Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Liberals’

Ann Coulter Letter: “Sanctimony and Grandstanding are More Fun than Free Speech”


Authored by Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Mar 18, 2015 4:33 PM

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/03/18/sanctimony-and-grandstanding-are-more-fun-than-free-speech/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Sanctimony and Grandstanding are More Fun than Free Speech

After police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown last summer in Ferguson, Missouri, the media erupted in terror at the prospect of young black men being gunned down by over-excitable white cops.

The New York Times’ Charles Blow wrote that the “central issue” of Ferguson was that an “officer shot an unarmed teenager who witnesses claim had raised his hands in surrender when at least some of the shots were fired, which the family and its attorneys called ‘a brutal assassination of his person in broad daylight.’”

Over at Salon, Brittney Cooper said the Brown shooting proved that black people “are prey” — a charge so moronic even a Starbucks barista wouldn’t discuss it with you.

In a TV segment The Huffington Post called “searing,” a few weeks after the shooting, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry exposed the racism of contemporary America by quoting from Dred Scott — an 1857 Supreme Court opinion written by Roger Taney, appointee of the father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson.

With pictures of Ferguson cops flashing on a screen behind her, Harris-Perry repeatedly quoted Taney’s statement — in 1857 — that black men have “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Picture1

Oh, to be there when Harris-Perry finds out about the 13th Amendment!

After two separate, wide-ranging, phenomenally expensive, months-long investigations, including one by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, it turned out: Brown had attacked Officer Wilson, he did not have his hands up, he was charging the officer when he was shot, and Wilson acted in justifiable self-defense. Instead of the “brutal assassination” of a black man, Holder’s big indictment of white America is that cops in Ferguson give blacks too many traffic tickets.

Even that feeble proof of racism is clearly false. The only two serious studies of driving habits by race ever truthconducted — one in New Jersey and one in North Carolina — found that blacks are far more likely to speed than whites, and at much higher speeds. Indeed, the entire country is snickering at any report that treats as news the fact that blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites, whether in Ferguson the Upper West Side of Manhattan or anyplace else. Blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, ergo, they have higher arrest rates. Ice skaters have more skating injuries than tennis players.

Even New York City’s liberal former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, responded to complaints about the city’s “stop and frisk” policy by saying that, based on witness and victim descriptions of the suspects, the police were stopping “whites too much and minorities too little.” In liberal Santa Monica, blogger Steve Sailer reports, blacks are arrested at about three times the rate as in Ferguson. the facts Send-In-The-Clowns racismjacksonsharptonobamaracebaiterssettingamericaback Frenzy-NRD-600-w-logo Anti-Sharpton-Cartoon-e1374496078141

Frustrated at their inability to locate evidence of the endemic racism in America we keep hearing so much about, liberals have turned with a vengeance on the kids. Instead of armed policemen gunning down blacks, we got a secretly recorded video of few drunk 19- and 20-year-olds at the University of Oklahoma singing the n-word. (Everyone assumes the students were racists, but my theory is they were trying to record their own rap video.)

Apparently, the new national sport is destroying the lives of young people.

Today’s adults are held responsible for nothing. The president and attorney general aren’t held accountable for ginning up frenzied mobs based on a lie, leading to two cops being assassinated in New York City and two cops being shot in Ferguson, in addition to the $250 million in property damage.

Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for Americans being murdered at our embassy in Benghazi as a result of her incompetence.

Democratic senators aren’t accountable for passing Obamacare without reading it, and Republican senators aren’t accountable for promising voters they’d stop Obama’s amnesty and then voting to fully fund it.

Even people who commit violent crimes are given a second chance — especially if they’re athletes at the University of Oklahoma, as the Daily Caller has reported.

But 19- and 20-year olds must be punished without mercy for their drunken song using an ugly word. To quote Hillary Clinton, WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?

Mr. Third Chance, David Boren, president of the university, proudly rushed to violate the First Amendment rights of these students. Even observers who condemned Boren’s laughably unconstitutional move felt compelled to vilify the louts.

Protesters have shown up at the kids’ homes in Texas to rail against their parents. (As always, I marvel at the protesters’ ability to get so much time off of work.)

I don’t remember adults caring this much about what college kids said when we were trying to get their attention with pompous editorials, manifestos and lists of demands. This wasn’t a college thesis — and even a college thesis wouldn’t be worth so much national angst. This was drunk college kids singing on a bus.

Is this the kind of society we want to live in, where a student can record his intoxicated friends singing a nasty song, and the whole country applauds the Nazi block-watcher and joins in the denunciation of his marks?

Liberals were hopping mad about Linda Tripp secretly recording Monica Lewinsky, but at least she was exposing the wildly felonious obstruction of justice by the president of the United States in a sex discrimination case. She wasn’t recording Monica to prove the president had used a bad word.

But no one objects to the aspiring Stasi member recording his friends’ drunken song, then broadcasting it to the world, allowing us a joyous round of universal condemnation.

Instead of judging society by the inebriated songs of 19- and 20-year olds, perhaps we should judge it by how cultural and political elites treat their young people.

Picture6

 

Hilarious Video: Anti-Gun Group Epically Fails At Mocking Second Amendment


Posted By Kit Daniels | Infowars.com On March 13, 2015

Article reblogged from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/hilarious-video-anti-gun-group-epically-fails-at-mocking-second-amendment/

An anti-gun group released a video yesterday mocking the Second Amendment, but the video is so bad, it’s hilarious to watch.

fail

The video, produced by the Brady Campaign, features two “criminals” who promote “crimadvisor.com,” a web site that tells them “which states have loose gun laws.”

“I have some violent friends; we all wear leather jackets and scream at women, and we want to find out which states we can buy and sell guns easy,” one of the “criminals” says, to which the other responds with “Crimadvisor.com, that’s the site to find out where it’s easiest for felons and fugitives to buy, carry and even traffic guns.”more evidence

Of course, in real life violent criminals couldn’t care less about laws; otherwise they wouldn’t be robbing and killing.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

Seriously, do you think the drug cartels that overran Mexico and left it a failed state gave a crap that the country has some of the strongest gun control laws in the western hemisphere? No, because they were too busy gunning down tourists in Cancún who were left defenseless by gun control. “More than 70,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2007,” Reuters reported back in 2013, and the number has only skyrocketed since then. Mexico’s only hope is from the armed militias who have defied the country’s gun laws to defend their communities from the cartels.Gun Control Supporters cropped

And what about the Chicago gangs who control the city’s drug trade, do you actually think they ever said to themselves, “Geez, maybe we shouldn’t have murdered 73 people in one weekend because we broke a bunch of gun control laws in the process?” Of course not. The murders in Chicago only slowed down after Illinois enacted a concealed carry law.

“The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said just months before Illinois passed its concealed carry bill in 2013.Are You Considered a terrorist

Just like the drug laws that have granted cartels control over the narcotics trade, gun laws have granted criminals control over the population by neutering the right to self-defense. Picture2

And the Brady Campaign video is a microcosm of the gun control movement: false logic presented as fact that’s ripe for ridicule. But while the video is funny to laugh at, gun control is not funny at all; it has contributed to the most disgusting wave of violence the world has ever seen.

Picture6

Some Political Expression You May Have Missed


10458029_885674201454698_6518172186007204535_n 10995553_808426835900403_1880945046277632178_n 10997704_988717501188379_6855281147532678330_n 11001833_989749661085163_6101561176031675680_n

2014 Political Cartoons, Drawings and Presentations You Might Have Missed


Master MArtinLuther King Jr. oct172014 02 Teaching children to follow Jesus greatest fraud Cold watching gun-control-cartoon-club-knife Let me be clear mission accomplished WMD-in-Iraq gay-marriage-debate-continues Differences Human bomb Islamofascism-300x199 Winston Churchill We Pledge Allegience to Obama Walking Eagle ObamaDictator-300x204 PS_0807W_RECESSION_t ObamaWreckingBall2 strategy Terrorist lives matter The Great Divider yes-we-cannibus Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Signed Up wheels coming off Dangers I have a steady Job I Never Met Sharpton Jackson 02 The Personal Wealth of Al Sharpton the-only-people-keeping-racism-alive-vik-battaile-politics-1354496075 8 abortion hilary-rosen-vs-ann-romney I sell Women obama isis pays less 2nd term kill isis money worth spending the education of children

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


New Improved CIA

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/new-improved-cia/

New CIA 600 LA

Liberalism a mental disorder

DO NOT JACKASS

Blog wishes

Conservative Comedian Destroys Illogical Beliefs of Modern Liberals


Posted on December 11, 2014 by Onan Coca

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://lastresistance.com/9010/conservative-comedian-destroys-illogical-beliefs-modern-liberals/#pWbF0vsv49fcS3C2.99

Conservative Comedian Michael Loftus of the show the Flipside is one very funny man. Watch as he takes a not-so-funny subject and lays bare the bankrupt logic of today’s political left. If you’ve ever had that “aha” moment when talking to a liberal, where you realize that what they are saying makes absolutely NO SENSE… this is for you.

comedy 

Blog wishes

 

Ann Coulter Letter: Liberals willing to fight to the last drop of black blood


By: Ann Coulter  11/26/2014 05:36 PM

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2014/11/26/liberals-willing-to-fight-to-the-last-drop-of-black-blood/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Liberals willing to fight to the last drop of black blood

The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.

Every other riot I’ve ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff. 

From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t reported like news. It was reported like a cause. The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being “biased” because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le!

Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler’s 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” We’re supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn’t indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson.

Liberals seem not to understand that they don’t have a divine right to ruin someone’s life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they’re satisfied. The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren’t convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike’s body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn’t dismissed without a grand jury, at all.

Obama says anger is an “understandable reaction” to the grand jury’s finding. Why? And why — as almost everyone is saying — are we supposed to praise the “peaceful protests”?

There’s nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can’t the peaceful protesters read?

