Marco Rubio Calls 1st Gay President Barack Obama Most "Divisive" And "Destructive" Political Figure He's Ever Seen

CNN.com:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio condemned President Barack Obama on Saturday in unusually harsh terms, calling him one the most “divisive” and “destructive” political figures the country has ever seen. 

“For all the policy disagreements that we have with our president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago,” Rubio said at a fundraising dinner for South Carolina Republicans.

The man who currently occupies the White House, he explained, “is a very different person.”

“We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years,” Rubio said.

“They get frustrated,” he said. “They can’t win on their record. And so they have chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive and very unfortunate.”

He accused the Obama campaign of attempting to “pit Americans against each other” by engaging in class warfare and unfairly attacking Republicans on gender issues.

“Never have we seen such an effort to divide the American people in an effort to win an election as we have today,” Rubio said.

Rubio was addressing roughly 1,200 attendees at the South Carolina Republican Party’s Silver Elephant Banquet, the state party’s largest fundraiser of the year.

The speech raised $300,000 for the party.

RELATED: Marco Rubio's Past Political Vulnerabilities?

Michael Eric Dyson Apologizes for Using White, Liberal Tactic of Calling Anyone Who Disagrees With The Left 'Bigots'

After charlatan, race hustler, black liberal sycophant and faux-minister Michael Eric Dyson referred to conservative commentator Sophia Nelson and other black opponents of gay marriage as "sexual rednecks" and "religious bigots" the other day on far-Left network MSNBC, conservatives in general were rightfully outraged. But why should they be when most know that Dyson has served as a pawn for the immoral, white, leftist agenda for years now. Either way, the rambling fool that is Dyson still felt a need to apologize to Ms. Nelson before they went on one of the Ed Schultz show to "debate" gay marriage and pretty much defending his sad, disgusting remarks:

One week after President Obama‘s official endorsement of same-sex marriage, MSNBC played host to a debate over how the decision divides the black community into “civil rights” versus “biblical truth” camps. Last week, Georgetown professor and MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson called out what he saw as “sexual rednecks” within the black church who oppose same-sex marriage, including Sophia Nelson, a writer for TheGrio. The Ed Show brought the two of them on to debate.

Dyson started out by apologizing for calling Nelson and others like CNN’s Roland Martin “sexual rednecks” for their opposition to same-sex marriage. “In a fit of passion I called out my friends, in the spirit of love, to say that hey, we can do better than this, and I shouldn’t have called their names if they weren’t here to defend themselves,” he said, and then went on to clarify his argument and admit that he “conflated two issues: the marriage equality which is very serious and a significant issue on the one hand, and the black homophobia as I perceived it within black communities. Homophobia is not something that’s endemic to black people – it’s across the globe so to speak. But in this case, black homophobia fuels, I think, the beliefs about black gay and lesbian people and whether or not they can get married.”

Nelson accepted Dyson’s apology for calling her a “sexual redneck,” but went on to say that even though she is opposed to same-sex marriage for non-”insidious” biblical reasons, “I support hate crimes legislation for people that would abuse or hurt gays and lesbians, I support civil unions, I support adoption, I support them being able to visit their loved one in the hospital. So there are people like me of faith who don’t agree with same-sex marriage for the faith reason, the biblical reason, the definition of a man and a woman being married, but I also support a lot about the agenda.”

Dyson, an ordained minister of more than 30 years, said that a literal interpretation of the Bible over same-sex marriage is the problem, since it would mean killing gays and lesbians. “I don’t think Sophia Nelson is promoting the biblical interpretation that gays and lesbian people should be killed, and if she is, she hasn’t put that forth. And if she doesn’t, then she doesn’t take the Bible literally.”

The two then got feisty when Nelson explained that she and other black churchgoers were offended to be called bigots for their faith-based views on gay marriage, with Dyson eventually explained that he used the terms “sexual rednecks” and “sexual bigots” because of a quote from Howard Thurman, who said “a bigot is a person who makes an idol of his commitment.”

“You’re throwing [the gay community] a bone by saying, ‘Look, I believe in civil unions’ and the like, but what you’re not addressing is the fact that your faith fuels the belief that to be gay is to be automatically a sinner, to be gay is to be outside of the covenant of God. And I’m arguing that that automatically disqualifies gay and lesbian, transgender and bisexual people as your equals in the faith.”

“You cannot say that our faith is causing us to be homophobic or bigoted,” Nelson responded, quoting several scriptures that she says ground her views on marriage. “Your issue’s with God, not with me.”

