While Obama had a larger popular vote and Electoral College margin than George W. Bush, who claimed to have a mandate after he won re-election in 2004, now Republicans keep insisting that Obama doesn’t have a mandate because his election victory was too thin a margin. For example, while Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win a 325 electoral vote “landslide,” he then said Obama’s 332 electoral vote victory was merely a “squeaker.”

J.T. Young in the Washington Times today makes the case that Obama’s win wasn’t all that great because if you play around with the numbers and reduce the turnout numbers from Democratic-leaning groups like women then Romney would’ve won! Plus, the conservative share of the electorate was up in 2012 and Ronald Reagan posted huge margins when he ran for president so Americans must still be looking for Republican leadership, or something. 

Multiplying exit-polling participation percentage by preference percentage gives a good approximation of what the Kerry or Gore electoral impact would be on these groups so crucial to Mr. Obama’s victory. The average drop in support for Mr. Obama in 2012 from the higher of either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore among the five groups is 2.4 percent. Delete women from the calculation, and the average decline is 2.8 percent — almost enough to have allowed Mr. Romney to win by Mr. Obama’s 2012 popular vote margin.

Even the decline in votes for Mr. Obama by 18- to 29-year-olds compared to Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore — 2.2 percent — is still more than enough to flip the popular vote to Mr. Romney. The declines in other demographics — blacks (2.4 percent), Hispanics, (2.8 percent) and liberals (3.7 percent) — are far greater.

Furthermore, vote totals for both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore came against George W. Bush, who hardly racked up Reagan-sized Republican margins.



Republicans also retain a real ideological advantage. Exit polling showed conservatives made up 35 percent of voters in 2012 and went 82 percent for Mr. Romney — hardly a conservative favorite. Liberals made up 25 percent of 2012 voters — their highest level among the past four elections and 3 percent more than in 2008 — going 86 percent for Mr. Obama. That means Republicans need only a little more than one-third of the remaining Independents to win, while Democrats need a bit less than two-thirds.

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson even had a post-election rant arguing that even though Obama won the election 51-47 percent, Romney tied him in geography and therefore Democrats don’t have a mandate. “There’s an awful lot of red there,” Wilson claimed. He even wondered if Harry Reid is mentally unbalanced because he said that Democrats had a mandate to raise tax on top-earners.

Of course, since Democrats typically lose the rural vote, if we were simply to judge election mandates according to the colors on maps then Democrats will almost never have a mandate.

Steve Deace on his radio show yesterday was flummoxed that Obama won re-election while capturing just 22 percent of counties. Ignoring the fact that county size has little to do with population rates, he maintained that because Romney carried far more counties than Obama, America still has a conservative majority but freedom-hating liberal elites have “infiltrated the population centers” and ruined everything.

“If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers,” Deace gloated, “we would steamroll them.”

What has happened here is we’ve been outflanked. Enemies of freedom and liberty, what they have done is infiltrated the population centers so that they run the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in your city, they ran the government school board in almost every major city in America, they run even things to the point like the art center, who is on the board of your city’s art center? The statists are, the secularists are, the progressives are. They are running—they have outflanked us. If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers. First of all, most of them don’t believe in guns, that’s one advantage. The other thing is we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers, we would steamroll them, I mean they could not defeat our sheer numbers. But what has happened is the enemies of freedom and liberty have outflanked us, they have been strategic in their thinking and that’s where they have concentrated their resources. So we are a mile wide but an inch deep, they are the exact opposite, they are about a foot wide and a mile deep.

Basically, Obama can only claim to have a popular mandate if he wins the least populated areas of America.

'Barack the Destroyer': Bryan Fischer's Grand Unified Theory of Obama

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer responded to a caller who asserted that President Obama is "a very evil man" who wants to turn American into an Islamic state by laying out a wide-ranging theory about how Obama is not a Christian but rather a Muslim sympathizer who believes that the United States is fundamentally racist and evil and must be destroyed.  And that is exactly what Obama is trying to do, Fischer asserted, by entertaining ideas about capping tax deductions on charitable giving for high-income donors  because he wants to wipe out private charity so that people will become dependent on the government.