The night of the riot, Obama said the law “often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.” Maybe, but not in this case — except toward Officer Wilson. I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they’re just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they’re about 0:100 on white racism sightings.

Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They’ve seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.

They know Brown’s mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They’ve seen the video of Brown’s ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury’s decision: “Burn this bitch down!”

Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don’t think actual evidence is relevant either. It’s certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.

TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed “the community” feels it’s not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?

That’s their proof of injustice — look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don’t approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)

The looters aren’t the community!

The community doesn’t want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn’t want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn’t want its stores burned down.

That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, “I have a child and that could have been my son.”

And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson’s account. She said “the child” (292-pound Big Mike) never had his hands up and the cop only fired when “the baby” was coming at him. “Why won’t that boy stop?” she asked her husband.

I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth — then go into hiding from “the community” being championed by goo-goo liberals.

White people don’t feel any obligation to defend some thug just because he’s white. Only blacks are expected to lie on behalf of criminals of their own race.

But real heroism doesn’t interest liberals. They only ooh-and-ahh over blacks with rap sheets. The only meaningful white racism anymore is the liberal infantilization of black people. 

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

 

This Famous Music Star Has a New Song Out… Atheists Are Going to Hate It [LISTEN HERE]


Obamacare

Post by http://conservativetribune.com/this-famous-music-star-has-a-new-song-out-atheists-are-going-to-hate-it-listen-here/

Atheists have a new target in their sights and it’s country music star Carrie Underwood, who recently released a new song expressing her Christian faith and values.In the song, titled “Something in the Water,” Underwood discusses baptism and being “washed in the blood,” both of which are key symbols in the Christian religion. Lyrics throughout the song paint a picture of someone coming to the desperate realization they are hopelessly lost without God and need Him for salvation.

According to TheBlaze, Underwood has always been an outspoken defender of singing about religious themes and has a message for all the liberals and atheists who are whining and complaining about the lyrical content of her new hit, saying, “Country music is different. You have that Bible Belt-ness about it. I’m not the first person to sing about God, Jesus, faith or any of that, and I won’t be the last. And it won’t be the last for me, either. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”

underwood

Awesome.

Article collective closing

Allen West (Video) We need to crush Hamas and Support Israel


Read more at http://allenwestrepublic.com/2014/07/21/allen-west-video-we-need-to-crush-hamas-and-support-israel/#t4c7QvHgiZxP2gzM.99

Published on Jul 21, 2014 by Right Sightings Steven Laboe

Democrats such as Bill Clinton are suggesting that Israel needs to make peace in the Gaza conflict. Lt. Col. Allen West joins FNC’s Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends to discuss this disturbing issue of liberals siding with Hamas against Israel.

west

Article collective closing

 

5 questions to ask a liberal progressive


http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/five-questions-ask-liberal-progressive/#MwMGe9uRbEErSrpu.99

Written by Allen West on June 19, 2014

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Greetings from our nation’s Capitol where I am to speak this afternoon at the Faith and Trigger the VoteFreedom Coalition. And as always, I enjoyed a nice early morning 5-mile run from the bat cave over to the D.C. mall — doggone it is more humid up here than South Florida.

As I was pounding the pavement, I came up with a list of questions I’d like to pose to a liberal progressive. Well, for every mile it seems I came up with one — glad I didn’t try running 8 miles this morning!

 

 

Here you go:

1. If former President George W. Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, then what is President Barack Hussein Obama who is on his way to adding $8 trillion — and still has two more years to go? Yep, under Obama the national debt has risen from $10.67 trillion to almost $17.5 trillion.

2. If as Obama states, “we leave no man behind,” then what of Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, Pastor Saeed Abedini and Kenneth Bae — not to mention still-imprisoned Meriam Yahia Ibrahim – who had her chains removed after giving birth to her daughter, Maya? (And by the way, she is still under a death sentence under Sharia law for marrying a Christian). Nah, those folks don’t help Obama’s political agenda and certainly aren’t as important as recognizing illegal immigrant children “dreamers” at the White House.

3. When the average price of gasoline hit $2.50 a gallon, liberals and their media accomplices went apoplectic (you may have to define that word to a liberal friend) on George W. Bush. Why so silent now, when it’s $3.67?

4. If the late and former President Richard Nixon resigned over a bad case of “breaking and entering” (and the liberal media made a big hoopla over that), what does it take for Barack Hussein Obama to consider the same? Or does the color of skin trump content of character in America now? By the way, I’m planning on my computer crashing next year around tax return time.

5. If it is racist to disagree with the proven failed policies of Barry Soetoro, oops, I mean Barack Hussein Obama, then Truth The New Hate Speechwhat is it when liberal progressives disrespect, dismiss, denigrate, demean, disparage, discredit and seek to destroy black conservative Republicans? Funny, all those “D” words come from the Democrat party. Don’t believe me, just look for the responses to this post from liberal progressives (so predictable).

Now, just so you’re aware, be careful when asking these questions to be outside the range of spittle and frothing of the mouth. As well, stand clear so as not to be struck by a liberal progressives wild arm-flinging tantrums as they throw themselves on the floor in a mad rage. These are the telltale symptoms of liberals exposed to the truth — similar to exposing vampires to light. But know that this reaction affirms you are right on the issues and confirms the liberal progressive inability to intellectually respond.

Never Argue Group
Article collective closing

Explaining Crony Government to the Low-Info Crowd


http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/explaining-crony-government-low-info-crowd/#xPUHTVuZr0qsuush.99

Posted on by Conservative Byte

CountryClassRulingClassIRS

Liberals love their low information voters since they are easily manipulated with lies and feelings.
Check it out:

It seems more and more that our focus sadly is on the low-information crowd. And the problem with that is that most low-information people don’t know that they are low-information people. The ignorant, by definition, don’t know what they don’t know. Therefore, they don’t that they’re ignorant. So they never think you’re talking to them. And more and more that seems to be the target of what we have to do, because they’re the ones that they’re having the wool pulled over their eyes by slick packaging and marketing.

That’s really nothing new. It just seems to be more successfully exploited today than I remember it being. But I could be wrong about that. It could be common parlance. I always strive to make sure I don’t think something that is happening today is worse than ever. But man, I’ve never been, in my life, a country this precariously balanced. In my life the country has never been this threatened. The basics, the fundamentals, the foundation, has never been under assault like this. There’s always been leftists. There’s always been anti-American, blame America, first people. They’ve never been this numerous in leadership positions before. That’s different, too.

Ronaldus Magnus, ladies and gentlemen, 1975 interview on 60 Minutes. “It always has been. How do we call a liberal? You know, someone very profoundly once said many years ago that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.”

And then Reagan said, “And what is fascism? Fascism is private ownership, private enterprise, but total government control and regulation. Well, isn’t this the liberal philosophy? The conservative, so-called, is the one that says less government, get off my back, get out of my pocket, and let me have more control of my own destiny.”

Reagan back in 1975. And I think most people today — you know who the low-information crowd today is? Well, among them is the New York Times readers. New York Times readers today are the essence of low-information voters. That Scott Walker story, classic example. The readers of the New Republic are low-information readers. They don’t know it. They think they know the gospel. They’re being lied to and they just eagerly swallow every syllable of it.

reagan

Continue Reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com

Never Argue GroupArticle collective closing

 

 

 

 

Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance


http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/us/bloomberg-harvard-speech/index.html

By Ray Sanchez, CNN

updated 12:51 PM EDT, Fri May 30, 2014

Bloomberg blasts liberal censorship

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg blasts what he calls silencing of ideas
  • Bloomberg says liberals often silence voices “deemed politically objectionable”
  • At Harvard commencement, he also blasts impasse between Republicans and Democrats

(CNN) — Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering Thursday’s commencement speech at Harvard University, criticized what he described as a disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices “deemed politically objectionable.”

“This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw — or have their invitations rescinded — after protests from students and — to me, shockingly — from senior faculty and administrators who should know better,” Bloomberg said.

The billionaire former mayor cited an October speech during which his ex-police commissioner, Ray Kelly, was shouted down by students at Brown University. The university canceled Kelly’s speech when protesters opposed to the police department’s stop-and-frisk policy shouted down and interrupted Kelly.

Bloomberg noted other universities have had speakers back out. He pointed to Rutgers, where former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew amid protests, and Smith College, where International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde withdrew after a student petition.

“In each case, liberals silenced a voice — and denied an honorary degree — to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage,” Bloomberg said to applause.

An even more glaring example of failing to listen to the opposing side, Bloomberg said, was the longstanding impasse between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, where every major question facing the nation is decided “not by engaging with one another but by trying to shout each other down.”

Bloomberg, who in April pledged $50 million to gun control groups he helped organize, spoke about Washington politicians’ handling of gun issues, noting Congress has barred the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting studies of gun violence, a prohibition that was recently extended to the National Institute of Health.

“What are they afraid of?” he asked.

“Do you really want an answer Mr. Bloomberg, or is all this a prelude to your campaigning for President? If in fact you really want an answer, I’ll give you my perspective; Unless you’re a “die-hard” Liberal Leftist, the very idea of the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducting research about gun violence screams bias. The Leftist/Marxist/Socialist tyrannical force has already determined the outcome of that study. All they want is to get their deceptive hands on the money to do the research. You see, Mr. Bloomberg, most of America is smarter than you and your Leftist comrades think we are. Any more questions?” JB

The Senate this year delayed a vote on President Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, because the Harvard physician “had the audacity to say gun violence is a public health crisis that should be tackled,” Bloomberg said to applause.Propaganda Alert

“Let’s get serious: When 85 Americans are killed with guns every single day, and shootings regularly occur at our schools and universities, including last week’s tragedy at Santa Barbara, it would be almost medical malpractice to say anything else,” Bloomberg said.

“Mr. Bloomberg sir? Please show us the FACTS that back up your quote of 85 Americans being killed with guns everyday?” JB

The former mayor, who received honorary degrees from Harvard along with seven others — including former President George H.W. Bush and music icon Aretha Franklin — spoke of the role of universities as places where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely debate ideas without that “sacred trust” being threatened by the “tyrannical tendencies of monarchs, mobs and majorities.”

