Gay Patriot Header Image

Why People Vote Democrat: Emotion and Greed

Posted by V the K at 8:33 am - October 21, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Integrity

Bill O’Reilly is an obnoxious blowhard, but every once in a while, he gets something right.

Bill O’Reilly found it hard to believe that despite so much public opposition to the direction the country’s going in, there are still people who support the Democrats. But he believes he knows the reason why: “emotion.”

O’Reilly explained, “Democrats have been very successful in convincing some voters that the Republican Party favors the rich and is anti-woman.”

And for those who are too smart or too informed to buy the Democrats’ bullsheet rhetoric about Republican “hatred” of women, gays, immigrants, and minorities… the Democrats provide another rationale: Straight up greed.

“If you’re voting for the country, then you would be less likely to support the Democrats. But if you’re voting just for yourself and what you can get from the government, the option the Democrats provide, continued entitlements, is attractive.”

Or, as I put it, “We will take money away from people you don’t like and spend it on you.”

And everyone from crony billionaires like Tom Steyer and George Kaiser  down to the Obamaphone lady want a piece of that.

A miracle: French Nobel laureate makes sense…almost

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 10:07 pm - October 14, 2014.
Filed under: Economy,Free Enterprise,Liberal Integrity

From France24 (via Zero Hedge):

Hours after he won the economics Nobel Prize, [Jean] Tirole said he felt “sad” the French economy was experiencing difficulties…

France is plagued by record unemployment and Tirole described the French job market as “catastrophic”…arguing that the excessive protection for employees had frozen the country’s job market.

“We haven’t succeeded also in downsizing the state, which is an issue because we have a social model that I approve of – I’m very much in favour of this social model – but it won’t be sustainable if the state is too big,” he added…there will not be “enough money to pay for it in the long run”.

He doesn’t quite make the connection, that a social model which is unsustainable (his notion) is not any sort of model that any economist should “approve” of.

But for awhile there, he almost made sense.

How a Progressive Leftist says “I’m too cheap to tip.”

Posted by V the K at 6:03 pm - May 31, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Liberal Integrity

This has been circulating on Teh Twitters and Teh Reddits.

Bo-VqbxCUAEIfm1

A sign of the times?

The sexy up-and-coming political movement, “the wave of the future”, is (almost by definition) the one where the young, hot women are. I don’t know where they are now, except Obama ain’t it. As just one illustration, here’s Carey Wedler, a former Obama groupie burning her 2008 campaign T-shirt.

YouTube Preview Image

Her list of specific disappointments with Obama is pretty left-wing, but she has some pro-liberty ones in there too, and she comes to a libertarian-anarchist conclusion: “The institution of government is the problem.”

UPDATE: More signs?

Martin Bashir resigns

Follow-up to an earlier post, Why wasn’t this guy fired? After a couple of weeks, Bashir has resigned from MSNBC. As Allahpundit puts it:

This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da — bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension.

I just say: Better late than never!

Sharpton does something right

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:22 am - November 26, 2013.
Filed under: American Youth,Credit to Democrats,Liberal Integrity

Heard of the Knockout Game? A couple of news reports at the link say it’s real: young guys in New York attacking Jewish strangers, trying to knock them out with one blow.

Al Sharpton gets so many issues wrong that I’m in the mood to acknowledge him for speaking out rightly on this one:

“This kind of behavior is deplorable and must be condemned by all us,” he said at his weekly National Action Network meeting in Harlem. “We would not be silent if it was the other way around. We cannot be silent or in any way reluctant to confront it when it is coming from our own community.”

On Monday, Sharpton and other leaders plan to discuss a “next move.”

“Kids are randomly knocking out people [from] another race — some specifically going at Jewish people,” he said. “This kind of insane thuggery — there is nothing cute about that. There is no game play about knocking somebody out, and it is not a game. It is an assault and is bias, and it is wrong.”

Freedom of Speech: It must be a two-way street…

…or else it’s just a pretense, a lie.

Reporter James Kirchik, known from TNR and The Advocate, was cut off last week on Russia’s RT network for denouncing Vladimir Putin’s anti-gay law. I’m with Kirchik in opposing the law, which puts speech restrictions on Russian gays.

Don’t get me wrong: As RT were ‘paying for his mic’, they had every right to cut off Kirchik. They have no obligation to provide him with a platform. Still, Kirchik deserves our cheers and thanks for publicly thumbing his nose at a State-funded propaganda network and for defending free speech.

Actions to support free speech, yay! But free speech isn’t free speech, unless disagreeable/bad views may also be expressed. The principle is that anyone advocating bad politics is to be answered by more speech; never to be silenced by law.

And that brings us to the case of the Rev. Scott Lively. In a blog thread last week, rusty brought up Lively, who is being sued in Massachusetts at the behest of a Uganda gay group, for his advocacy of the criminalizing of homosexuality in Uganda.

Criminalizing homosexuality is anti-gay (a term that the Gay Left otherwise uses too much) and a violation of individuals’ natural rights. As such, it’s wrong. But natural rights include free speech and conscience. For someone to merely advocate that homosexuality be criminalized is not a violation of human rights; it is an exercise of them.

See the problem? The pro-gay side is out there using the law to restrict opponents’ political speech, in the name of human rights (which ought to include free speech). So wrong!

Sure, Rev. Lively advocates something dumb and bad. But he has the moral right to do it, which means he ought to have the legal right.

That a U.S.-based court presumes to deal with a Ugandan matter seems odd; but that it does so in order to punish anyone’s political advocacy is a disgrace, a sign of how dangerously low our once-great country has fallen.

SMUG (the Ugandan gay group) is wrong to try to silence Lively with a court case. Given that they are, the MA court should have refused to play along, on the grounds that the MA and U.S. Constitutions guarantee Lively his right to free speech in all political issues, even gay issues, even when international law fails to guarantee it and even, or especially, if Lively’s views are objectionable.

It’s the objectionable views – the ones that the government’s Court itself dislikes – that courts are most obligated to protect. By now, we are used to the Gay Left forgetting such basic principles of freedom and justice, but – “et tu, Massachusetts?”

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that the MA court, and others who blame the Rev. Lively for what Ugandan legislators do, might be infected with a racist premise: the premise that the Ugandans are mere children (intellectually and morally), influenced too easily by the white man (Lively), who is thus accountable for their actions. If true, it would support my earlier post on the racism of the Left in 2013.

NB: I had originally said that Lively was being “prosecuted” in MA, when of course I should have said “sued”. Mistake fixed.

Topless protestors to hound Islamists

This article from Femen, the feminist protest group, just came across HotAir’s Headlines section:

For the past five years now, we here at the international women’s movement Femen have been waging an active campaign of resistance to the patriarchy in various corners of the world…

The most obvious illustration of the patriarchy is Islamic theocracy, a symbiosis of political and religious dictatorship…

At the heart of Islamism lies the enslavement of women based on control over their sexuality…

I hereby both promise and threaten to deploy an entire network of Femen activists in Arab countries. We will hound Islamic leaders across the globe, subjecting them to desolating criticism. We intend to hound spiritual leaders who are personally responsible for mistreating women…

Femen stands for “democracy, atheism, and sexuality” (per the article), and famously protested Vladimir Putin a couple of weeks ago (video here).

I do NOT endorse everything they believe or do[1], but what’s interesting here is the phenomenon of a left-wing protest group realizing that Islamism is a major threat to the freedom that they seek to live out, and declaring their intention to confront Islamism. We see that occasionally, but not often enough. Some other leftists go for safer targets (such as Christians who, in reality, pose no great threat to them).

These women may be in for some rough times, if they carry out their declaration. While not necessarily endorsing all that they do, let’s give them some credit for their new-found insight, and wish them health and safety! (more…)

Do only those criticizing Republican presidents have absolute moral authority?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:18 pm - June 23, 2012.
Filed under: Liberal Integrity

Back when Cindy Sheehan was baiting the then-President of the United States, Maureen Dowd defined as “absolute” “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq“.

Guess that absolute moral authority applies only to the parents of children killed in Iraq, but not those killed on the Mexican border as our reader Greg reports on his Rhymes with Right blog:

Barack Obama and Eric Holder are stonewalling on the release of documents related to the Operation Fast & Furious gunrunning scheme. The media is doing its best to avoid covering the story of what is going on — and when they do cover it, the present it as a political witch hunt. Who is not being heard? The parents of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed using the guns that the Obama Department of Justice allowed into the hands of criminals.

. . .

Unlike Sheehan, who actually had a meeting with President Bush within weeks of her son’s death in Iraq, Ken and Josephine Terry have never been granted a meeting with President Obama or Attorney General Holder. (more…)

Yes, Aaron Sorkin, Romney should repudiate homophobes

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:08 pm - June 21, 2012.
Filed under: Democrats & Double Standards,Liberal Integrity

Our reader Peter Hughes alerted me to Tim Graham’s post over at Newsbusters reporting that Aaron Sorkin “wants Romney to tell ‘Homophobes’ to ‘Drop Dead’“:

Did you ever read Mad magazine as a kid? Do you remember the feature called “Scenes We’d Like To See”? . . . .  So: Romney had a gay foreign-policy spokesperson who resigned. And the tweet or the post from the family-values guy who was really upset that Romney had a gay spokesperson was, “Romney has just said to the family-values community, ‘Drop dead.’ ” What would have happened if Romney had said, “I’m not telling the family-values community to drop dead. I’m telling homophobes to drop dead”?

Maybe Romney should have told anti-gay social conservatives to “drop dead.”  Just as Barack Obama should tell race-baiters to drop dead — and he should say the same thing to those who express prejudice against gay conservatives in juvenile (and mean-spirited) terms.  And those who call Tea Party protesters racist.   And those who hold Sarah Palin responsible for the actions of a schizophrenic.

Christopher Hitchens Sui Generis

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:03 pm - December 16, 2011.
Filed under: Liberal Integrity

Calling Christopher Hitchens “one of the most dynamic voices of our generation“, Sonicfrog laments the passing of this iconoclastic columnist:

With the exception of being an ardent atheist, he was impossible to pin down and categorize as belonging to any one political movement or ideology. He truly called them as he saw them. Without question, he truly was his own man. He burned as bright as anyone I can recall in my lifetime, and now the flame is no more. I can’t say I always agreed with him, but he was one HELL of a writer, and I am a better writer because of his influence!

The man always spoken his mind and while leaning to the left, never really subscribed to any ideology.  Just look him stand up to Bill Maher:

Joy McCann called him a “man was made of class“:

This amazing writer was fearless. And smart. And from what I could see, a good, decent man who stared death in the face and remained just as decent as he had been before, albeit in much more pain.

Goodbye, Mr. H. You will be sorely, sorely missed.

Indeed. In this increasingly ideological age, we need more of his kind.

Which party is it that media accuse of violent rhetoric?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 pm - July 8, 2011.
Filed under: Liberal Integrity,Liberalism Run Amok

New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney isn’t sorry for saying that he would like to punch New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the face.”

For, the record, Mr. Sweeney is a Democrat, Mr. Christie, a Republican.

RELATED:  Don Surber links Ed Driscoll’s “Why does the MSM Downplay the Violence at Left-Wing Protests?

Gay bloggers help oust GLAAD head Barrios

One of the most heartening things about blogging is not just that it provides the means for gay conservatives (a minority within a minority, as we have been dubbed) to publish our ideas, but also for disgruntled gay liberals to make known their discontent with the gay establishment (or Gay, Inc as it has been dubbed).

In reading blogs like Pam’s House Blend, Queerty and Americablog, to name but a few, I have learned that many gays on the left do not march in lockstep with the Democratic partisans at HRC.  Nor, as we have learned in recent days, have they accepted the word of the increasingly partisan GLAAD as gay gospel.

While we here at GayPatriot have taken the ostensible media watchdog to task for honoring a man who spews the type of hate speech against one segment of gay people they would excoriate had he directed similar speech against all gay people, gay lefty bloggers (and blogresses) have faulted the organization for its “public statements supporting AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile” as well as their letter “to the FCC opposing possible net neutrality rules.”  GLAAD received money from AT & T.

Gay leftie bloggers are concerned about what one calls, “the corporate hijacking of our movement.

Now, for the record, we here at GayPatriot oppose the FCC’s attempt to impose net neutrality rules, so we did not wade into the controversy.  Yet, what stood out to us (well, to me, at least) was these bloggers were using this new medium to criticize a gay group.

And now we see that, just as in federal legislation action on DADT repeal, their efforts have had a real world impact, “Jarrett Barrios,” as Pam Spaulding reports, “the executive director of GLAAD, has resigned.”  At that link and this, Pam has more on the controversy.

Kudos to these folks for standing up to their principles, even if it meant exposing a rift in the gay community.  We may not agree with them in their criticism of GLAAD, but we do agree that it is better for our community that Barrios no longer heads one of the leading gay organizations.  Now, if only they could be as successful in influencing the board of HRC. . .

UPDATE:   On Facebook, Scott Schmidt asks, “Why is it wrong for gay rights groups to side with corporations that support them but not wrong to side with labor unions?”

Good question. Do hope some of those left-of-center gay bloggers use their web-sites to ask it.

Is Obama playing political football with gay Americans?

Perhaps, we might be able to get to the bottom of the Barack Obama’s changing stance on gay marriage if some leading gay rights’ activists were more interested in advocating for gay people than in agitating for Democratic politicians:

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR OWN LYING EYES? Senior White House aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it. Presumably the White House is demanding release of the original long-form questionnaire.

While HRC is silent, gay bloggers and blogreses are asking questions.  At Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen feels like she’s “watching a denial from the Obama Administration of Barack Obama’s 1996 position on marriage equality in the face of documentation that makes the denial appear to be a lie. It looks to me to be an attempt at a history rewrite“:

I can’t imagine that this isn’t going to cause problems between the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and the Obama Administration, and it will require someone more senior to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in an attempt to straighten this out.

Once again, gay and lesbian bloggers (and blogresses), working on a shoestring, are doing the work the national gay organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, fancy offices and expense accounts refuse to do.

Does seem Obama arrives at his positions on gay issues, not on their merits, but on their politically expediency.

It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations.  You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.

Kudos to the gay leftie bloggers unwilling to serve as lickspittles to a Democratic president with whom they are, by and large, ideologically in sync.  Would it we could say the same thing for the national gay groups.  But, for them it seems, fealty to the Democratic Party — and its standard bearers — remains the highest bond.

Log Cabin Keeps Hitting HRC for its blind adoration of Obama

Log Cabin is not letting up in its attack on HRC, the Democratic front group the gay and lesbian advocacy organization, that recently endorsed President Obama’s reelection roughly nine months ahead of the first primaries.  In an e-mail to the group’s mailing list, Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper speculates as to what kind of “message” this endorsement “sends to Barack Obama”:

Feel free to take gay voters for granted. Don’t bother pushing for ENDA or DOMA repeal. There is no need to “evolve” any further on marriage. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal doesn’t even have to be certified. You’ve done enough.

We don’t think so.

Endorsements, especially from our community’s (nominally) nonpartisan advocates, should be made on the merits of the candidates. Unfortunately, HRC has a history of endorsing Democrats too soon out of blind faith. They endorsed Bill Clinton, only to have him then sign the Defense of Marriage Act. Shamefully, the endorsement remained.

