Skip to content

Obama literally buys, cheats, thugs and racists’ election

November 16, 2012

Remember Obama-phone in Ohio? The precincts around the states manned by poll workers in Obama tee-shirts and with Obama posters on the walls inside the poll? How about 59 voting districts in Philadelphia with ZERO votes for Romney or any Republican? The busloads of non-English speaking bused to vote by Democrats in Ohio. The polls in Houston taken over by Obama workers? The same black Panthers in front of the same polling spot in PA? The threats of a black rioting and attacks if Romney won? The liberal media running favorable pieces on Obama at rates as high as 79-3? The fake unemployment rates that jumped back up after the election? The total blackout on the massacre in Benghazi, Libya that was watched by our drone for the whole 7 hours? The 98% of black (non-racist and non- Democrat????) vote for Obama. Huge votes for Obama from federally funded universities? We could go on and one.


But here is a CNS article by Ron Meyer that adds another amazing viewpoint:

If all 47 million food stamp recipients voted for President Obama, it would account for 75.4 percent of Obama’s 62.3 million votes.

Harry Hopkins, FDR’s close adviser who ran the non-defunct Works Progress Administration (WPA), once described Roosevelt’s strategy as “tax & tax, spend & spend, elect & elect.” He believed that if Roosevelt put everyone on the federal payroll, either through aid or federal jobs, that Roosevelt would never lose. FDR won four presidential elections in a row before his death removed him from office.

Did Obama use his idol’s model to win this election?

Food stamps rolls have grown by nearly 50 percent-by more than 15 million recipients-under the Obama administration. During that same time, the unemployment rate has stayed the same. Either those outside of the workforce have been decimated by the Obama economy or this administration is making a conscious effort to get more Americans reliant on government. Or both.

Welfare programs now cost taxpayers a record-high $750 billion. While government “charity” has grown, so has poverty-and so has the Democrats’ poll numbers.

The candidates and their PACs spent $6 billion for the election. Should we add the $750 billion in federal welfare to Democratic campaign spending total?

Not everyone on food stamps votes or votes Democrat (and no one polls this subset of the population), and I don’t want to overstate the effects of the growth in welfare.

If citizens vote in their own personal, short-term interests, with 49 percent of the population receiving some sort of federal aid, Republicans will never win another election. Thankfully many of those 49 percent are elderly voters who want a bright, debt-free future for their children.

In fact, conservatives should take heart that this election was as close as it turned out. It means that at least some of those receiving federal aid are open to conservative anti-poverty ideas.

While liberals throw federal money at voters, conservatives must offer them something more substantial. It’s tough to beat politicians handing out free stuff, but we have to hope that careers and purposeful opportunity will appeal to American‘s ethos.



Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: