Scrambling Liberals Don't Know Who to Blame for the Istanbul Airport Attack

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

June 29, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Now, you realize this attack in Turkey at the Ataturk airport -- by the way, Ataturk is the guy Turkey was named after.  He was a big, big, powerful, mean dude, something like Frank Ataturk.  I don't know what his first name was.  Anyway, do you know that the guy that runs Turkey now, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, although it's not pronounced that way.  I've only heard Erdogan pronounced correctly once, and I don't remember how.  The guy has practically implemented Sharia law throughout Turkey. 

This is the point.  And if he hasn't completed it yet, that's the objective.  Turkey is gonna become full-fledged Sharia, and yet ISIS still hit them, still hit them at the airport. 

Greetings, my friends, and great to have you here.  Oh, yeah.  Sorry.  Dittocam's on.  Forgot to take -- can't do it all here.  You know, it's up to me, why doesn't some of this stuff end up being automated in this era?  Anyhow, sorry.  It's on now.  It's 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program, and the email address,ElRushbo@eibnet.com. 

So as I was saying, the death toll, we're up to I think almost 50 people dead, 239 people wounded at the Ataturk airport in Istanbul, which is one of the major airports of the world.  Three terrorists broke through security with rifles and then set off bombs in their vests, killing at least 50.  The death toll keeps climbing. 

And since it is awkward to try to blame guns for this attack, given that Turkey practically has banned its citizens from owning firearms, the Drive-Bys and the rest of the Obama administration are scrambling to come up with somebody to blame here.  The media is pretty much ignoring the attack altogether, just assuming that this is the new norm now. 

But really, they can't go after guns here.  They can't go after guns.  This is one of the reasons why the Drive-Bys, you might expect this to be wall-to-wall coverage.  It's a terror attack.  And Trump has said some pretty powerful things about it.  You would think they'd -- but they're not.  Why are they not wall-to-wall with this? 

Now, they might have been in certain places last night, but you have to admit, they didn't cover this like usual, normal terror attacks.  I'm telling you one of the reasons why -- you can be snarky all you want, you can be cynical all you want -- is because there's no way to advance the gun control agenda here.  Even in Turkey, they're on the way to having Sharia law.  It's practically impossible for law-abiding people to get guns in Turkey anyway.  So this just kind of illustrates what will happen if gun control, if they eliminate the Second Amendment here, it's not gonna stop acts of terror.  It's not gonna stop acts of crime. 

It isn't going to stop anything like this, and the Democrats and the media, they all know that, folks.  It's just misdirection.  They want guns out of everybody's hands for reasons unrelated to what they claim to be interested in.  They want to save lives.  No, it's not about that.  They want to reduce crime.  No, it's not about that.  That's not why they want to get rid of the Second Amendment, and that's not why they want you to have to give up your gun. 

You notice the gun control efforts are always aimed at the law-abiding?  Has it ever struck to you as strange gun control efforts aimed at the law-abiding, and here in Turkey since there's no way to advance the gun control agenda here in the US, it's sort of a ho-hummer.  Oh, well, you know, it's ISIS. It's basically an Islamic country.  So maybe there's things going on that we're not aware of.  Not quite a ho-hummer, but still isn't a big deal. 

Now, John Kerry, by the way, served in Vietnam, has come up with an explanation.  In fact, he's even leapt to conclusions and said that ISIS was behind the attack.  Now, Kerry calls them Daesh because he wants to seem smarter than everybody else.  You and I call it ISIS. Obama calls it ISIL, and Kerry calls it Daesh, D-a-e-s-h, because that's the term the French like.  I'm not making that up.  Daesh is the term that the French like, so that's what Kerry uses, and because it's, in his mind, much more sophisticated to use the term Daesh. It also conveys more respect for the group than to simply call them the derisional ISIS. 

But the real kicker is that John Kerry, who once served in Vietnam, said this latest attack is proof that ISIS is losing.  Well, because they're getting desperate.  They're getting desperate.  They had to attack a country they practically run anyway.  It shows how desperate they are. 

Now, the irony is that is exactly the kind of thing US generals used to say during the Vietnam War.  In fact, the generals at the time said that the Tet offensive was a sign of how desperate the North Vietnamese and Vietcong were. And actually they were telling the truth, unlike Kerry, but in reality the North Vietnamese only won because of defeatists like Kerry.  I don't want to get sidetracked with that, but that was a victory that was a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory by the likes of John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. 

Now, in terms of a proper response, I haven't heard much love and empathy from the Obama Regime, even though Loretta Lynch said just a couple of weeks ago that this is the only way to respond to terrorism, which is what?  Now, I don't know, ISIS apparently didn't get the message.  You know, ISIS, there was a memo that went out, sort of like a rah-rah memo, the leaders of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, actually, sent a memo out, "From now on, acts of terror, make sure you hit white people.  Do not attack people of color, do not attack minorities, because in America the media will blame the Tea Party for it, and you won't get credit." 

No, no, no.  Folks, I'm not making this up.  Al-Qaeda actually sent out an operational memo to its jihadist groups urging them in further acts of terror, do not kill, do not hit minorities. Because if you hit minorities they're gonna blame conservatives, Second Amendment, guns, and the terrorists won't get their due credit.  So from now on acts of terror, only hit white people, because hate crimes against them are permitted, and the media will play it up. White people deserve to be hit, deserve to be the victims of crime and acts of terror because they have for so long been the unfair, unjust, immoral majority throughout most of the nations that are imbued with Western civilization.  If you think that's an exaggeration, it isn't.  That is exactly how the Democrat Party of today and the American left looks at things. 

White Christians who found America, they deserve all this grief because they caused so much for so many hundreds of years.  I'm not... It's the only way that you can understand the true motivation of these people.  In other words, it's impossible for minorities, impossible for people of color to be ever guilty of hate crimes.  Because their only crimes are justified.  Their crimes are justifiable.  It's retribution and payback for years and decades and maybe even centuries of oppressive behavior at the hands of the white majority.

Not just here. Not just here. 

The UK, all throughout Western civilization.  That is the mode of thinking.  Why do you think immigration is happening?  Why do you think only certain kinds of people are allowed to legally immigrate?  Have you noticed that when it comes to immigration we ride herd on legal immigration pretty damn hard, and who is it that really is subject to most of the limits there?  Have to say it's white immigrants. But when it comes to illegal immigration and open borders, if you happen to be a minority or person of color or whatever?

"Come on in! Come on in! Because it's time for you to get your payback now for all the ways you've been mistreated by the evil people that founded and ran the United States of America for so long." It was Mustapha Kamal Ataturk, the founder and first president of Turkey.  I was wrong when I said it was Frank.  (I mean, I knew it wasn't Frank.)  Mustapha Kamal Ataturk.  Let me tell you something, the guy was a bad actor. You didn't want to mess with him.  I mean, he's a serious, serious...

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Have you noticed in the aftermath of the terror attack at Ataturk airport, they don't do that?  There aren't any vigils?  There aren't any candlelit ceremonies; there aren't any pictures of whatever. They haven't stopped everything to have an ongoing memorial. 

They just got back up and picked up the pieces and started operating the airport again as though that was yesterday, which it was.  Not even the Drive-Bys have noticed this.  in fact, grab audio sound bite number seven.  Don't worry.  I know I've interrupted myself, but I have not lost my place.  Audio sound bite number seven, CBS This Morning.  This is Holly Williams reporting about the terror attack at the Ataturk airport in Istanbul.

WILLIAMS:  If you look behind me, you can see what appears to be damage from one of the blasts, but come over here and you can see that the airport is operational.  Less than 24 hours after this attack, it's full of passengers.  This is one of the busiest airports in the world.  If you look over here, you can see that there is a lot of shattered glass in this area.  It's not clear whether this is from gunfire, whether that's a bullet that's done that or shrapnel from one of the blasts.  Now, the Turkish prime minister, Binali Yildirim, said there are indications that this was the work of ISIS, but so far there's been no claim of responsibility.

RUSH:  Now, folks, I'm telling you that's noteworthy here that these Muslim countries don't spend any time on vigils, lighting candles, singing songs, laying wreaths of flowers. They don't spend days and days trying to figure out the motive. They didn't convene any on-the-spot seminar saying, "Why do they hate us?" 'Cause they already know why this happened. They already know who did it. They already know why, and everybody's up and back to their business here.  (interruption)

No, No, no, no, no, no.  I'm just noting the difference.  Do not assume I'm criticizing anyone.  I'm just noting the difference.  If this happens in an American airport, you know full well there are candlelight vigils, there are wreaths of flowers, there are pictures, there's... It'd be going on for weeks.  It's one of the ways we grieve.  They don't.  They just... Did you notice also in this report that Holly Williams, in describing the damage from the blast, wasn't sure if it was from a bullet or shrapnel from a bomb?