In fact, when companies lay off workers, Obama rejoices because "he wants to see America and Americans suffer" because "he is Barack the Destroyer; he is out to punish America for our misdeeds, to punish us for our racism, to bring us to our knees, to humble us in the dust so he can rebuild some kind of a socialist utopia on the ruins of what used to be the United States of America":

WND: Gun Violence part of Obama's Marxist Plot

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush recently appeared on Hannity where, during a debate over Bob Costas’ commentary on gun violence, he got into a shouting match with radio host Leo Terrell and repeatedly yelled at him to “shut up.” Writing at WND, Rush claims that the left is to blame for urban crime: “It is the destructive social policies of the left that have precipitated the dysfunction that leads to violence in the black community…. Societal dysfunction fostered by the left has led to increasing levels of violence, some of which is perpetrated with firearms.”

Rush concludes that “radical Marxists” in the Obama administration hope to “foster” gun violence to justify their plan to “disarm Americans,” which will allow them to “manifest their decades-long dream of a Marxist America.”

While this argument that Obama is intentionally increasing gun violence in order to take away guns is absurd on its place, even Mitt Romney and House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa have given a nod to the conspiracy theory that the Fast and Furious operation was intentionally botched in order to give the administration an excuse to pursue gun control policies.

Liberal blacks who defend gun control on the basis of violent crime in the inner cities are also off base in overlooking that these urban areas have been under the complete political control of liberals for decades. It is the destructive social policies of the left that have precipitated the dysfunction that leads to violence in the black community.

Indoctrinated blacks, of course, do not see the method behind the madness and thus eagerly embrace the simpleton’s impossible fix: Erase guns from the equation. Like so many other Americans, blacks also accept at face value politicians’ feigned concern for our safety.

As we have seen from years of tedious gun-control arguments and activism – some of which have resulted in significant capitulation even from ostensible defenders of the Second Amendment – it matters little that there is no correlation whatsoever between the availability of guns and violent crime. Guns have always been plentiful in America – so why the increasing drive to control them? Simple: Societal dysfunction fostered by the left has led to increasing levels of violence, some of which is perpetrated with firearms.

Once again, we have a problem liberals have created, and which they now intend to “solve” through the stultification of our civil liberties – always for our own good.

The bottom line is that Americans need to wake up to the fact that (as I also said on “Hannity”) all gun-control measures are efforts on the part of the political left to disarm Americans. As governments have known for millennia, unarmed populations are infinitely easier to control than armed ones. This effort will continue to move “Forward,” particularly since Barack Obama was re-elected.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America was intended to facilitate citizens’ protection from a tyrannical government should the occasion ever arise. In layman’s terms, this means militarily engaging the operatives of a criminal regime – with guns. The current administration is bristling with radical Marxists, and I would wager that 80 percent of Americans aren’t even capable of conceptualizing the lengths to which they are prepared to go to manifest their decades-long dream of a Marxist America.

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/5/12

Right Wing Leftovers - 12/5/12

  • Oh good, James Dobson is now publishing a fiction trilogy "in the dystopian tradition of 1984, Brave New World and The Hunger Games."
  • Dick Armey received an $8 million buyout after resigning from FreedomWorks. I'll resign for half that! 
  • Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff were seen having lunch together.  Maybe Abramoff was giving DeLay some pointers on how to handle prison?
  • Fox News has benched Karl Rove and Dick Morris for being spectacularly bad at their jobs, which must be some sort of first. 
  • Gary Bauer warns that the "war on Christmas" is a sign of "cultural rot [that] is really quite dangerous. A civilization that is afraid to defend its values will not survive."
  • Sen. Marco Rubio is still "not a scientist, man" but he now has an opinion on the age of the Earth: "Science says it is about 4.5 billion years old. My faith teaches that's not inconsistent. God created the heavens and the Earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it. The more science learns, the more I am convinced that God is real."