He recalled when protesters came out several years ago against the development of a mosque a few blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan.

“We protected their right to protest,” Bloomberg said. “But they could not have been more wrong. And we refused to cave in to their demands. The idea that government would single out a particular religion, and block its believers — and only its believers — from building a house of worship in a particular area is diametrically opposed to the moral principles that gave rise to our great nation, and the constitutional protections that have sustained it.”

BECAUSE IT IS AN INSULT TO EVERY PERSON THAT WERE MURDERED THAT DAY, AS WELL AS THEIR GREIVING FAMILY MEMBERS. Islam ALWAYS erects a Mosque on, or near the grounds of any of their conquest. THAT’S WHY, sir!” JB

He added, “If you want the freedom to worship as you wish, to speak as you wish, and to marry whom you wish, you must tolerate my freedom to do so — or not do so — too. What I do may offend you. You may find my actions immoral or unjust. But attempting to restrict my freedoms in ways that you would not restrict your own leads only to injustice.”

“There is hope for you yet, or is that the last smoldering vestiges of your one time conservative beliefs?” JB

Bloomberg compared the intolerance of ideas prevalent in the country today to “McCarthy’s Red Scare” in the 1950s and its destruction of thousands of lives. In the 2012 presidential race, he said, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty went to Barack Obama.

“Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species,” he said. (“AGREED!” JB)

After the speech, Sarah Surrain, who completed her master’s degree in education, said Bloomberg was bold to criticize universities as too liberal.

“I thought it was really thoughtful,” she said of the speech. “It was nice that it wasn’t just platitudes.”

Harvard Law School graduate Jared Nicholson said the speech was “a great message … about tolerance of different ideas and diversity of opinions.”

Greg Silverberg, an engineering school graduate, said he welcomed the former mayor’s viewpoint.

“He gave some interesting perspectives on conservative views in universities that I hadn’t heard before coming from a liberal undergraduate institution myself,” he said. “It was eye-opening for a lot of people.”

Before the speech, Cary Williams, president of the Association of Black Harvard Women, questioned why Bloomberg was selected as speaker, because, she said, the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program “disproportionately has targeted people of color in New York.”

“It’s basically racial profiling,” junior Keyanna Wigglesworth said of the New York policing policy under Bloomberg. “And so it’s unsettling to me, (for) someone to speak who advocates a racist policy when you want students of color on campus to feel comfortable. It’s confusing and I don’t think its what Harvard stands for.”

SEE CNN TELEVISED REPORT HERE:

bloomberg

CNN’s Laura Dolan and Dana Garrett contributed to this report

Complete MessageFreeSpeech1-300x204VOTE 02

Liberals are Not Pro-Choice- They are No Choice


http://patriotupdate.com/articles/liberals-pro-choice-choice/#HkQmVbwKvZv8c70j.99

Written on Monday, May 19, 2014 by

choic

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not oppose giving parents the choice to place their children in charter schools; something they do vociferously. But self-protective teachers’ unions whose leaders know that under-performing public schools cannot stand up to the competition of charter schools use their political clout to eliminate them as an option. In other words, liberals use political power to ensure that parents have no choice when it comes to the education of their children. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not attack black Americans who choose independence over government assistance, nor would they attack black Americans who choose conservatism over liberalism. Let a black American choose to identify himself on the basis of something other than race and that individual becomes a pariah among liberals. Let a successful black American choose to publically state that government dependence is just another way to keep the minority races in chains and he will be labeled a traitor or an Uncle Tom. Let a black American choose to join the Republican Party and the attacks on him will be unmerciful and unrelenting. So much for choice.Tyranney Alert

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not put so much effort into taking away the choice Americans are given by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment allows Americans to decide for themselves whether they wish to be armed or not. Liberals have already been successful in making the choice to own guns more difficult than the Second Amendment suggests it should be. Apparently the only people liberals want to have freedom of choice when it comes to guns are the criminals who cause all of the gun-related problems liberals are always wringing their hands about. No law or regulation enacted or proposed by liberals has done anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only people punished by gun laws are law-abiding citizens. So much for choice.

Complete MessageIf liberals believed in choice, they would not have passed and enacted healthcare legislation that gives Americans no choice concerning health insurance. The misnamed Affordable Care Act was passed out of Congress without even a hint of support from Republicans and over the objections of a few thinking Democrats. Prior to passage of the AFA, Americans could choose what type of health insurance to buy and what types of coverage the insurance would provide. In fact, they could even choose to do without health insurance, which many healthy younger people did. Not anymore. Obamacare took away an American’s choice when it comes to health insurance. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not have passed regulations that require gasoline to contain ethanol. In the old days Americans could pull into a gas station and choose between regular, mid-grade, and high-test gasoline. Now, no matter what grade of gasoline you choose it is likely to contain ethanol courtesy of the federal government. Despite the fact that scientists have known for some time that ethanol is not the environmentally safe alternative advocates claim it to be, liberals still oppose giving Americans freedom of choice when it comes to the gasoline they use in their cars, trucks, and gasoline powered equipment. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not tell Americans what size soft drinks they are allowed to purchase, what type of toilet they have to buy, or what type of light bulbs they must use. This article has touched on only a few choices liberals have taken away from Americans; there are many, many more. Not only that, every day bureaucrats in the federal government are creating new and more burdensome regulations that will rob us of additional choices. Liberals make a lot of noise about being pro-choice but the facts belie their hypocritical claim. The truth is, liberals want you to be able to murder an innocent unborn baby and that is about it. As to other choices in your life, they will make them for you. So much for choice.