Oh, they're praying it was from a bullet so they could focus on the guns, but everybody knows bomb control doesn't work.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Look, I don't want to mislead anybody.  Ataturk is actually... It's a name that denotes "father of the Turks," and the name was granted to Kemal Ataturk in 1934 and forbidden to any other person by the Turkish Parliament.  Now, the reason Ataturk, Kemal Ataturk was and is so highly reputed, is he was attempting to modernize... That's not the right word.  Well, it is.  For lack of a better way of saying it, he was trying to make Islam compatible with the modern twentieth century world. 

There are a few such Islamic leaders who have attempted to do so, and they don't last long.  The terrorists get into gear; the militants like Al-Qaeda and ISIS target them.  But that's who he is.  And I'm now reliably told that the correct pronunciation of the current president of Turkey's last name is Erdogan.  It's E-r-d-o-g-a-n, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is what it looks like, but it's Erdogan.  And he is attempting to implement Sharia throughout the country.  It's what makes this attack interesting to me. 

I mean, they think it was ISIS, and ISIS attacks infidels and nonbelievers, so there's some political problem that ISIS has with Turkey.  It could involve the Syria war and who's funding here, who's buying oil from who, and who isn't.  So this may have ramifications simply beyond the tenets of Islam, not excluding aspects of Islam in the attack, but it may be a little bit more than that.  I guess we just rely on what Kerry said, that it just means they're losing, that they did this, and that they're desperate, is why they did this.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  President Obama is in Ottawa, Canada.  Do you know he called Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan?  He didn't call Rick Scott in Florida after Mateen blew up the gay bar in Orlando.  Took him awhile.  But he called Erdogan right off the bat.  Anyway he's in Ottawa, North American Leaders Summit.  And after a meeting with the Mexican president, Enrique Pena Nieto, President Obama spoke with reporters about the terror attack in Istanbul. No, he didn't blame it on a video.  Not this one.

OBAMA:  I had a chance to speak to President Erdogan earlier today to discuss with him not only how heartbroken we have been by the images of the injured and those killed, but also to reaffirm our strong commitment to partner with Turkey, with NATO, with the broad-based alliance that we structured around the world to fight ISIL.  It's an indication of them being unable to govern those areas that they've taken over; that they're gonna be defeated in Syria, they're gonna be defeated in Iraq.

RUSH:  It's the same thing Kerry said. It all adds up to proof that they're losing.  You know, when I hear this guy speak now, his reaction to a terror attack... I'm sorry. Because of what happened yesterday, I can't get Benghazi out of my mind, and there's something else I can't get out of my mind.  I really can't come to grips even now with the fact that this administration got away with so many abject lies.  The big one about a video being responsible for it. And furthermore, that some absolutely clueless...

This guy Nakoula Nakoula? They found this guy somewhere in California. They put him in jail. They put the producer that nobody ever heard of... They put him in jail.  They scared the daylights out of him. He went along with it. He was acquiescent as he could be.  The things lining that just didn't happen in this country, and were they to happen somebody else they would be impeached. 

But to jail an innocent person on a false, bogus charge to carry forth a lie that is designed to protect yourself as president and your campaign? So now when I hear this guy speak about terrorism and the aftermath of attacks, I just don't believe anything.  "We cringe, we cry, we join you in tears for the loss of life," and so forth?  It sounds like he's more upset about what happened in Turkey that he's upset when these things happen in this country. 

Sorry.  It just comes across that way to me. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  You know, if ISIS is losing, I would hate to see what happens when they're winning.  I'd hate to see what that looks like.  But Obama and Kerry say they're losing.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to expand on a point that I made in the first hour of the program about Turkey and ISIS.  I found it fascinating that ISIS, if it is ISIS -- and everybody thinks it is -- hit Turkey, because Turkey has been one of the biggest allies ISIS could have ever had.  Are you aware of that?  (interruption) You're not?  Now, that's interesting, 'cause you are a news junkie like I am, and you're not aware of this.  Well, let me run through some things for you. 

Turkey was a helpful ally in ISIS' ongoing war in Syria and Iraq.  Turkey has been helping ISIS in their destabilization efforts throughout the region.  Turkey allowed the oil trucks that are owned and operated by ISIS to cross Turkish borders so that ISIS oil can be sold.  That is how the ISIS leadership, that's how the ISIS movement is being funded in part, which is a point Trump has made.  What the hell?  Why don't we own that oil?  We're the ones that liberated it.  Why didn't we take it?  Why aren't we in charge?  Why is ISIS?  We need to blow up their depots. We need to blow up their trucks. 

And everybody, "Oh, my God, the guy is dangerous, oh, my God."  But Turkey has been assisting ISIS in a wide variety of ways.  At times Turkey has denied us the use of their airspace in Iraq and in other theaters of war.  Turkey has been an off-and-on ally, quote, unquote, you know, as Obama has drawn red lines and then moved the red line.  Turkey has wanted to present themselves as an ally of ours.  But make no mistake about it.  President Erdogan is aiming Turkey at a Sharia nation.  That's where he wants to go.  He is a Sharia law, full-fledged, one percent Islamist. 

So what's ISIS doing hitting him?  What's ISIS doing blowing up the Ataturk airport in Istanbul?  Now, the reason I ask this is because our shortsighted, incompetent leadership in this country actually tells us that we can prevent more terrorist attacks against us if we would become more tolerant them.  Do they not?  We cannot call them Islamist terrorists.  We cannot call them radical Islamist extremists.  We cannot even say that they engage in terrorism.  We have gone to the realm of impracticality and impossibility to avoid offending these people, or worse, whatever might be going on. 

But regardless, Obama and his State Department and even the defense department are bending over backwards to give these people the benefit of the doubt.  Whenever there's a terrorist attack, it's not.  Whenever ISIS does it or militant Islam does it, no, they didn't.  We do seminars trying to examine what we have done to cause them to hate us so much.

And if they hit Turkey, if they hit the Istanbul airport, the Ataturk airport in Istanbul, in a country that is on the road to becoming full-fledged Sharia, then how in the world is the strategy Obama and Hillary employ gonna be effective at all in stopping them here?  And you know what their strategy is?  Take away your guns. 

So we have the latest attack, which is the attack on the gay club in Orlando, and, no, we're not gonna call 'em, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.  He was radicalized.  He was an American citizen and he was a fine young man until he got radicalized by that out of control internet.  Islam had nothing to do with it, militant or otherwise.  No, no, no.  The religion of peace, they don't do these kinds of things.  Instead, we need to take your guns away.  That is the Obama and Hillary solution to these things, oh, yeah, and not saying "radical Islam."  Oh, yeah, and not saying "radical Islamic terrorism." 

Oh, yeah, doing all that, by closing Club Gitmo, yeah, we close Club Gitmo, we apologize for the photos that we took at Abu Ghraib.  That's supposed to dial them back.  Really?  Well, if they blew up an airport in Istanbul in a country with a leader who believes entirely in Sharia law, then how in the world can we stop them?  I mean, using the same philosophies and strategies Obama and Hillary have put into place. 

Obviously it's a joke.  They don't know what they're doing.  Well, I take it back.  Obama knows what he's doing, and maybe Hillary, too.  But the point is, what they want us to believe they think they're doing is totally ineffective.  It doesn't have a prayer of working.  You know, Hillary's out there saying, we need smart diplomacy.  We need to do smart power.  And that means empathizing with our enemy, understanding their grievances, like we understand the grievances of homosexuals, like we understand the grievances of African-Americans.  We must learn to understand the grievances of ISIS. 

Why?  Because ultimately everything's our fault.  Everybody who hates us has legitimate reasons for hating us, according to Obama and Hillary.  We've been too big for our britches, we've been too rich, and our riches came from theft and colonialism, not from genuine accomplishment and achievement.  You didn't build that.  Then go through these things, my blood's boiling here as I remind myself of what these people tell us, and I remind myself how they think about us. 

If Recep Tayyip Erdogan cannot placate ISIS, how are we ever gonna be able to?  And placate is clearly what John Kerry, who once served in Vietnam, and Barack Hussein O and Hillary Clinton think is the only thing we have to do is placate them.  Because we're at fault, see.  Our attitude all these years, our braggadocios pomposity, our overly confident, bigger than the rest of the world attitude has justified all this kind of stuff.

So we gotta find a way to placate them, let them know that it's a new day in America where our current leadership does not hate them and, in fact, agrees with them on many of their grievances about the United States.  And that's supposed to mollify them.  It's supposed to tame them.  It is supposed to cause them to stop attacking us. 

It hasn't.  We've had a major attack every year of Obama's Regime.  I guess they're telling us the truth.  ISIS and Al-Qaeda and whoever else, that is the only way they stop is after we convert.  That's what they say.  The only way this stops is when the infidels convert. Well, that's not happening. 

So what are we gonna have to do?  We're not gonna convert.  If this nation ever goes Sharia, it's gonna be because of the aggressive use of force.  You know, I take that back.  There is a segment of this population already that would surrender.  I have no doubt that there's a segment of the population that would surrender rather than fight it.  But we're not yet anywhere near a majority of Americans with that attitude.  

WATCH: Rep. Trey Gowdy Calls Nancy Pelosi 'Mind-Numbingly Stupid'

Nancy Pelosi is absolutely insane and deranged but I believe she does this on purpose to distract everyone from the fact that she is trying desperately to bring communism to America. If this is or isnt the case the needs to be admitted to a fricking psyo ward. 

Bubba Atkinson | On 14, Feb 2014
If Democrats would wake up and realize what Rep. Trey Gowdy is saying is true, then we can begin to move the ball in the right direction.
Until they do that, grab some popcorn, folks. When people stop being polite and start getting real, we’ve got some real entertainment on our hands.

Holy Moly, Jon Stewart Just Called Out Democrats Like He Never Has Before

Sickest Liberal Bias of the Year

YAHOO READERS ARE BEING DUPED. Please read this in full to see:The propaganda wing of the Obama Campaign, Politifact, just released one of the most egregious, inciting, and blatantly and outrageously dishonest articles today.  Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo News wrote an article about it that is currently plastered all over the front of Yahoo.com. It talks about the claim and of the possibility that it led to Romney's defeat in the 2012 election.What it doesn't tell you is how dishonest this article is. The article is based on another article written by a far left political blog called Politifact.com. Apparently Romney's statement that Fiat (the company that bought Chrysler from Barack Obama for peanuts) planned on building Jeeps in China was deemed "Lie of the Year" by Angie Drobnic Holan. What's even MORE important is that the neither the Yahoo article OR the Politifact article explains where this "Lie of the Year" came from. What were the other candidates for lie of the year? If you look at another article that asks its readers what THEY think the lie of the year should be, you'll see that they got a choice of 11 options - 11 of which were supposed Romney lies, ZERO of which were Obama lies.The truth is that the Romney campaign assertion that Fiat planned on producing Jeeps overseas has never been refuted. The truth that these overseas productions were going to come at the expense of American jobs was a figment of liberal imagination. They literally needed to IMAGINE facts in order to spin lies out of Romney statements. Nevermind that Obama has yet to answer for the 4 brave American diplomats who were left for dead by Barack Obama. The gut-wrenching incident was blamed, BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION on a ridiculous Youtube video that hardly anyone saw. So it turns out that the real big fat lie of the year is that Obama got re-elected by a well informed electorate.

Many of you are no doubt wondering why Liberals are campaigning after the election is over. It is not because they want to get a 4 year head start. Its not even to finish off the wounded Republicans after such a stinging loss. The real reason is because they know that Obama's communist agenda is going to ruin the economy and possibly the country, and that by continuing a campaign style assault against conservatives they have the ability to continue to blame them for whatever goes wrong. It makes what they say slightly believable to the mob that otherwise doesn't know any better. We here at Sickbias.com are dedicating our lives to educating young Americans about truth and facts to make them more informed voters. We will fight hard against the dishonest Propaganda used to manipulate you the reader into voting the way THEY want you to and against what is best for you and your family, and freedom and prosperity for America.

Obama Log #1: "Fiscal Cliff Looming?"

This will be my first of many (possibly thousands) of short posts on SickBias.com where I will log events, facts and news reports that support my theories of Barack Obama being a horrible choice for president, especially when you consider Mitt Romney was our alternative.

Today's topic is "The Fiscal Cliff"

Forbes does a good enough job explaining what exactly the fiscal cliff is in their article in this link, but what leaves me scratching my head is this simple question: If this problem is so important just days after the presidential election that both FoxNews and MSNBC have the topic dominating their coverage then why was this issue never brought up during the campaign season? Were they so distracted that they are just now thinking of this? Experts all agree that the fiscal cliff is going to directly effect the American economy, so why then in a presidential campaign that seemed to revolve around the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid!" did this suddenly-so-important topic get left out?

Some may argue that all those people most concerned with the economy were certain that Romney was going to win, and a President Romney would have fixed problems like this, just as he fixed budget problems in both the state of Massachusetts and the Olympics in 2004, Salt Lake City. But he is not, and will not be our fiscal savior, so all of the sudden this has become a major issue. Well that's just pathetic. It should have been part of our choice on election day - a vote for Obama is a vote for sending America off a cliff. It was withheld from the voters. We were no more informed in 2012 than we were when we voted for the stranger nobody knew about in 2008.

So for this first Obama Log, I would like to sum up by sarcastically saying thank you to all the Obama voters for putting us in this crisis. Because we all know good and well that an election of the successful businessman and former successful governor of Massachusetts would not have resulted in the domination of a "Fiscal Cliff" in the headlines. So if the "fiscal cliff" is such an important issue then why didn't you just cut out the middle man and support Romney for president?

Will She Survive?

My mother was bitten by a deadly snake a while ago. While her health was failing due to the venom coursing through her body, a doctor came running with a single vile of the antidote. He tripped and fell, smashing the bottle to the ground. Now my mother is at the fate of her own body being able to power through and rid it of this deadly toxin, or die trying.

This is an honest-to-God true story...

if by "mother" I mean "country,"

if by "bitten by a" I mean "plagued by the election of,"

if by "deadly snake" I mean "Barack Obama,"

if by "a while ago" I mean "four years ago,"

if by "health" I mean "economy,"

if by "venom" I mean "socialism,"

if by "coursing through her body" I mean "being implemented,"

if by "a doctor" I mean "American patriots,"

if by "a single vile of antidote" I mean "candidates Romney and Ryan,"

if by "he tripped and fell" I mean "the concerned citizens failed on election day,"

if by "smashing the bottle to the ground" I mean "eliminating any hope of reversing the effects of socialism being implemented,"

if by "her own body" I mean "the strength and will of freedom loving Americans."

Will she survive?

The New Silent Majority

Barack Obama has just been reelected president by a majority of the U.S. population. Although this comes as no surprise to those at MSNBC, I must point out that this win bucks a whole lot of conventional wisdom on polls and turnout. Liberal commentators, pundits, journalists and Obama campaign officials spent the entire month of October pointing to polls that Obama had slight leads in nearly all battleground states. The election results proved the liberals right. But that doesn't mean all the conservatives that claimed that the polls were wrong were deliberately trying to be misleading. In fact their claims had so much merit, it lead me to believe that it was the democrats that were living in Fantasy Land. During October, I looked further into it and it turns out the polls were based on a methodology that included the belief that even though independents were breaking for Romney, a massive turnout of democrats very similar to 2008 was going to make up the difference.

Conservatives had plenty of reasons to be skeptical. First of all 2008 was an historic election for the ages. Supporters of Obama were going to vote for America's first black president. There was so much hope in the air it was electric. The numbers of young, minority and women voters that showed up in 2008 was overwhelming compared to any election before it. People who never voted in their life wanted to be a part of history. Then there was the 2010 election. The newly formed conservative tea party turned out to oust huge numbers of democrats in the house and senate. It seemed to most experts that the election of 2008 was an anomaly. Conservatives were convinced that the polling methodology for 2012 was wrong.

But wait! There's more!

The conventional wisdom of polling statistics was not the only thing that made conservatives skeptical of a huge 2008-like turnout. There was also obvious visual clues as well. In the last month of campaigning, both candidates held many rallies, almost every single day. In the last week there were several rallies per day for both candidates. One of the big stories reported by reputable conservative news organizations both on television and on the internet was that there was a huge difference in turnout to the rallies of Obama verses the rallies of Romney. It was reported that the Romney campaign had to move his scheduled events to larger venues because of the overwhelming turnout. I heard crowds as large as 30,000 were driving in from hundreds of miles away to get in to see what they believe was going to be their future president. By the end of the campaign, Romney was calling it "a movement." At the same time it was told that the Obama campaign was struggling to scrape together a couple thousand people. Reports of half empty venues were all over the place. One conservative article claimed an Obama rally featuring a concert by Stevie Wonder managed to muster up only 200 people! It doesn't help that the liberal news organization were silent about rally numbers. So while it may not be scientific, the reported rally numbers really made many feel like the momentum, energy and excitement was definitely on Romney's side.