More 'Helpful Advice' for Anti-Gay Groups

After four defeats on the issue of marriage equality at the ballot box and a failed attempt to remove an Iowa justice who favors same-sex marriage, right-wing activists are starting to panic and offering their advice to the GOP and groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family: you’re not anti-gay enough. Yesterday, Matthew Cullinan Hoffman of LifeSiteNews similarly argued that organizations that oppose same-sex marriage need to get nastier.

According to Hoffman, who is also a correspondent for the National Catholic Register, “the very fact that” gay marriage is even up for debate “is an indication of a level of moral confusion and decadence that borders on the apocalyptic.”

He went on to maintain that same-sex unions are a “narcissistic parody” of opposite-sex relationships as “homosexual relationships do not represent an authentic intimacy, but rather involve mutual exploitation for the sake of satisfying an unnatural lust” and lead to suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, violence along with other “destructive consequences.” “Homosexuals themselves, who are the greatest victims of the ‘gay lifestyle,’ and are in desperate need of the truth,” he writes.

“Until and unless pro-family activists adopt a comprehensive and coherent answer to the ideology of the culture of death,” Hoffman concludes, “we will continue to suffer defeat after defeat, until the institution of marriage is completely destroyed.”

If Hoffman really thinks that conservatives aren’t being aggressive enough in their attacks on gays and lesbians, then we suggest he listen to the extreme anti-gay tirades we consistently find coming from right-wing talk show hosts, televangelists and many of the Religious Right groups behind the marriage campaigns.

Although questions of tactics are always relevant to the postmortem analysis following an election loss, they ultimately cannot address the essence of the problem these defeats represent: a grave sexual perversion, one rightly denounced by virtually every society that has ever existed, is being converted in the mind of the public from a vice into a public institution, with associated privileges and rights, including access to infants and small children.

In short, the losses experienced in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State could never have happened in a healthy society that upholds basic standards of sexual morality. The very fact that they were on the ballot at all, that the subversion of the institution of marriage has become a topic of polite conversation, is an indication of a level of moral confusion and decadence that borders on the apocalyptic.



Although millions of dollars have been spent on massive campaigns to counteract the homosexual lobby’s well-financed propaganda machine, and numerous dedicated individuals have committed many hours of labor to the cause of defending marriage, pro-family activists have made the catastrophic mistake of accepting many of the false premises upon which homosexual activists base their claims in the hope of appearing moderate and reasonable, while fatally weakening their own position.



In reality, homosexual relationships do not represent an authentic intimacy, but rather involve mutual exploitation for the sake of satisfying an unnatural lust. Such behavior harms bodies and minds, causing physical damage and spreading diseases, and leading often to depression, drug abuse, domestic violence, and even suicide. Numerous studies have documented the destructive consequences of the “gay lifestyle,” although they should be hardly necessary if one merely considers the physical and psychological incompatibility of same-sex relationships, which substitute the natural complementarity of an opposite-sex companion in favor of a narcissistic parody of the same.



If we really wish to make the case for marriage, we must take a comprehensive natural-law approach to human sexuality that does not evade the more politically difficult aspects of the question, one that affirms the integral nature of sexual relationships and the corresponding duty of the state to defend sexual morality and repress vice. That is the approach laid out by then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in an instruction issued by the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during his leadership of the same. While affirming the goodness of natural marriage, Ratzinger also noted that homosexual unions, without qualification, must always be explicitly opposed, and that governments should act to “contain the phenomenon” of homosexuality.

Although such an approach will entail short-run difficulties and will not yield immediate victories, it is the only long-run solution to America’s terrible moral decline, which is not isolated to the definition of marriage, but includes an almost total corruption of the nation’s understanding of human sexuality, reproduction, and the value of human life. It is also the only truly charitable approach towards homosexuals themselves, who are the greatest victims of the “gay lifestyle,” and are in desperate need of the truth. Until and unless pro-family activists adopt a comprehensive and coherent answer to the ideology of the culture of death, we will continue to suffer defeat after defeat, until the institution of marriage is completely destroyed.

Murray: Obama Channeling Hitler and Creating 'Unholy Alliances with Evil'

After warning that government programs like Social Security turn people gay, Government Is Not God PAC head William Murray writes in WorldNetDaily today that President Obama is using Adolf Hitler as a model to pursue his “false Garden of Eden on Earth.” He says that just as Hitler used money stolen from Jews he sent to death camps to fund his war effort, Obama is trying to raise taxes on the rich to build a “culture of dependency.”

Murray also claims that Obama is targeting Jews and Christians because their faiths are getting in the way of his attempt to grow the size of government, while supposedly aiding Muslims, “radical environmentalists, Christian-hating atheists, homosexual radicals” and liberals. As Democrats put together “unholy alliances with evil,” Murray warns that if conservatives don’t embrace anti-choice and anti-gay positions then the U.S. will face God’s judgment.

President Barack Hussein Obama has a vision of an American utopia not of equal opportunity, but of centrally planned equal outcomes. Many refer to Obama as a socialist or even a communist, but those are just two of the roads politicians in the past have chosen to create their vision of a centrally planned utopia state, or a false Garden of Eden on Earth. Adolf Hitler is most often referred to as a fascist, but he was also one of the foremost central planners and utopianists in history. He called his brand of utopianism “national socialism.”

Central-planning attempts at creating a utopia have always been paid for with stolen money, and most have lasted only until the stolen money was all spent. Hitler, for example, was indeed anti-Semitic, but his hatred of the Jews had practical applications as well. He stole the homes, furniture, jewels, money and even gold teeth of the Jews he killed to finance his thousand-year utopian dream that lasted less than three decades and caused the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of entire cities. He ran out of stolen money to finance his war machine and bring his utopian dream to the world. Toward the end he even tried to trade the Hungarian Jews who were still alive to the Allies for cash.

To create the “common good” and have “economic equality,” a central government must “plan.” Barack Hussein Obama has vastly increased government to expand the central planning that already existed, thanks to both political parties. His version of central planning covers everything from “green energy” to forcing religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortions. His utopian central-planning czars want to control our energy use, our diets and our incomes. Next government will tell us where and when we can talk about our faith in the Lord.

There is freedom in central planning, but as F.A. Hayek pointed out in his famous book “Road to Serfdom,” it is the “unlimited freedom of the planner to do with the society what he pleases.” Judeo-Christianity, which emphasizes the freedom of the individual under a supreme God, is not compatible with a central planner’s visions of a society in which “all gods are equal” under government. On the planet Barack Hussein Obama comes from, his vision of social good comes first, and all religions – except Islam – must conform to the centrally planned society. Individual freedom is not possible in a centrally planned society.



The nation has gone past the tipping point. There are simply not enough people paying income taxes to get majority public support for this position. Obama is robbing Peter to pay Paul, as mentioned above. All those “Pauls,” plus the radical environmentalists, Christian-hating atheists, homosexual radicals and nutty rich liberals like Warren Buffet came together to vote for Obama and keep Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. The Republicans desperately need social conservatives, yet are now ignoring our issues.

Not even a month has passed since the election, and the GOP establishment is distancing itself from social conservative leaders. These establishment guys really believe that telling the 50 percent of the adults who pay no income tax at all that they are going to reduce spending and cut taxes is going to get them elected. How? People on food stamps are not going to vote for the GOP if the social issues are tossed in the trash. And meanwhile, the Democrats are proud of their stance on social issues. Democratic congressmen ride in “gay” parades and help women get to abortion clinics. Most Republicans hide on the day of the Right to Life march in January.

Many of those who pay no taxes at all and receive government assistance vote for Republican candidates because they are pro-life and pro-traditional family. Is such a family on food stamps going to vote for a Republican who both supports same-sex marriage and wants to cut food stamps? The same family will, however, vote for a strong social conservative.



Democrats are proud of their unholy alliances with evil, but the Republican establishment is ashamed of their moral allies who stand with the Bible. Thankfully, there are more than 100 members of Congress in the Congressional Prayer Caucus that social conservative leaders like me can continue to work with.

