Posted on 08/19/2011 1:07:53 PM PDT by RobinMasters
As WND reported, radio host Rush Limbaugh raised an intriguing question on the air: "Where are all of Obama's former girlfriends?"
In referring to past email inquiries he received on this subject, Limbaugh continued, "They are interesting because those people haven't surfaced. There aren't any ex-girlfriends that have admitted it."
In fact, I wrote about this question in my book, "Deconstructing Obama," and on these pages last year. As the likely source of these rumors, I thought I might clarify them, at least to the degree they can be clarified.
As it happens, Obama inadvertently raised the girlfriend issue himself in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father." Published when he was 33, "Dreams" documents Obama's all-consuming search for identity.
Whether he dated white women or black women – and what he might have learned from either – matters, but Obama gives the reader very close to nothing.
"Cosby never got the girl on 'I Spy,'" he laments in "Dreams," but in his own retelling, he does not do much better.
Although Obama spent 13 years on the mainland as a single man, on only one occasion in "Dreams" does Obama make any reference to his love life.
In a brief recounting, he tells his half-sister, Auma, that in addition to a white woman he had loved and lost, "There are several black ladies out there who've broken my heart just as good."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Many different journalists investigated Bush, not just liberals. Byron York -- a conservative -- did a complete work up on Bush's TANG record. It wasn't all lies. Facts were involved, and they could be checked. Records existed, and they could be verified. We simply do not have this information on 0bama.
Go out and read a book -- just one, any one will do, even if all it has is pictures to color in. Them come back and post something either 1) true or 2) logical. [I'm charitable; it doesn't even have to be both.] Until you do, please, stop posting; I'm asking you to do this for the sake of your own credibility. If you aren't simply playing a role, you make the entire universe a little stupider every time you post something.
And what did all that investigating of Bush result in? Oh yeah, he won re-election anyway. And that’s my point. We obsessed on Clinton’s past, he got re-elected; they obsessed on Bush’s past, he got re-elected. So you want to make it three in a row.
Obama’s past does not matter. It’s 30 freaking years ago, it has no meaning, the American people don’t give a rip. You resorting to insults just proved me right, if the facts were on your side you wouldn’t need ad hominems, so I’m gonna keep posting and you go ahead and keep being wrong. and remember every insult you throw just proves you’re wrong, and you know it.
We are a nation of 311 million. In the next 40 years, we will add another 130 million, 75% due to immigration, legal and illegal. Obama beat McCain by 10 million votes, which is the reality we must deal with. And a higher turnout would more than likely help the Dems than the Reps given our rapidly changing demographics.
87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the 500,000 illegal aliens who enter each year are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2039, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.
Getting his transcripts won’t change that number. Normal people don’t give a crap about somebody’s grades from 30 years ago. They just don’t care. And they shouldn’t because it’s a stupid thing to worry about. All anybody has to do to puncture the myth of his intellect is listen to 5 minutes of him talking, anybody that can do that and still think they guy can tie his own shoes isn’t going to change their mind if his grades are published.
Again, you don't seem to get it. This isn't about grades, it is about an overall perception of Obama. Yes, Obama depends on TOTUS, but he is far more articulate than GW Bush on his best day. Obama is a con man whose image is being burnished and glorified by the MSM. His academic credentials are being touted because there is so little else in his resume. A Columbia/Harvard resume is considered meaningful by the media and political elites. And whatever you think about listening to Obama for 5 minutes, the reality is that Obama received 69 million votes in 2008; he has a formidable political maching behind him that uses the latest in technology and social media; and he will probably raise a billion dollars in this election cycle.
I understand the politics of personal destruction very well, I understand that they’re evil and they’re a large part of why we’re in this mess, a large part of why our presidential candidates have pretty much all sucked for 50 years. And most importantly I understand that playing into just makes the situation worse. Get it? You are part of the problem.
