Some interesting statistics.
So what is going on here? This picture might help.
This is the 2012 presidential election map by county. President Obama won because his support was in areas that were densely populated and had a large number of electoral votes. As you can see by the map, in non-urban America, a large number of American voters did not support President Obama. I still believe (contrary to what the media tells us) that America is politically a center-right country. The reason Democrats prevail in urban areas is that many of the people who live in those areas are dependent on the government for some sort of financial aid. Many of the people who live in urban areas fear that if government grows smaller, their financial aid from the government will also grow smaller. Many of the people in these areas could easily be described as ‘low-information voters‘ who are often lied to and manipulated by candidates. Urban areas are also the places where you will find the highest amount of voter fraud. It is much easier to cast a fraudulent vote in a large precinct than in a precinct where everyone knows everyone else.
I have no suggestions on how to put a Republican in the White House in 2016. I am also more interested in what a candidate stands for than his party label. If a truly conservative Democrat ran for President, I would vote for him. I just wonder if America has reached a point of no return in federal spending and if this runaway spending train can be stopped.
The International Business Times reported today that Egypt’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil has stated that the recent diarrhoea epidemics in rural Egypt are caused by breastfeeding women who were cleaning themselves properly before feeding their children.
The article states:
Qandil previously caused widespread anger by offering a bizarre solution to Egypt’s power crisis. He urged the Egyptians to wear cotton clothes and gather in a single room to conserve power.
Has anyone asked about the quality of the water the people in rural Egypt are drinking or bathing in? It’s obviously much easier to blame women.
CNS News reported today that the new Women’s Entrepreneurship Trust Fund, announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month on a visit to Peru, is making an initial contribution of $900,000 to launch pilot programs here in Peru and in El Salvador, What??!!!
The article reports:
The money, according to Clinton, will be used to train rural women in Peru and in El Salvador for jobs as entrepreneurs and small business owners.
Clinton said the U.S. and Peru were working together as partners to support women in rural areas who “are replacing thousands of hectares of illegal coca fields with profitable crops, like chocolate and coffee and palm oil.”
Approximately $500,000 of the money will go to Peru. The program will go far beyond job training, Clinton said.
“With $500,000 in initial funding, we’ll focus on helping Peruvian women advocate for their own needs, mobilize broad national support for issues affecting them, particularly rural women.
Why is the American government doing this? What guarantee do we have that the money will go to the people who actually need it? Could this money be better spent to help American entrepreneurs and small business owners who are struggling under the Obama economy?