More anecdotal evidence:

The visual evidence was not limited to rallies. I live in a swing county of a swing state. A strong argument can be made that Hamilton County, Ohio elects presidents of the United States. We voted for Bush twice and Obama twice. That's where I live and work. I drive all over the county all day, every day. In 2000, yard signs were equally divided between Bush and Gore supporters. In 2004, Bush signs were much more numerous than Kerry signs. In 2008, Obama signs totally overwhelmed McCain signs. This year, Romney signs absolutely dominated Obama signs. I can't speak for the rest of America and what kind of support they display on their residences, but here it is generally loud and proud, and this year the louder support in a county that is a microcosm of the rest of the country was loudest for Romney.

Last but not least...

I am a chronic Yahoo! user. Don't get me wrong - do not think for a second that in my quest for intellectual punishment, my choice of torture device is in any way an endorsement of such a device. I have grown to love to hate Yahoo! and everything their editorial staff stands for. Once you get beyond that, I am hopelessly addicted to their comments section. This is not a new development either. I was a notorious troll on the old Y! Message Boards before it got shut down, gutted and transformed to Y! Answers. These days, the public gets their fix of trolling in the comments section of Yahoo's front page articles. Its extremely popular, and I became convinced over the years that you can use the overall attitude of the collective posts as a bellwether for predicting actions of Americans. For example, back around 2005-2007 I could truly tell that Bush's popularity was waning. The more popular posts (based on their ratio of thumbs up to thumbs down) were mostly anti-Bush posts, and the overall percentage of pro-Bush posts was getting smaller and smaller. Then of course we saw the landslide election of 2006 against Republicans. In 2008 the comments were mostly pro-Obama, or anti-Bush, which of course led to the huge Obama win coupled with the election of the Democrat super-majorty in Congress. In 2010, I saw slightly more comments on Yahoo of pro-tea party types. It was only "slightly" because Yahoo comments section have always been a safe-haven for liberals, as many of the most popular news sources online have become by that time.

Fast forward to October, 2012: Following the debates, the comments section of Yahoo has become more one-sided than I have ever seen them - but not for the liberals. It has been flooded with conservatives earning hundreds of thumbs-ups for pro-Romney and anti-Obama posts. As far as I was concerned, this alone was an indication of a landslide for Romney. There was also the incumbent presiding over the worst economy of our generation, the foreign policy missteps of Benghazi, and to put the icing on the cake, the last few days of the campaign included a Hurricane Sandy that was very quickly looking like a debacle for Obama.

All the conventional wisdom was pointing towards the polls being wrong. How could a majority of independents be for Romney while the overall numbers were showing Obama ahead? How could this be while everything I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears says that most people are going to vote for Romney? How was it that the polls ended up being right on election day despite the conventional wisdom of presidential elections in years past?

The New Silent Majority

The answer is that there were many millions of people who voted for Obama that never put up a yard sign. They either didn't ever log into Yahoo, or stopped posting comments. They were quietly waiting in the shadows and pounced on election day. The are the "Silent Majority". Wait, what? For those not familiar with the phrase, the Silent Majority has in recent history been that large group of politically silent people that largely voted Republican on election day. For more information on the old Silent Majority, click here. The group of Obama voters that proved the polls right on election day are "The New Silent Majority." The question as to whether or not this is an Obama phenomenon or whether it is the new norm for the Democratic Party will not become apparent until the election of 2014.

As I write this, I am listening to Rush Limbaugh express his opinion that the reason Romney lost was because of a lack of turnout of the Republican Base. As of right now, based on what I have said about rally turnout, "Mittmentum," the movement, etc. I am rejecting that claim. Conservatives were fired up about the possibility of ousting Obama and replacing him with anyone. While conservatives were skeptical of Mitt for a long time, his performance in the debates really truly excited conservatives. Besides, just one day prior, Rush was talking about how the election results were a trend, not an anomaly. I'm not writing off the theory, but if Rush is correct, then I would have to write another article explaining how so many indicators pointed to a huge conservative turnout, but it just simply didn't happen on election day. For now, you can just know that it was the New Silent Majority.