The politics of personal destruction have been going on ever since the founding of this Republic. Wake up and smell the coffee. If the Reps continue to be above the fray and don't meet fire with fire, they will lose. I understand how the Democrat machine works. My grandfather was a ward heeler for Mayor Frank Hague. The Dems and their union henchmen are street fighters witness what is happening in WI. They are on the lawns of Verizon executives. They are committing widespread voter fraud thru groups like ACORN. And Soros funded networks are infiltrating every institution is this country. We are in a fight for national survival.
As a long time member of the Tea Party movement and a grassroots immigration activist that lobbies on the Hill and at the state level, I can tell you that the other side is better organized (Orgainizing for America has over 13 million members who can be mobilized with a tweet or Facebook message) and funded than we are. I have been active in the Rep party and been a poll watcher inside and outside. The Dems are better funded and more energetic. The only thing that is staving off the Dems is the Tea Party, which is why they and the MSM are demoninzing it. And yet, there are members of the Rep establishment who despise the Tea Party.
I get it fine. You’re playing they’re (sic) game. You want things to work the way that got Kennedy, and LBJ, and Carter, and Clinton, and Obama elected.
I want to win. We are losing now and the window is closing fast as the rapid demographic changes in this country will eventually make the Dems the permanent majority. CA is the archetype of what will happen to the rest of the country in the next 40 years.
FYI: Your use of the contraction, "they're," is incorrect in the context of your sentence. "They're" is short for "they are." You should use "their," the possessive pronoun. In English, we also have "there," an adverb. I know it is a bit confusing for those who are not native English speakers. No offense if that is the case.
you ran right past the point. Obama won with about 1/4 of the eligible voters. Half the country doesn’t take part in the process. That’s pathetic.
Again I get it fine you’re just ignoring reality. Anybody that still thinks Obama isn’t an idiot won’t have their mind changed by anything.
Since the Kennedy era all of politics is now personal destruction. Which has a lot to do with why half the eligible voters in this country don’t vote. People are sick of the lousy politicians and stupid campaigns. If you want to win in a way that really matters, that actually can effect change, you need to engage that 50%. Obama won with only 1/4 of the possible vote. Think about it. The non-voters are an unbeatable block. But they won’t vote for somebody that’s obsessed with stupid crap that happened 30 years ago, they won’t vote for mud slingers, and they won’t vote for the usual suspects.
Your way won’t result in a real win. Heck your way probably won’t result in any win at all. Like I pointed out to another poster: we got obsessed with Clinton’s past and the dems used that against us to get him re-elected; they got obsessed with Bush’s past and he got re-elected. Once is an accident, twice is a mistake, three times is just stupid. We already know what happens when you obsess on the past. Even if we do somehow win the POTUS we still have the mess in Congress, a mess made by the way you want to win. There’s a reason so little actually changes when the White House changes hands, and a big part of it is that everybody in office is people who got their because their opponent couldn’t find enough dirt. Your way won’t make us not be CA, your way is WHY CA is the way it is.
FYI, typos happen, especially when typing less than an hour out of bed. If they bother you, just stop reading it.
Why is it pathetic? People get the government they deserve. No one is prohibiting people from voting. Total turnout was about 60% of eligible voters. And as I indicated, a higher turnout would probably not help Reps.
Again I get it fine you’re just ignoring reality. Anybody that still thinks Obama isn’t an idiot won’t have their mind changed by anything.
I don't think he is an idiot. Far from it. He has the most radical agenda of any man to occupy the WH. He is intent on transforming this country into some sort of Marxist utopia. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. His EPA and recent back door amnesty Executive Orders are undermining the Constitution and usurping Congressional power. We are being ruled by executive fiat.
Since the Kennedy era all of politics is now personal destruction. Which has a lot to do with why half the eligible voters in this country don’t vote. People are sick of the lousy politicians and stupid campaigns. If you want to win in a way that really matters, that actually can effect change, you need to engage that 50%. Obama won with only 1/4 of the possible vote. Think about it. The non-voters are an unbeatable block. But they won’t vote for somebody that’s obsessed with stupid crap that happened 30 years ago, they won’t vote for mud slingers, and they won’t vote for the usual suspects.
