Culture
Dumbest Anti-Prop 8 Argument? “Human Right” to Have State Recognize Your Marriage?
Nov 23rd
One of the dumbest arguments I hear from supporters of gay marriage, and lately protesters of proposition 8 in California- marriage for ALL people is a human right. To oppose proposition 8 is to somehow stand up for human rights.
Jesus H Christ, this is the dumbest argument on the planet.
So, let me get this straight. Marriage is as old as mankind itself. Marriage, recognized by leaders of various communities throughout history has been 1 man and 1 woman. That has been the inherent definition of the entire institution. Gay marriage, which has existed for a couple of years (in some states) is somehow a basic human right? Nonsense. Clearly if a ”right” has only existed in any form for a mere handful of years, it isn’t much of a right to begin with. Human rights? To claim gay marriage is a human right is a slap in the face to all people. It’s offensive to the very idea of human rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the basic human right as spelled out in the US Constitution, and they pretty well sum up human rights themselves, as they encompass a plethora of rights in general.
But a right to gay marriage? People have the basic human right to love whoever they choose to love, but to have the state recognize a union between two people. One, not only is that not a human right in any sense of the word, it’s surely not a right to be extended to any group of people, whether they be 2, 3, 4, or more together, just for the sake of supporting “human rights.” Two– allowing any group of people to join in any union they so choose and demanding that the state recognize it as a “marriage” degrades the instution of marriage and the right to that institution for one man and one woman. Marriage is sacred in that it IS unique. It is solely between one man and one woman. To allow gay marriage would, in theory and surely eventually in practice, demand that we extend this right to all people who join together in some sort of union, no matter how weird most of us think it is. Being weird shouldn’t exclude someone from gaining legal status under certain laws, but to come into a system thousands of years into the process and demand that the world kowtow to your demands that you completely and irreversibly change the very basic definition of that system is ludicrous.
Gay can marry already. There are literally thousands of churches who will be glad to violate the basic tenants of their religion to marry you as a couple. Why the state has to recognize that union and has to recognize it with the words “marriage,” I’ve no idea. And to rebut the argument that we not support gay “marriage” but rather gay “unions”- that idea is insanity that doesn’t even pretend to make any sense. A marriage is, in the eyes of the state, nothing more than a union. Supporting gay unions but not gay marriage (I support neither) is a laughable attempt at obfuscation. Marriage is, no doubt, the foundation of our society. But the important aspect is the religious, cultural, and societal message it sends, as well as the impact the recognization has on all of us as a nation. Gay union is a slipperly slope magic trick. You call them unions, you get people to accept them with that name, then you simply come in with the obvious argument that the state recognizes the union in a marriage, they don’t specifically recognize the religious implications that go along with it. Soon enough people are realizing that gay unions are, in fact marriages, just without the same title, so they soon allow that supporting unions is, in both in theory and practice, the same as supporting marriage itself. Thus, gay marriage across the land.
Gay marriage is clearly not a basic right. It most certainly is not a human right in any sense of the word. It’s not hate or hateful to oppose the concept as a whole, and it’s not mean to support bans to make sure the concept doesn’t turn into actual process. The rabid and the not-so-rabid protesters alike are coming up with some crazy arguments in support of what they really demand (notice I said demand and not what they want), which is total transformation of society. Down with the old order that cherished traditional core values, basic rights as promised by the founders, and the rule of common sense and reason. In with the new progressive rule complete with anything goes morality, a refusal to have any basic core values out of fear of not being totally inclusive, and the idea that as long as it feels good, go ahead and do it. The latter spells doom for our nation, and balllot initiatives like that in California are the only way to stop the constant assault on our national idenity itself.
18 Kids: More Duggar Silliness
Nov 22nd
I posted before about this unusual (from what I’ve seen, they’re not unusual, they’re just plain weirdos) family the Duggars before…the couple has 18 kids with more coming. They’re ultra-religious, and they come off as the strangest family you’d never want to meet.
I’m sitting here watching the start of an episode that says they go to the creationist museum on their way to a family reunion (shocker- these hicks who have been pregnant constantly for over 20 years due to their belief that God wants them to have as many children as possible believe that Adam and Eve walked around with dinosaurs. Ugh)
The mother and father are shown taking all 17 kids with them as she gets her ultrasound so they can see if it’s a boy, girl, triplets, whatever. She says she’ll be happy with whatever the lord blessed her with (or maybe you mean what your husband gives you nonstop for 2 full decades?) The weird part is that they bring the kids into the room where they actually do the ultrasound, which seemed quite weird to me. Then, they had to cover her up with a big tarp so no one, and I mean NO ONE could see any of her belly. She went on talk to about how NO ONE will see her belly, and even when she has the baby she won’t let anyone see her…there will be no flesh, then there will be the baby’s flesh. She wants to remain modet, she says.
I had to switch the channel when the father started showing these bathing suits that were basically wetsuits with extra material added…they were from some company that sold “wholesome swimwear.” The father was talking about demanding modesty for all the boys and the girls. I felt so bad for the kids I had to flip the TV to something else.
I’m all for family values and morals, but these people are just embarassing. Maybe we can look forward to her 30th kid on their TV show (they do this weird thing where they have named ALL of their kids with name starting with “J.”) Only God knows what weirdos these kids are likely to grow up to be. It’s wonderful to see parents spending so much time preparing their kids for life in the world outside of the home. It is, however, quite unfortunate when those parents are preparing them for a world that doesn’t actually exist.
Twilight, OMG, Tehe, Rulez, Rox My Sox!!
Nov 20th
If I hear about Twilight one more time from an adult human being, I will scream.
Kathleen Parker Attacks Evangelicals, Runs for Office of Dumbest “Conservative” Columnist in America
Nov 20th
Kathleen Parker seems to get dumber as the weeks go by. She wrote a column a while back claiming that part of the reason McCain picked Palin was because he was somehow a dirty old man and thought Palin sexy. Then, she went on an obsessive spree of articles attacking Palin and basically demanding she resign from the ticket because she was so unqualified and clueless (in Parker’s eyes).
Realizing she hadn’t done enough to make American conservatives despise her, she wrote an article Wednesday attacking evangelical Christians. The special strain of evaneglicals that, ya know, actually back up their core values and ideals with actions. Those silly bastards that claim to be Christian then actually, get this, practice the values outlined in the Bible (madness, I tell ya. Madness!):
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
…Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.
Armband religion?? I never understood this argument. What good does religion do if you pretend you’re not a believer when you leave the house of worship? What shall a good Christian who isn’t “oogedy-boogedy” (yes, this inane being writes for a major newspaper using phrases like “oogedy-boogedy!”) do, Ms. Parker? Pretend he or she isn’t a Christian unless they’re in the confines of a pew? Do folks like Parker really believe that Christians should confess belief in the Lord, the truthfulness of scripture, but then publicly support all forms of immoral acts in public? Don’t wear your religion as an armband! Hide in when in public!
Parker goes on, and this is when I knew she had truly and completely lost her friggin mind:
It isn’t that culture doesn’t matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party — and conservatism with it — eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one’s heart where it belongs.
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Parker suggests that Christians should, when speaking or writing or even thinking in any form where any other human could deduce their Christian values, should actually pretend not to be Christians and take on some set of new values that go against their core belief system? Religion belongs in “the privacy of one’s heart”??!!!! That has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time from either side of the political spectrum!
What good is religion if you don’t live it daily, but instead lock it up inside, a private little lockbox where no one can see it. Refusing to let your core beliefs show, let alone putting them into practice and urging lawmakers to base their decisions on these core values (the values most of them share as well).
The Vapid Parker finishes:
“Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She’s not entirely wrong, but she’s also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
“I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. … And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it’s something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plow through that door.”
Let’s do pray that God shows Alaska’s governor the door.”
We get it, Kathleen, you hate hate hate Sarah Palin. How dare this ignorant slut pray for guidance. You keep that locked away in the privacy of your heart where religion belongs, little lady!
Let’s face it- Parker is clueless on religion, and worse- she’s a bigot. She dislikes religious people who actually practice their religion. In fact, Parker is just clueless in general. The left surely isn’t going to embrace her, and the right…well, I’m going out on a limb and guessing she’s lost most support there. Is it okay if I pray that the nation closes the door on Kathleen Parker’s career, or is that allowing too much religion outside of the private lockbox of my heart where religion should stay trapped?
ADDENDUM: Also note that Parker has taken to just making things up, when she says:
“Meanwhile, it isn’t necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world’s architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.”
First off, I don’t even know what she’s talking about when she says the change Obama promised has already occurred, linking it to whites and Christianity. I don’t recall Obama running to bring a change in the whiteness of Christian nature of the country. Not to mention, her statement is wholly inaccurate. The most recent surveys show around 85% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the most recent census numbers show that the US is somewhere around 75% white. So, the nation IS predominantly white AND Christian. So, why claim otherwise? Maybe she’s stating the way she wishes the country would be, without all those “low brows” and their damned religion, perhaps?
Are Fools Running Golden Colorado? Time for a “Holiday Tree”
Nov 13th
Saw this story from the AP. A rabbi in Golden, Colorado wanted to put up a menorah next to the city Christmas tree and light display. Problem is, the menorah was 8 feet wide. Call me crazy, but it sounds the rabbi is trying to cause trouble and prove a point. This thing was 6 feet tall and 8 feet wide- it’s huge. I wouldn’t want to place it either.
Worse than the size, the Golden city council wants to ban ALL religious symbols from public land. They’re going to start calling their Christmas tree a holiday tree in order to be more “inclusive.”
A few points- you simply cannot ban religious symbols, especially not jewish or christian symbols. This nation is, and has always been, a nation founded in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The first Americans to colonize here were deevout Christians, the founders were, for the most part, devout Christians (no matter what the atheists try to tell you). Those two value systems dominate, and they form a sacred tradition that provides a rich history for the nation. There’s no logical argument to conclude that religious symbols can be banned to begin with…what part of free exercise is so hard to understand? What part of not inhibiting that exercise, in whatever form, is so complicated?
You have to wonder about people who go on and about on being inclusive. What does that even mean? To be truly inclusive, you must set aside all judgement and allow whatever and whenever. The idea of being inclusive usually gets tagged with a positive connotation, but for me it’s sort of like the people that constantly talk about not judging others. Of course I judge others…we all do, and we do it all the time. And thank God we do! Value judgements between right and wrong tell us who to associate with and who not to (our next president seems to lack this inherent sense, but that’s another story), what actions to take and what actions to stay away from, etc. They guide us in our lives, and they help us choose which path to follow. I don’t want to be inclusive to all, because a lot of value systems and the people who follow them are clearly wrong, often an annoyance, and sometimes even dangerous.
And this whole idea of calling a Christmas tree a holiday tree is insanity. It’s infuriating, because there’s no reason to do it. Christmas is a federally recognized holiday, plain and simple. It’s a Christian holiday for a Christian nation. You will never make everyone happy, so why piss off so many with actions like this? Call it a Christmas tree, alllow certain religious symbols, and fight your way to the US Supreme Court if it comes down to it. Sure, it’ll cost money, but is it more important to save the taxpayers money while flushing the Constitution or more important to worry about what the fight will cost you?
In the end, this shouldn’t be an issue at all. It’s a sign of the times that we even have to discuss this matter to begin with, and that is, more than anything else, a depressing fact.
FactCheck.Org Working for Obama Campaign Now?
Nov 13th
Looks like FactCheck.Org has decided to join the Obama campaign. They posted a new item Nov 11 claiming that when Obama spoke in support of a civilian security force that he was really talking about the peace corps and the foreign service.
Here’s the relevant section of their article:
I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the “Gestapo” or the Nazi Brownshirts…
Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a “civilian national security force” in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama’s detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.Obama was not talking about a “security force” with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding
AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
That’d be great and all, except that’s not at all what Obama said. Speaking in Colorado, he said:
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
[emphasis added by FactCheck]
That argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Obama was merely wanting to double the peace corps and expand the number of people in the foreign service? Neither groups are security forces in ANY sense of the word. None of these groups are “as strong” as the military in any way. Certainly, none of these groups are as well funded.
The Peace Corps is a waste of money where volunteers go around the world helping with agricultural projects, land management projects, clean water, etc. It’s not a security force. The annulal budget is under $350 million.
Foreign Service is part of the State Dept and is a diplomatic service overseas at US embassies and consulates. I can’t find the exact budget for this orgaization, but the state dept as a whole is under $20 billion.
The US military budget for FY 2009 is over $600 billion.
Clearly none of the organizations Obama mentioned are anywhere near as well funded or as strong as the military. Unless the peace corps members are now carrying rocket launchers and driving tanks. Worse, neither peace corps or foreign service could be considered national security, as both groups are overseas and neither deal with national security.
FactCheck argues the quotes mentioned by most were taken out of context, and they lump them with Obama’s comments about the peace corps and such, but the fact is he was talking about several organizations together, and this civilian security force was a separate group.
There is simply no way to argue that when Obama said he supported a civilian security force as strong and well-funded as the US military he was actually talking about the peace corps. That argument is ridiculous.
Just like Obama’s mandatory requirement that kids do 100 hours of community service a year (which he suddenly changed to a voluntary system), this is the sort of creepy comment that Obama doesn’t have to answer for. FactCheck is supposed to be a fair and objective source keeping politicians and the media accountable. Unless you’re the messiah, then they’ll clearly support your version of things, no matter how preposterous the claim.
Noelle (Christmas Movie) on DVD Nov 11
Nov 9th
Let me just take a second to recommend a great independent Christian film for the holidays. Noelle was released last year near Christmas, and it’s just wonderful.
I happened upon it by accident just by seeing the information on the local theatre’s website. I decided to give it a shot, and I’m glad I did. A chance encounter with a wonderful feel-good movie that is totally family friendly. Some called it anti-Catholic, but it’s not anti-Catholic at all. In fact, it’s very much pro-Christian and pro-Catholic in most ways. The fallen heroes in the movie just happen to be priests…so, anything that happens is not an attack on them as priests but rather their failings as people.
Will have to pick this up Tuesday at Wal Mart.
Obama’s Neverending Thirst for Power- Change.Gov
Nov 6th
Obama has shown one thing consistently throughout his very very short career in public life. He’s shown that he craves power and will do nearly anything to get it. He knocked EVERY SINGLE ONE of his rivals off the ballot when elected to the Illinois state senate. He ran basically unopposed to the US Senate seat left vacant by Ryan after his divorce scandal hit. He then promised after elected to the senate that he would fulfill his term, which he did not do. He was emphatic when he told reporters he would NOT run for the presidency in 2008, because he believed in being prepared and qualified for a job before applying for it, and he was neither when it came to the highest office in the country. He broke that promise and ran a campaign garnering nearly $1 billion during a process that lasted 2 years.
Which means that Obama was in the US Senate for a mere 143 days before he started running for the office he promised he would not seek and a job he said he was not at all qualified for. After serving a scant year in office, he took off and started a 2 year campaign for the job he said he would not seek and was not qualified or prepared for.
After promising to take part in public financing for the general election, he broke that promise and basically bought the presidency by spending 5 to 1 over McCain in swing states (if you don’t think his money played a major role in this election, you’re kidding yourself). Obama, I should add, is the ONLY candidate in the history of the public financing system for elections to not take part. Pundits on both sides of the aisle agree that Obama’s decision has destroyed the system altogether, and that no candidate will ever take part in it again, thus the candidate with more money is ensured a better chance at victory.
Now, Obama and his team have set up a fictional office within the US government they have titled ”The Office of the President Elect.” Of course, no federal office of this name exists. In fact, if you visit change.gov, it’s basically the Obama-Biden campaign site where they even ask you to “share your story” and input your name, EMail, etc (donors!!) According to the site, it’s a non-profit organization.
Why allow the Obama campaign to have its own .gov domain name, and why allow them to fool visitors into thinking this is a government sponsored site? Why allow them to use a fictional office of the federal government? When Americans visit sites with the .gov domain, they shouldn’t be fooled into thinking they’re looking at a federal government website, when they’re actually looking at a campaign website.
Obama’s tendency to want power is troubling. It’s also highly creepy. Remember, this is the man whose team created his own presidential seal with his own presidential slogan. This is the man that went on a rock star tour to Europe as if he had already been elected.
Obama has shown that he wants positions of power, and it seems that, throughout his life, he’s wanted these positions for the sake of the power involved with each office itself. This campaign website masquerading as a US government site is yet another example of that, and I think we should all be weary of such maneuvers.
UPDATE: The more I read of change.gov, the more troubling I find it. The Obama campaign has NO business using the .gov domain for this site. This should be clearly labeled a site from the Obama campaign, not a site that fools unssuspecting visitors into thinking they’re at a site from the federal government. The below is straight out of the Obama campaign handbook, and frankly it’s laughable:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq.
Of course, there is no mention that in 2002 Obama was a state senator in Illinois and had no say on any of these issues, let alone the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. It’s not courageous to pander to the far left anti-war crowd (as he did in the primaries) as a state senator from Illinois!
Forget the fact that millions of Iraqis are now free, the country will be a prosperous member of the community of nations, and that the world has one less murdering despot running around. Is the refusal to remove a man who murdered 1 million people a courageous act at all? I mean, honestly…
Oblivious
Nov 4th
Kathryn Jean Lopez from National Review (The Corner) hits the nail on the head…
What Freaks Me Out About This Election [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
is how oblivious to facts people have been. Everything about Obama’s judgment and radicalism — whether Sean Hannity or Stanley Kurtz or Andy McCarthy etc. is telling you about it — was essentially deemed irrelevant (including largely by the McCain campaign, save for Palin eventually talking about Ayers). Abortion? Near no one outside a handful of conservatives were talking about his record on infanticide — beyond abortion.
People are in for a rude awakening. And a mature conservative movement, with both an ear and a solid voice, will be needed.
Obama Win? It’s All About Race
Nov 4th
Obama attended a racist anti-american church based on “black liberation theology” with a pastor who screamed “God damn America!” and claimed that the Sept 11 attacks were our fault.
Obama started his political career in the living room of two terrorists who bombed and killed innocent Americans.
No white candidate on earth would get even 10% of the vote if he were a member of a “white liberation theology” church and spent time in the living room of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh.
Those are two facts you cannot deny no matter how hard you try.
It’s all about race, folks. It’s all about race. Most radical candidate in the history of the nation? You’ve got him America.
Some other notes…
Catholics are voting 50% for Obama in PA (despite the fact that he openly supported infanticide in the IL state senate and declared his very first act as president would be to lift ALL restrictions from ALL types of abortions)…after all the madness this cycle, this country deserves what it gets. We can only pray that Americans turn their brains back on soon…the fact that terrorism scored under 10% as a major issue is proof that voters have already turned the brains off big time…when the next attack comes (it’s only a question of ‘when’), it’ll be another shock to the system just as 9.11 was. Fox News is reporting only 22% of the country labels themselves liberal…yet we’re ready to elect the most liberal candidate in history?!
Final lesson? Voters are mind-boggling stupid, a feeling I’ve already expressed, but these types of thing only solidify that thought.
Abortion on demand- you’ve got it
Gay marriage- you’ve got it
Infanticide with no restrictions on any type of abortion- you’ve got it
Taking from those making over $42, 000 a year and giving to the lower class- you’ve got it
We are S C R E W E D.
UPDATE: National Review’s Byron York has some stats on race:
The Role of Race: It Was Important [Byron York]
The exit polls suggest that race was a factor in a lot of voters’ decisions — and that, on balance, it worked to Barack Obama’s advantage. In Ohio, for example, six percent of voters said that race was the most important factor in their decision. Among them, Obama won 59-40. Another 13 percent said race was an important factor in their vote, and Obama won among them, 52-46. So nearly one in five voters said race was an important part of their decision, and more of them voted for Obama than McCain.
Beyond that, eight percent said race was a “minor factor” in their decision — and they went for McCain, 56-44. Finally, 71 percent said race played no role at all in their decision — and Obama won among them, 54-45.
Even MORE on race in this election. This makes me sick. Like I said before, this election will push race-relations back decades on many levels. I guess the idea that we look not at a person’s skin tone, but rather their character is out the door for good…good job, voters!
More on the Role of Race [Byron York]
The race factor numbers are more striking in the Virginia exit polls. Six percent said race was the most important factor in their decision, and they went for Obama, 60 to 38. Twelve percent said race was an important factor in their decision, and they went for Obama, 64-36. Nine percent said race was a “minor factor” in their decision, and Obama won them 52-47. So Obama led among the 27 percent who said race was a factor in their decision. Finally, 72 percent said that race played no role in their decision, and McCain won among them, 50-49.
Obama lead 27 percent with those who said race was a factor in their decision. The fact that we even have voters using race as a factor in their vote is disgusting enough. The stats that show the Obama supporters are the ones concentrating on race isn’t at all shocking. My guess is the stats will show a large majority of black Americans voted for Obama based on race. No one can deny that is highly troubling.
MORE STATS:
In Virginia. Black voters-
OBAMA 92%
MCCAIN 8%
Of course, if the number was reversed, the pundits would be screaming racism was to blame all day long…
MORE STATS ON RACE:
Obama wins 97% of black vote.
Recent Comments