VOTE 02

The Tiny Three Percent that Remains Vigilant in the Face of Tyranny


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/tiny-three-percent-remains-vigilant-face-tyranny/#E77F8tXyFzKtkqKv.99

Written by

During the Revolutionary War against the British, it is said that only three percent of the population were involved in trying to win the nation’s freedom.  That number reflects the percentage of patriots that actually volunteered to fight. There were many others, of course, that supported the cause, and contributed in other ways, but sadly, there was a huge percentage of Colonial Americans that sat on the sidelines with no opinion on the matter. There were even those who wished to remain loyal to the British Crown. While that may be difficult for some to fathom, it is true, and in some ways we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation today.

Tree of Liberty 03

by WhatDidYouSay.org

The vast majority of Americans have absolutely no idea what is going on in this country, nor do they even care. Among these people, are those who believe in centralized authority and support causes that undermine the very freedom our forefathers fought to secure for them; a system of government, I might add, that protects their rights to do so. These people are feverishly working to replace our constitutional republic with a so called “social democracy,” which, in all honesty, is just a nicer way to say “socialism.” 

Just as it was in the late 1700’s when a brave few had the courage to declare people should be free, only a few are aware of the perils we face today. As we attempt to bring attention to the massive usurpations of power committed by our government, they attempt to demonize and ridicule us by calling us terrorists and extremists in an effort to win a public relations war.

Unfortunately, the masses are so inundated with entertainment propaganda, and have been so conditioned to just go along instead of questioning authority, that they are falling for it. Their attitudes towards the nation and the freedom our troops have fought for is contemptible, and as we face the ever encroaching grip of authoritarianism, I can’t help but feel that’s what this nation deserves because it has forsaken all that our relatives have fought and died for. No American service member ever volunteered for war, believing they were fighting for socialism folks. There are some very disturbing events occurring in our nation and in this article I am going discuss the latest developments.

Those paying attention, the tiny three percent, realize that we are rapidly becoming a militarized police state. This is one promise that President Barack Hussein Obama (the name sends a chill down my spine) has kept. He has created a civilian security force that is just as well funded, and just as powerful as the United States military by arming every single government agency. The latest to join the ranks is The United States Department of Agriculture.  They recently request of “submachine guns” with 30 round magazines and ballistic body armor.  How the majority of Americans are not alarmed by this is disturbing in and of itself, but that’s beside the point. They did not request this armament for target practice folks. You would think that liberals, and their phony quest for human rights, equality and freedom would be up in arms over this. The silence, however, is deafening. While many people may scoff in disbelief by this alarming news, or ask why the USDA would need such weapons, the reason is obvious to those paying attention, the tiny three percent.

Comming Soon 02

In Morgan County Indiana, a Sheriff Deputy inadvertently let the cat out of the bag by describing the reasons the Sheriff’s Department needs to have militarized, mine resistant vehicles.  During an interview, Sgt. Dan Downing said the department needs these vehicles because of the combat vets returning home that could use IED’s to defeat police. (Uhh, he said what?) What does that mean? 

“Did you get that lunacy? “….combat vets returning home that could use IED’s to defeat police.” Where do this get this garbage? JB

Did Sgt. Dan Downing just admit that there will be a move made against war veterans? That would be consistent with the attitude the current administration has displayed towards the nation’s defenders. Since Barack Obama has been in office, veterans have been considered a potential threat to national security.  America, pull your head out of the sand a moment and realize that only a government that seeks to undermine the very system that sustains you would consider those that have defended it a “threat to national security.”

police_state

WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, a report released in 2009 by the Obama Department of Homeland Security, calls veterans potential terrorists for several reasons, one of which is returning home to little or no economic opportunity. Why is this not something America is concerned about? It’s probably because American Idol is on tonight. As is the case with everything else, only the tiny three percent seem to give a dam.

In Mexico, one of our Marines is being held prisoner because he got lost and accidentally crossed the border. He had legally owned firearms in the trunk of his car. Mexican authorities arrested him and threw him in a jail cell, and our state department has done nothing.

This is a government that bends over backwards to accommodate illegal immigrants, many of whom have committed horrific crimes in our country. They talk down to us and act as if we should be ashamed for suggesting they follow the rule of law and secure the border. Yet, one of our combat vets is being held in a Mexican prison and they do nothing. What makes it worse is the fact that I called Congressman Jim Bridenstein’s (R-OK) office and the girl who answered the phone was completely clueless that this was even happening. On top of that, she had the nerve to talk to me as if I was rude for suggesting that perhaps she should know. What are we paying these people for? Why would anyone care about one Marine vet being held prisoner in Mexico? After all, there are more important issues like amnesty to deal with, right America? Don’t worry, the tiny three percent will speak for him.

Finally, if this isn’t enough to get you to understand just what we face, then you deserve what you get. At the latestWhite Privilege conference,” speaker Amer Ahmed says that resisting jihad is racistAmerica, Muslims are murdering Christians overseas, (read another instance of this here,) demanding the implementation of Sharia Law in America, and demanding that we abandon our culture while they come here and attempt to make us seem racist for opposing their radicalism.

America, if you are so blind that you cannot see where this is going, then you deserve it, period. If you are so bogged down by political correctness that you believe the people concerned about this are “Islamophobicof “racist” then you are a fool; you are the byproduct of a system that set out to numb your minds so you wouldn’t be paying attention. 

Many of you are probably not even aware of any of this. Others will call me a radical or an extremist for discussing it. Yet, the only people, at this point, whose opinion I even care about anymore are those that have been brave enough to take a stand; those who have stood to speak the truth about what is going on. We are not radicals or terrorists. In fact, we want what you want. We want our children to be able to grow up in a prosperous America without the burden of a $17 trillion debt on their shoulders. We want to live in a world where there is peace, and people respect the opinions and rights of others.

Sadly, the system, left to us by our founders, cannot exist if the masses are not paying attention to what is happening in the nation. Freedom requires vigilance and commitment to holding those we send to represent us accountable for what they do.  We have actually reached a point where the selfish desires of the population have caused them to forsake the freedoms we once enjoyed for false promises of security, and sadly, just as Benjamin Franklin said, we are now left with neither. Don’t worry, there are people who are committed to exposing fraud and corruption, and standing for liberty in the face of tyranny, the tiny three percent.

Source

Wake up America

WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG

VOTE 02

Wackos Photoshop Flood Pictures to Spread Global Warming Panic


http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/wackos-photoshop-flood-pictures-spread-global-warming-panic/#IYZ19MVYBExxZy9h.99

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Conservative Byte

UnderwaterPics

They say that the North Pole, particularly Antarctica, that there is a landmass underneath the ice, so it’s not an ice continent. In other words, Antarctica is not just a giant ice sheet or series of glaciers floating in the water, that there is land anchoring it, and if it melts, it will add to the volume of seawater. The point is not that. The point is it isn’t melting! Antarctica is expanding, whether a glacier has split off from a part of the continent or not, Antarctica’s ice coverage is expanding.

I have in my Stack here, I put it at the bottom, I didn’t know this was gonna come up today — a total in the last two years, eight stories chronicling from various news organizations reported by scientists the expanding mass of Antarctica. There is no melting taking place. It’s minus 70 degrees there. The only way that there could be significant melting, and we had a caller yesterday, you’d have to blow up a bunch of nukes down there to create enough heat. It would take 235,000 50 mega ton nukes at the same time to raise the temperature down there one degree to cause melting, and you have to do it every year. The only other way — and I found this on a couple of different blogs ’cause I wanted to find out — see, my common sense gets in the way of understanding a lot of things.

Media-WhiteoutMy common sense gets in the way of understanding a lot of liberal BS. And my common sense says it’s minus 70 down there. How in the hell is anything melting? What could cause it? Because they want us to believe that it’s warming up down there and it’s melting and that’s why this ice sheet broke off. If there would happen to be a volcano under Antarctica that was erupting and it was enough sustained lava flow coming out to warm the lowest level of the ice, way underneath the water, you might have a small degree of melting, but nothing on the magnitude of causing a four- to 10-foot increase of see level. But you would still need something like an undersea volcano erupting, and there’s no evidence that that’s happening.

I mean, what really is gonna melt the South Pole, or the North Pole? These people, “Man-made global warming, these SUVs and fossil fuels.” What are they warming? The atmosphere? It is not 50 degrees at the poles. Now, I want to warn you. I just came across — let me look at it very quickly ’cause I scrolled past it. What’s the website? Okay, Climate Central. “Maps are one way to understand what collapse of West Antarctic glaciers could eventually mean.” But they’re not good enough. So what some people have done — and I’m gonna make a prediction to you. In fact, I’m gonna send this story up to Koko so he can link to it ’cause this is pictures and this is radio. I want you to see these.

Solid-Foundation-600-wLogoThey’ve had a professional photojournalist create some fake pictures of the Jefferson Memorial half underwater, San Diego half underwater, New York half underwater, and they look real. They look like there was a giant flood that happened yesterday. And I’m gonna predict to you these pictures are gonna get wide distribution in all the usual low-information places and you’re gonna have some people think that this is actually a picture of what has happened in some places. Most will understand that these wackos have Photoshopped these pictures as a way of illustrating what this glacier breakup in Antarctica will mean.