The GOP establishment needs to get some Old Time Religion!

Yes, the nation needs low taxes for economic growth, but our nation also needs to be right in the eyes of God. America cannot at the same time kill over 1 million babies a year, mock the Bible with same-sex marriage and bow to the false god of Islam throughout the world, without receiving God’s judgment.

Boykin: Everything Obama's Doing has Come Straight Out of the 'Communist Manifesto'

Every year, WallBuilders hosts an event called "The Pro-Family Legislators Conference" designed to provide an opportunity for "conservative pro-family State legislators from across the United States to come together for an insightful briefing session with leading experts in a variety of fields that touch many of the most crucial areas of public service."

Among the speakers at this year's conference, held shortly after the election, included David Barton, Rick Green, Glenn Beck, Daniel Lapin, Kris Kobach, and Jerry Boykin.  For the last few weeks, WallBuilders has been airing some of the speeches that were delivered at the conference and today aired part of Boykin's remarks in which he warned that, because President Obama was re-elected, Sharia law would continue to spread while religious liberty would come under even greater attack and America would continue on the path toward becoming a completely Marxist nation straight out of the "Communist Manifesto": 

We've got a huge problem in America that Sharia is now being inculcated into our legal system. The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood today in America is absolutely incredible - I'm going to come back to this issue.

My friends, the attack on religious liberty in America today is at an all-time, unprecedented level and, by the way, because Barack Obama was re-elected, it's going to get worse. It's going to get worse, folks; you have to stop it.

I will tell you that America is becoming a Marxist nation - I don't care what you say, I'm tired of being called a bigot because I don't like the Marxist policies of Barack Obama. I didn't like Jimmy Carter either, nor Bill Clinton for that matter.

We're becoming a Marxist nation. You can call it whatever you want to, but we're becoming a Marxist nation. And everything we're doing is right out of the Marxist playbook. Everything! It's right out of the Marxist playbook. Go back and read the "Communist Manifesto" if you don't believe me and then look at what we've done in America.

LaPierre: Obama and Media Planning a 'Siege on the Second Amendment in This Country Like We've Never Seen Before'

During halftime of Sunday night’s NFL football game, NBC sportscaster Bob Costas weighed in on the recent murder-suicide carried out by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, noting that the prevalence of guns in our culture is making such tragedies more common.

This commentary has, predictably, outraged the Right, most notably NRA President Wayne LaPierre, who appeared on Glenn Beck's television program to frantically warn that "the media in this country hates the Second Amendment rights of American citizens and they'll do anything to try and take that freedom away from average citizens" by teaming up with the Obama Administration to carry out a wholesale "siege on the Second Amendment in this country like we've never seen before":

Inhofe Claims Obama and Liberals Hope to Disband the Military

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s show yesterday where they railed against President Obama over his speech at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium. Gaffney claimed that Obama was practicing “national security fraud” and is “misleading the American people” by heralding new efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while Inhofe said that the dream of Obama and the far-left is to disband the military altogether. “The far-left doesn’t think we need a military to start with, they really don’t,” Inhofe told Gaffney, “They would never say that but they do believe that.”

Listen:

Gaffney: I just have to ask you about this. President Obama made a statement yesterday that just is stunning. He said to a group of nuclear disarmament enthusiasts: ‘We’re moving closer to the future we seek. A future where these weapons never threaten our children again. A future where we know the security and peace of a world without nuclear weapons.’ Senator, I suggest to you that represents national security fraud. I just wonder, knowing what you do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons not just in Iran but the buildup by the Chinese that have just tested a new long-range missile from mobile launchers capable of reaching this country, what on earth is the president doing misleading the American people?

Inhofe: I think that you and I have a problem. We don’t stop and realize that we are dealing with people—the far-left doesn’t think we need a military to start with, they really don’t. You’ve heard me say this before, they really believe if all countries would just stand in a circle and unilaterally disarm and hold hands then all threats would go away, they believe that. They would never say that but they do believe that.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious