On Voter Fraud

I love how Democrats who are opposed to having to show an ID to vote claim that "there's never been any instance of voter fraud proven" when there are thousands of dead people voting in every election.

That Didn't Take Long, Part 2

From The Hill:

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

Well, That Didn't Take Long.

From Reuters:

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

But, to be fair:

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week. 

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said. 

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said. 

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

It's Because I'm White, Isn't It?

From David Simon (via Daring Fireball):

But make no mistake: Change is a motherfucker when you run from it. And right now, the conservative movement in America is fleeing from dramatic change that is certain and immutable. A man of color is president for the second time, and this happened despite a struggling economic climate and a national spirit of general discontent. He has been returned to office over the specific objections of the mass of white men. He has instead been re-elected by women, by people of color, by homosexuals, by people of varying religions or no religion whatsoever. Behold the New Jerusalem. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a white man, of course. There’s nothing wrong with being anything. That’s the point. 

This election marks a moment in which the racial and social hierarchy of America is upended forever. No longer will it mean more politically to be a white male than to be anything else. Evolve, or don’t. Swallow your resentments, or don’t. But the votes are going to be counted, more of them with each election. Arizona will soon be in play. And in a few cycles, even Texas. And those wishing to hold national office in these United States will find it increasingly useless to argue for normal, to attempt to play one minority against each other, to turn pluralities against the feared “other” of gays, or blacks, or immigrants, or, incredibly in this election cycle, our very wives and lovers and daughters, fellow citizens who demand to control their own bodies. 

Regardless of what happens with his second term, Barack Obama’s great victory has already been won: We are all the other now, in some sense. Special interests? That term has no more meaning in the New America. We are all — all of us, every last American, even the whitest of white guys — special interests. And now, normal isn’t white or straight or Christian. There is no normal. That word, too, means less with every moment. And those who continue to argue for such retrograde notions as a political reality will become less germane and more ridiculous with every passing year.

I'm so tired of being told that I only voted against Barack Obama because I'm a white guy or because he's a black guy. Or that I think the way I do only because of my race. That pre-supposes that people who look a certain way can only or should only think a certain way. I reject that wholeheartedly, but I certainly understand that it's a tried and true Democrat division tactic. Democrats lumping all members of a particular ethnic group into a voting bloc - and then shaming them into only voting that way - is real racism.  It's looking at someone only based on their race. That's the kind of thing we, as a society, as a country, as people should be fighting against at every turn.

Race has never, ever had anything to do with my vote.  Ever.

[Edit]
This comment below the lined article does a much, much better job than I have:

The smug moral superiority of leftists is getting increasingly infuriating. Which campaign was it who accused the other guy of being “Not One of Us”? Oh yeah, that’s right: Obama’s. Which campaign was it that constantly thrashed on about a bogus “war on women”? Oh, that’s right, Obama’s. Which campaign was it that consistently demonized rich people (because, heaven knows, they aren’t human or worthy of respect)? Oh, that’s right, Obama’s. Oh, and by the way, which mighty champion of the poor and scourge of the pampered rich was it who won EIGHTY PERCENT of the 10 richest counties in America? Oh yeah, that’s right. Obama. 

Show me one racially tinged thing the Romney campaign did. See how I cited specific examples up above? Give me just one. Give me one example of Romney playing the race card. You can’t, because he didn’t. 

Face it: you’re so damned reverse racist that you think anybody who has the temerity to run against your sainted Obama is inherently racist. That’s what it boils down to. You won’t see it. You won’t ever see it. But you infuriate and sadden me with your blindness and your holier-than-thou attitude. 

You think the vast majority of the Republican vote isn’t based on a sincere belief that borrowing more money and saddling our children with even more debt is a bad idea? You think the vast majority of prolifers are really people who are trying to keep women in chains? You don’t see even the *slight* possibility that someone might care as much about an unborn baby’s life as about, say, the life of the delta smelt that would be such a righteous cause for your side? 

You claim to be on the side of tolerance. You claim to be on the side of the open-minded. You claim to have righteousness on your side. You’re full of shit. You, and so many Hollywood liberals and media liberals, are the most intolerant people on the planet. You can’t abide that somebody *actually* might have a different view of the world, or a different opinion. So those who disagree have to be racists and sexists. They just HAVE to. There’s no other possible explanation of how anyone could disagree with your choice for president. Your side — even though examples of corruption and venal opportunism are evident everywhere — your side is the bringer of light and truth, to the exclusion of all others. 

And *we’re* the intolerant ones? Grow up, Simon. Grow up, all of Hollywood. Get a clue and get a grip. People who disagree with you aren’t evil. They think our problems should be solved in a different way. 

You can’t see that, because *you* are the one with entrenched, unthinking views. All of you supposedly independent-thinking liberals who went through colleges that brainwashed you into seeing sexism and racism at every turn — you think that the fact that you believe exactly what your professors told you to believe is the product of your brilliant minds coming together? Wake up and become truly independent thinkers and understand that people who disagree with you are not evil. 

God, I’m so tired of leftwing bullshit.

Thoughts on the Election

First, I want to say congratulations to my Democrat friends.  Your guy won.  I'm not sure how, exactly, but he did.  I don't want to debate it, either.  But I did want to congratulate you.  This is as close as I can come to being magnanimous this morning.  The wound is still just too fresh.

I want to say that for those of you who voted for President Obama again out of a genuine philosophical match, I respect that.  I commend that.  If you genuinely think he's the guy to lead us and think his way of doing things is the best for the country, then I can live with that. I've got no beef with you. Well, not exactly, but at least I respect your motive, if not your ideology.

What I can't stomach are the people who voted based on ignorance or hearsay against Mitt Romney or for a reason such as the color of his skin. When you vote for (or against someone) based on the color of his skin, that makes you a racist. When you view the world through a prism of race - that makes you a racist.

Looking over my blog posts about President Obama from the past four years - and I haven't blogged on nearly everything that I could have or wanted to - I'm simply amazed at how short our collective attention spans are. One thing that struck me again was just how often the Obama Administration says one thing in public and then does the exact opposite.

So President Obama remains in office.  The Senate remains under Democrat control and the House remains Republican.  Nothing has changed. But watch for the Democrats to start talking about a mandate. And watch for it quickly.  They've been salivating for this moment ever since they lost the House in 2010. It'll be interesting what they try to get done as soon as possible. The real agenda items will be the ones they pounce on.  Watch for it.

As I write this, I've finally calmed down after the election.  I'm not mad anymore, but I still have a sense  of disbelief.  How is it that so many people in our country could side with a party with ideology that runs completely counter to traditional values and to my ideals and morals? Are there really that many people out there that don't understand what President Obama's spending is threatening to do to our nation?  How can people not be insulted by his use of executive order and fiat to pass things that should have to go through Congress? How can people not see his actions as a dangerous precedent upon which a dictatorship could be built by a power hungry leader in the future? How can so many people not be incensed by the erosion of our individual liberties?

My only thought on that is that the Democrats have become so good at the shell game that people don't realize they're losing all those things. In fact, they've got some people actually believing that they stand for freedom. People are willing to let their government imprison them indefinitely with no recourse or order American citizens killed without trial or take control of all communication systems in the U.S. if it deems it necessary or put American citizens into military camps... as long as they get a shiny new Obamaphone or some other shiny trinket or handout out of it.

Elections have consequences, and I gravely fear the consequences of this election for our future liberties.