Log Cabin Republicans are proud of our record of standing up for our friends and standing up to Republicans who cross the line. Can HRC say the same about Barack Obama? After this, can HRC truly represent the interests of LGBT Americans?

(Emphasis in original.)  No, it doesn’t, but the president certainly thinks HRC represents gay Americans.  And now that he has HRC’s endorsement, Obama will assume he’s taken care of those pesky homosexuals and can start vacuuming up their cash, with the reassurance that he doesn’t need do anything else to placate gay Democrats.  No worries any more about running afoul of some of his religious supporters averse not just to state recognition of gay marriage, but to civil unions as well. (more…)

Rumsfeld: WikiLeaks Proves Bush Was Right

Here’s the thing… I read this article and thought — “Duh, no kidding.”

But then it dawned on me that many lib/progressive drones will never accept these facts. Because they are so blinded by their anti-military views and too infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. special operations forces is a major success in our country’s war against al-Qaeda. As a result of the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation program and the intelligence gained from detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a major fraction of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has been captured or killed since 2001.

This conclusion was inadvertently reinforced recently by WikiLeaks’ illegal disclosure of more than 700 classified Defense Department files on Guantanamo Bay detainees. Their publication has harmed our security and cemented the impression among allies that America is incapable of keeping secrets. But the material also provides compelling evidence of the effectiveness of Bush administration anti-terror policies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The illegally released files, in addition to a host of declassified documents on U.S. detention policies posted at www.rumsfeld.com, record complex decisions and excruciating trade-offs that President Bush and national security officials had to make. They document the deadly techniques and intentions of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees who still desire to return to the fight, and the labors of analysts and interrogators who enabled us to stop additional attacks.

Gathering intelligence is a painstaking process. Some information comes in an immediately actionable form. More often, the significance of particular data, whether provided by senior or lower-ranking operatives, does not become apparent for months or years, as happened with the years-long effort to patch together information that led our forces to bin Laden.

The classified files from Guantanamo Bay, particularly those on senior operative Abu Faraj al-Libi, contain clues about al-Qaeda’s courier network and even mention Abbottabad. Had bin Laden closely followed WikiLeaks’ release of these documents April 25, it is unlikely he would have been there when U.S. Navy SEALs descended into his compound days later.

The primary documents are the best public evidence yet of our systematic efforts to ascertain detainees’ links to terrorism and to weigh the dangers of their potential release or repatriation. In a war in which our nation’s terrorist enemies hide among civilians and do not carry their arms openly, the question is not whether some unfortunate detention mistakes are made but whether there are appropriate protections to detect errors and correct them when discovered.

Read the whole thing — it is chock full of FACTS.

I can only hope that the most important lib/progressive sees the error of his previous anti-Bush, anti-American world view. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I am not holding my breath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In Mehlman Matter, Gay Left Blogger Prefers Principle to Revenge

Twice in blogging about Ken Mehlman’s coming out, I wrote that there would be some “decent gay lefties” who would not go for this good man’s jugular, treating him instead him with decency and “dignity despite disagreeing . . .  on matters political.

Due to my busy schedule these past few days, I haven’t been able to check the blogs as much as I would like so am grateful for readers like Eva Young of Lloydletta’s Nooz who alerted me to one leftie who has been relatively kind to Mehlman.  To be sure, John Aravosis, while refraining from attacking Mehlman personally (as have some of his left-of-center blogging colleagues), does spew a good deal of vitriol against the GOP (and engage in a bit of overheated rhetoric), he welcomes Mehlman’s coming out, saying he’s “more interested in equality than revenge.

Now, you all know I have trouble with that term; I’m concerned more with preserving the blessings of liberty and, as many libertarian and conservative philosophers and pundits, recognize the tension between that American ideal and the notion of equality.

That said, John sees Mehlman as a potential ally in pursuing his goals and challenges his critics, “If someone can explain to me how it advances our civil rights to spurn Mehlamn’s offer of help, I’m all ears.”