Narcissistic, First Gay President Barack Obama Alters History Of Past U.S. Presidents To Give Himself Shine

FOXNews.com:

The Obama White House is drawing ridicule for appending the official online biographies of nearly every president over the last century in order to link President Obama's accomplishments to the former commanders in chief. 

The Obama team went into the pages of U.S. presidents dating back to Calvin Coolidge to add friendly looking "Did you know?" fact boxes to the end of their bios. Those additions were used to plug a host of Obama administration initiatives, ranging from the health care overhaul to the so-called "Buffett Rule" to his green-energy policies. 

For instance, the following line was added to the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan: "In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule." 

The White House is coming under heavy criticism from conservatives for the changes, and not just to Reagan's page. 

Late Tuesday, the White House defended itself, claiming the staff was merely adding links to other pages. 

"No biographies have been altered," a White House official told Fox News. "We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.gov content, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site." 

The additions do include links, but they're more than that. Each one finds a way to tout an Obama administration policy or practice in the process. 

There's this at the bottom of the Franklin D. Roosevelt biography, for instance: 

"On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations." 

And this, at the end of President Lyndon Johnson's, drawing a link between his signing of Medicare and Obama's signing of the health care overhaul: 

"President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965 -- providing millions of elderly health care stability. President Obama's historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the 'donut hole.'" 

The sheer arrogance and audacity of this Amateur-in-Chief.

RELATED: White House Augments Presidential Bios With Obama Trivia

New Poll Shows Scott Walker Up 6 Points Amidst Job Gains

Wisconsin adds 33,000 jobs under Walker, which makes the libs trying to get rid of him really angry:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker released better 2011 jobs figures on Wednesday in an attempt to rebuff a central argument of those trying to recall him from office that Wisconsin's economy has suffered under his leadership.

Walker faces a rare recall election June 5 spurred mostly by anger over his successful push to strip most public workers of collective bargaining rights last year, but also by his stewardship of the state economy.

Walker swept to office on the promise to add 250,000 private sector jobs during his first four-year term, and initial figures gleaned from monthly employment surveys suggested Wisconsin actually lost 33,900 jobs last year, which would rank it last among the 50 states.

The initial figures gave Democrats and their candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, powerful ammunition with which to attack Walker's record. Then on Wednesday, the governor took the unusual step of releasing fourth-quarter data due out in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' June 28 national employment report that show Wisconsin added 23,300 public and private sector jobs last year.

The new numbers are a more accurate reflection of what's happening, but they still show very slow job growth for the state, said University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky. Since they're being released early, it's impossible to tell how Wisconsin compares to other states, he said.

"The real story is the picture of anemic job growth in Wisconsin over 2011, very far from the goal that the governor set," Reschovsky said. "They tell us the economy, if it is growing, it's at a slow pace."

RELATED:  New Wisconsin poll: Walker by six among likely voters, Romney tied with Obama at 46

Most Americans Don't Really Support Gay Marriage

In other words, don't believe the hype especially when it comes from a liberal press with a clear-cut agenda:

Do a majority of Americans really support gay marriage? "Maybe not," the Washington Post admits. For years, headlines have screamed that society is open to redefining marriage. But every time the theory is put to the test, it's proven wrong. As Daniel Horowitz says, the only authentic polling data is votes at the ballot. Thirty-two times, voters have gone to the polls in some of the most liberal states in America and rejected counterfeit marriage--most recently in North Carolina, where a constitutional amendment won by 22 points. Now that President Obama has literally made a federal case out of marriage, the reaction is even more severe.

Although the polling has been manipulated for years, even some media elites are conceding that the support for same-sex "marriage" just isn't there. Yesterday's CBS/New York Times survey showed that only 38% of Americans agree with the President's position. An ABC News/Washington Post poll backed up the trend, pointing out that 47% responded unfavorably and 46% responded favorably. But, analysts say, the real story is in the intensity gap. According to the Post, those numbers include " a 10-point tilt toward 'strongly' negative (38%) rather than strongly positive (28%) views." Independent voters were especially opposed, with most leaning toward a strongly negative reaction.

How have liberals managed to inflate the numbers for so long? "For the most part," the Post says, "the polling out there is combining the civil union and gay marriage responses together to get their 'majority' supporting gay marriage. There's a reason why the same-sex marriage ban passed in 32 states..." And those amendments (and a people's veto) haven't just passed--they've had overwhelming support. Republicans should be tripping over themselves to champion marriage. Instead, they're racing to change the subject on an issue that won an average of 67% of the vote in a supermajority of states. No wonder voters are annoyed. Ignoring marriage isn't just spineless--it's politically naive. Americans care about the economy and marriage. Surely, the GOP has enough time to fight for both.

RELATED: Does a majority of Americans really support gay marriage? Maybe not.