You need to get better informed about American history. In terms of the politics of personal destruction, you can go back to Jefferson, Jackson, Lincloln, Cleveland, Harding, etc. just to name a few. In many ways, our past politics were much more violent and personal. We need to draw some bright lines between ourselves and the opposition. Moderates and moderation are what has created this mess. We offer voters the choice of Tweedledum and Tweddledee. Reagan said it best,
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
Your way won’t result in a real win. Heck your way probably won’t result in any win at all. Like I pointed out to another poster: we got obsessed with Clinton’s past and the dems used that against us to get him re-elected; they got obsessed with Bush’s past and he got re-elected.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth saved Bush's ass in 2004 despite Rove and McCain denouncing them. And Bush barely squeaked by for an incumbent, wartime President in relatively good economic times.
The elections of 2010 with the Tea Party getting into the streets and at townhalls should be the template on how to win against the Dems. You must be organized, energized, and have core principles. We won because we employed many of the same tactics the Left uses against us.
We already know what happens when you obsess on the past. Even if we do somehow win the POTUS we still have the mess in Congress, a mess made by the way you want to win. There’s a reason so little actually changes when the White House changes hands, and a big part of it is that everybody in office is people who got their because their opponent couldn’t find enough dirt. Your way won’t make us not be CA, your way is WHY CA is the way it is.
CA is the way it is due to immigration, legal and illegal, that have changed the demographics of the state. One out of every four residents is foreign born and one out of three is Hispanic. This will be similar to the demographics of the entire country by 2050. States like Nevada, Colorado, and NM are in the process of turning purple to blue. Texas and AZ will eventually go the same way.
Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects
Ronald Reagan, in his famous 1975 speech at CPAC, said,
"Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness. I don't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."
"It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?"
" Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"
FYI, typos happen, especially when typing less than an hour out of bed. If they bother you, just stop reading it.
LOL. That wasn't a typo. You didn't know the difference between "they're," and "their." Do you have your own definition of typo as well?
Most countries where people get to vote the turn out is over 90%. America’s turn out is pathetic, has been for a long time and continues to be. And remember our “60%” number is based on registered voters, not over 18 and not felons (the real eligible voter count). It’s our only real national embarrassment.
Obama is an idiot. At this point I’m not even sure he has an agenda. Mostly he just shows up.
I’m very well informed on American history, you need to read what I wrote and stop inserting your own content. I never said politics of personal destruction was new, I said it took over with Kennedy, that’s when the 2 step process was identified, and that’s when they figured out that if you bled enough voters from the other side you didn’t actually need to get people to vote for you. That’s what put us on the path of considering 60% (really under 50%) voter turn out to be good. That was a major sea change in how destructive politics works. It re-invented the game, and is documented as such in most books on the history of American politics.
That’s a good Reagan quote, what I especially like about it is that it shows why you’re wrong. “Obama’s grade were bad” is not a fundamental belief, it is not a principle, it is not a basis of conservatism. It’s just mud to fling, 30 year old mud at that, almost the exact same mud Kerry threw at Bush in 2004. Swift boaters helped Bush to be sure, but even before they showed up Kerry’s numbers were mediocre at best, those are the real facts.
The 2010 Tea Party campaigned on ideas and plans, not on Obama’s college transcripts. Another campaign like that would be great. Actually it’s exactly what I’m saying we need.
CA is the way it is because all the politicians do is yell and scream and insult. They’re so busy flinging mud nobody has actually tried to fix the state since Reagan stopped being governor. They spend a lot of time blaming each other, no time fixing it. They’re like a bad company.
It was a typo, just look at the rest of that post and previous posts. I learned to touch type 30 years ago, I don’t really supervise the fingers anymore, don’t really look at the output. Sometimes the fingers decide they’re going to put the wrong their there, which, according to the dictionary (an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard) is a typo.
Most countries don't haved 90% turnout rates. Some countries like Australia, Belgium, and Greece have compulsory voting and fine you if you fail to vote. And exactly what would you do to increase voter turnout?
And remember our “60%” number is based on registered voters, not over 18 and not felons (the real eligible voter count). It’s our only real national embarrassment.
You are wrong. The turnout for registered voters in 2008 was 74.4%.In 2004 it was 72.2%.
Obama is an idiot. At this point I’m not even sure he has an agenda. Mostly he just shows up.
You can labor under that illusion. Obama's Marxist philosophy governs his actions and his appointments. He is a true believer, not a bystander.
I never said politics of personal destruction was new, I said it took over with Kennedy, that’s when the 2 step process was identified, and that’s when they figured out that if you bled enough voters from the other side you didn’t actually need to get people to vote for you. That’s what put us on the path of considering 60% (really under 50%) voter turn out to be good. That was a major sea change in how destructive politics works. It re-invented the game, and is documented as such in most books on the history of American politics.
Nonsense.
That’s a good Reagan quote, what I especially like about it is that it shows why you’re wrong. “Obama’s grade were bad” is not a fundamental belief, it is not a principle, it is not a basis of conservatism. It’s just mud to fling, 30 year old mud at that, almost the exact same mud Kerry threw at Bush in 2004. Swift boaters helped Bush to be sure, but even before they showed up Kerry’s numbers were mediocre at best, those are the real facts.
You keep bringing up the grades business. You still don't get it, but why am I not surprised. Kerry would have won if it hadn't been for the SBVFT who froze the Kerry campaign likr s deer in the headlights for over three weeks. Bush only won with 50.7% to 48.3%. The race was a virtual toss-up all the way thru. Here in VA Kerry won Fairfax County, the first time that had been done by a Dem in 40 years. It went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 giving VA to Obama.
The 2010 Tea Party campaigned on ideas and plans, not on Obama’s college transcripts. Another campaign like that would be great. Actually it’s exactly what I’m saying we need.
Obama wasn't running in 2010. And yes, we are planning a similar campaign this year in VA when the entire General Assembly is up for reelection. It will be a good indicator as where we stand in 2012. However, this time the Dems are energized and well-funded. It is going to be a real battle to see if we can flip the State Senate from Dem to Rep. VA is now a purple state thanks to demographic changes. North Carolina is also changing thanks to immigration.
CA is the way it is because all the politicians do is yell and scream and insult. They’re so busy flinging mud nobody has actually tried to fix the state since Reagan stopped being governor. They spend a lot of time blaming each other, no time fixing it. They’re like a bad company.
CA has changed due to demographics. Minorities and immigrants vote Dem. Non-Hispanic whites are less than 50% of the population and declining rapidly. With the next redistricting, I think the CA Rep numbers in Congress will go down significantly. If you look at the Congressional races in 2004 and 2008 in CA, you will see that the Dem districts are becoming less and less competitive while the Rep districts are becoming more competitive. It is just a matter of time before CA becomes the bluest of blue states. It is the canary in the coal mine. CA is gone.
It was a typo, just look at the rest of that post and previous posts. I learned to touch type 30 years ago, I don’t really supervise the fingers anymore, don’t really look at the output. Sometimes the fingers decide they’re going to put the wrong their there, which, according to the dictionary (an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard) is a typo.
Just admit that you didn't know the difference between "they're" and "their," and let it go at that. It is hard to take someone serious who makes a mistake like that, something a third grader wouldn't do--at least when I was growing up in the 40s and 50s. Our education system is abysmal. You are just a product of it.
The way to increase voter turn out is to stop trying to make politics horrible. It’s all mud and vile these days and the people are growing sick of it. Plenty of places where it’s not compulsive have great voter turn out, Malta, Austria, Italy can all score 90% on midterms. We have a political process in this country that the people don’t want to participate in.
Somebody in the Obama White House has an agenda. I’m just not sure it’s him, not anymore, reality seems to confuse him fine.
There’s no nonsense about it. That’s the stone cold truth. Sorry it inconveniences you, but when you find the truth inconvenient that’s not my problem.
I bring up the grades business because that’s what this conversation is about: an addiction to stupid “issues” that don’t matter, like the “missing girlfriends” of the original article and college transcripts YOU brought up. Kerry froze his own campaign. All Kerry ever had was complaints about Bush then he lived up to them all. He complained about Bush’s vacations, then took 3 during the campaign; he complained about Bush foreign policy, and never showed up to foreign policy committee meetings; he complained about Bush not having enough press conferences, and didn’t have another after the first weekend in September. Kerry ran a terrible campaign, the only reason it ever was close is because Bush sucked at getting his message to the people for his whole presidency. SBVFT did a good job of countering Kerry’s only good ad, but they’re not even close to the only reason Kerry lost. The primary reason he lost is he sucked and his talking points were worse.
Mid-terms are all about the executive, have been for years. The party that owns the White House is trying to get their president “help”, the part that doesn’t is trying to cut him off at the knees. Obama was running in 10 the same way Bush was in 02 and 06.
CA didn’t really change. That’s why Brown’s back. They’re just further down the same road they’ve been on for a long time.
I can point to 30 times in this thread I got the there/eir/ey’res right. You’re obsessing on once I blew. Get over it, and yourself.
One other interesting finding in 2008: Of the 5 million additional voters in 2008, about 2 million were Black, 2 million were Hispanic, and 600,000 were Asian. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic White voters did not change statistically from 2004.
I bring up the grades business because that’s what this conversation is about: an addiction to stupid “issues” that don’t matter, like the “missing girlfriends” of the original article and college transcripts YOU brought up.
LOL. The issue is a thorough vetting of Obama, which also includes his personal narrative. The MSM has given him a pass, something they don't do for Reps. Unless the Reps do it, it won't happen. And it is important and has been done on every political candidate in my memory and before. It is not stupid.
Kerry ran a terrible campaign, the only reason it ever was close is because Bush sucked at getting his message to the people for his whole presidency. SBVFT did a good job of countering Kerry’s only good ad, but they’re not even close to the only reason Kerry lost. The primary reason he lost is he sucked and his talking points were worse.
Bush won by the slightest of margins, especially for an incumbent running against a lackluster candidate. The SVBFT were the difference and Kerry has said so. He was swiftboated. Using your reasoning, Kerry's service should have never be brought up. I beg to differ, especially as someone who served in Vietnam and did my full year in-country as a naval officer.
Mid-terms are all about the executive, have been for years. The party that owns the White House is trying to get their president “help”, the part that doesn’t is trying to cut him off at the knees. Obama was running in 10 the same way Bush was in 02 and 06.
Bush gained seats in 2002 and lost Congress in 2006. Yes, they are about the WH but they are also about incumbents and their voting records. Voting for Obamacare among blue dog Dems was the kiss of death. And the Tea Party provided the energy and organization to use Dem tactics against the Dems. We were in the streets demonstrating on street corners, at incumbents' offices, and confronting them at townhall meetings. It was in your face politics, which is why the MSM and the Dems are demonizing the Tea Party movement and have been somewhat effective in doing so if you believe the polls.
CA didn’t really change. That’s why Brown’s back. They’re just further down the same road they’ve been on for a long time.
You are ignorant on the political history of the state. CA has changed dramatically since Reagan and Nixon. Check out its votes in Presidential elections. I lived two years in CA in the 1960s. It is a far different state that has moved dramatically to the left. Demography is destiny.
I can point to 30 times in this thread I got the there/eir/ey’res right. You’re obsessing on once I blew. Get over it, and yourself.
LOL. Nice try.
Obama himself punctures the myth of his superior intellect. He can't pronounce the word corpsman, he can't spell Syracuse, he doesn't know what day or year it is, he has poor grammar, he's the first president of the Law Review unable to write one article, and to top it off he insists on holding his wine glass incorrectly. He is a not very bright vulgarian.