I simply want my civil rights more than I want revenge. It’s the way good politics works, I think – and it’s the way politics used to work in this country – putting the potential to move forward today ahead of your legitimate anger about yesterday.

Now, I may quibble with John about our supposed lack of civil rights.  But, he is willing to put his principles over personality.  And in my book, that should count for something. (more…)

Considering Obama’s Record on Gay Issues

Back when I met lefty lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding on my cross country journey, we talked about doing regular Point-Counterpoint blog posts where one of us would address a topic of the day and another would respond.

Well, even though the editors of the Hill had little knowledge of our conversations, they did ask each of us to weigh in on whether or not “gay-rights issues are being adequately addressed by the Obama administration and this Congress.” Neither Pam nor I had seen each other’s pieces before they were posted.

Here is the beginning of my post (written in haste last Friday):

Unlike most gay activists, when it comes to politics, I have a very small “gay agenda.”  I believe Congress needs to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and allow the Administration time (say no more than six months) to find a means to implement repeal without compromising unit cohesion or military effectiveness.  And I believe the federal and state governments should recognize same-sex civil unions (or domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever they’re called) while granting same-sex partners of government employees the same benefits that different-sex spouses in traditional marriages currently receive.

Other than that, the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

With this as background, let me address the question of the day:  is the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress adequately addressing gay rights issue?

And the answer is well, sort of.

You can read the rest, including Pam’s piece, here.

Is Andrew Sullivan Too Crazy For Even
The Vast Left Wing ‘JournoList’ Gang?

There are now 107 confirmed names from the allegedly defunct “JournoList”.   And while the whole thing stinks to high heaven (news story manipulation by this gang), I can’t say I’m all that surprised about the names popping up.

But I do have to say I’m quite surprised that one Andrew Sullivan hasn’t surfaced.  He’d be the first one I’d expect to have been invited begged to have been put on the JournoList. After all, his Atlantic & TNR buddies Ambinder, Yglesias, Cohn, & Chiat are there.  And Sullivan is a “name”.  I would have thought he’d be one of the first we’d hear about — no offense to Dave Weigel.

Is it possible that the liberal media, academic & Obama cabal considered Sullivan too wacky for even them?  This Daily Dish posting on July 20 suggests Sullivan was in fact left out of the gang.

*snicker*

Or since the JournoList is mostly white straight guys — perhaps they are just racist and homophobic?

Video courtesy of HillBuzz.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Seriously? Obama Ranked Over Reagan??

This post originates from an email from B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) to Bruce (GayPatriot):

I mean, give me a break.

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

Reagan entered office during a recession, never complained about the economy he inherited and turned things around while rebuilding our armed forces and standing up and stopping Soviet expansionism and for that matter, the Soviet Union itself.

Clinton took office during a recovery and succeeded in bungling his first two years in office so badly that the Republican Congress elected in response to his failures helped prevent him from undoing the accomplishments of the Reagan era.

Yeah, he may rank higher than you or I would like, but not above Reagan and certainly not far above the middle of the pack.

Seems these historians put their political prejudices ahead of their historical judgment.  I mean, Obama ahead of the Gipper.  Give me a break.  The economy has certainly not recovered.  And we haven’t seen the economic turnaround of the like we saw in the 1980s.

And that W is low on the list suggests the scholars crafting the study harbor the animi (animuses?) of the other practitioners of their trade.

=============

Bruce’s additional comments:

And check out this absurd statement from the news article:

“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”

Oh give me a friggin’ break.  Obama is probably the most elitist president (via education & upbringing) since the John F. Kennedy.  This idea that he had no father makes him “non-elitist” is completely absurd.  How many ordinary Americans do you know that grew up in three different countries, went to the best private schools there and then went on to Harvard?  I credit his work ethic getting there, but I know ordinary people and Obama ain’t one of ‘em.

Is Professor Lonnstrom suggesting that because Obama is BLACK that he’s no elitist?  Well, that’s just downright RAAAACIST!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)