Remember 2008 was an executive level election, better turn out. Austria pulls off better than 90% on NON-executive level. A 63% when the presidency is on the line is PATHETIC. Anybody saying otherwise is simply lying to themselves.
Ex-girlfriends and college transcripts are not part of a thorough vetting, they’re stupid pointless side issues. He’s a freaking socialist, if we can’t beat him on that we deserve to lose.
Bush was an unpopular president, and managed to pull the win because Kerry’s campaign sucked. Obama is an unpopular president, if we replicate Kerry’s campaign, which is exactly what you want to do with those stupid pointless side issues, Obama will win.
You’re eagerness to throw insults has shown your own willful ignorance. I mentioned Brown, yes he’s post Reagan and Nixon. Isn’t wasn’t immigrants that put Brown in the first time, and the fact that he’s back probably immigrants either, it’s CA wanting to be on the same stupid path they were on in 1975.
I care. I don’t think it is much of a point for defeated him, but it does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left.
They claim Obama is brilliant, but it is a lie. His whole persona is created by leftists and is fake. I want him exposed.
I don’t even know anybody that’s claiming he’s brilliant anymore. The word you find most often when the left is discussing him today is “disappointment”. He has been exposed, by himself (there was another sentence structure I was going to use but I opted for the clean presentation).
Why is it pathetic? Who is to blame? 89% of registered voters voted.
Austria pulls off better than 90% on NON-executive level.
WTF does Austria have to do with the US. It has a parliamentary system of government. It has a multiparty system. Does it make their results any more valid than ours? In the 2010 Presidential elections, only 53.6% of the people voted for President.
You seem obsessed with voter participation. Some believe that lower participation is actually a good thing because the results of an election are not going to change things significantly. The differences between the parties are not that extreme. It is a sign of stability and consensus. Obama and his radical agenda may be changing that perception. Still, the additional turnout of 5 million in 2008 consisted primarily of minorities who vote Democrat. Be careful what you wish for.
Ex-girlfriends and college transcripts are not part of a thorough vetting, they’re stupid pointless side issues. He’s a freaking socialist, if we can’t beat him on that we deserve to lose.
LOL. That's your opinion. The fact is that they do matter in our culture. The Democrats use it because it works. I provided you the Huffington Post spin on Perry's transcript, which they magically obtained from their sources. We still haven't gotten Obama's transcripts. Why?
You are one of those hopelessly naive Reps who don't understand how real politics are played in this country. We are in a battle for survival as a nation. Until we are prepared to confront the Dems on their turf, we are destined to lose in the long run. They are not going to change their tactics.
You’re eagerness to throw insults has shown your own willful ignorance. I mentioned Brown, yes he’s post Reagan and Nixon. Isn’t wasn’t immigrants that put Brown in the first time, and the fact that he’s back probably immigrants either, it’s CA wanting to be on the same stupid path they were on in 1975.
As I said, you haven't a clue as to how CA has changed politically. Since 1992, Reps have not won CA in Presidential elections. Obama won CA by 3.3 million votes topping Kerry's win of 1.2 million and Gore's 1.3 million. Clinton won by 1.5 and 1.3 million. Boxer won 52%-42% in 2010. Brown won 54%-41% in 2010, 50%-47% in 1974 and 56%-37% in 1978. And guess what, the Dems will win CA in 2012 and 2016 and 2020, etc.
You can ignore the demographic changes in CA, but they have changed electoral politics. I provided the link to Professor Gimpel's study that shows a direct correlation between immigration and voting patterns in the 25 and 50 largest counties in America.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.977 percent (2010 estimate), principally due to immigration.
87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2039, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …
Imus: Well. What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.
I don't either. There is so much more out there concerning his public life. Attack him on the issues.
My computer froze and I could not tell if it had posted or not.
I hit post several times and was still frozen so I had to hit control, alt, delete to shut down IE.
It was that simple and nothing as diabolical as wanting to post mu;tiple times.
LOL, just messin’ with you !
As your lordship pleases.
Bowing humbly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.