It’s not happening. Nothing’s melting. The ice is expanding in Antarctica. And even if they were right, we’re talking about a hundred years from now. The baseball stadium in San Francisco is underwater in this picture. Half of it’s underwater. I’ll send it up there and you can see it. This is gonna be just like Al Gore used those fake polar bear pictures on small, little ice floes to show you their habitat was melting.

Continue Reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com

Leftist State Religion

VOTE 02

 

 

Ann Coulter Letter


http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/14/death-penalty-opponents-have-i-got-a-deal-for-you/

Death penalty opponents, have I got a deal for you!

Ann Coulter

Death penalty opponents, have I got a deal for you!As described in last week’s column, the New York Times and other sanctimonious news outlets censored details about the crime that put Clayton Lockett on death row, the better to generate revulsion at his deserved execution. You might say they buried the facts alive.

For example, the Times neglected to mention anything about the raping that preceded the murdering, which seems odd for a newspaper so consumed with the “War on Women.” (At least Lockett never refused to pay for a woman’s birth control pills!)

The Times also dropped the part about Lockett’s dangerous behavior while incarcerated, such as ordering hits on the witnesses against him, his threats to kill prison guards, and the bounty of homemade weapons seized from him in prison — saw blades, sharpened wires, shivs and shanks. (Old Times motto: “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” New Times motto: “Nobody Likes a Rat.”)

The newspaper also failed to report that Lockett had ended up in an adult prison by the age of 16 and then was convicted of four more felonies before committing the torture-murder of Stephanie Neiman that sent him to death row.

No, that information might distract from the Times’ florid descriptions of Lockett’s execution.

Bless their hearts, they gave it their all, but even the Times could not make Lockett’s “botched” execution sound particularly grisly. Here is the paper’s full, terrifying description:

“According to an eyewitness account by a reporter for The Tulsa World, Mr. Lockett tried to raise himself up, mumbled the word ‘man,’ and was in obvious pain. Officials hastily closed the blinds on the chamber and told reporters that the execution had been stopped because of a ‘vein failure.’ But at 7:06, the inmate was pronounced dead of a heart attack.”

HE RAISED HIMSELF UP? WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ARE WE???

Actually, I’m not that horrified. It sounds as if he suffered a bit, which is nice, and he’s dead, which was the objective of the whole enterprise.

You want horrifying? Imagine a 2-inch baby being chopped up with scissors. That can’t feel great.

Maybe they — and MSNBC’s similarly high-minded Rachel Maddow — should comfort themselves by thinking of Lockett’s execution as a very, very, very late-term abortion. You know, the kind that liberal darling Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours to keep legal.

Since Rachel and the Times are such big fans of partial-birth abortion, would they mind if we took a gigantic pair of scissors, jammed them in the back of Clayton Lockett’s head and let his brain slide out? Let’s get Kermit Gosnell working again!

Or how about giving the citizens of Oklahoma the right to choose an acid bath for condemned murderers? We’ll submerge people like Lockett in a tub filled with burning fluid until he’s mostly disintegrated and can be flushed down the toilet. (If it’s low-flow, flush twice.)

Or maybe an industrial vacuum designed to tear Lockett’s body apart.

Which reminds me: Would the Times ever give as detailed a description of an abortion as it does for the execution of a remorseless killer? The odds are pretty high that the baby isn’t even a rapist/murderer.

Opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with compassion. Liberals weeping for murderers have zero compassion for an innocent baby trying to escape an abortionist’s cranioclast. Their dead earnestness about monsters like Clayton Lockett is solely designed to demonstrate how virtuous they are.

It will come as a surprise to the sort of person who works at the Times, but there are lots of people who don’t go through life trying to prove they’re better than everyone else. They don’t think to themselves: Listen to NPR? Check. Got the kids into a fancy preschool? Check. Now, what’s that little extra for experts? … Defend depraved murderers! Check!

Manifestly, these death penalty hysterics do not care about the victims of crime. But they don’t really care about the killers, either. Their only objective is to increase their self-esteem.

This is why liberal arguments against the death penalty are always circular. It’s not about logic; it’s about their conception of themselves.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies won’t sell lethal injection drugs to the states because they don’t want to be sued and harassed by anti-death penalty activists. European pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell the drugs to the U.S. because they’re so deeply committed to human rights — as we saw around the middle of the last century.

Then they all turn around and complain when crummy substitutes fail to produce nice, peaceful exits for heinous murderers. (You know — like they gave their victims.)

It’s exactly like the left’s complaint that the death penalty “costs too much.”

Q: Why is it so expensive?

A: Because we sue, drag the cases out forever with endless appeals and require states to spend millions of dollars on legal costs.

How about we cut the Euros and lefty activists out of the execution process altogether with a voluntary firing squad? It’s quick, it’s effective and the whole community gets to participate!

The state could run ads in newspapers giving detailed accounts of the condemned man’s crime — all that stuff the New York Times frantically hides from its readers — and then ask: “Would you be interested in being assigned to his firing squad?”

The Supreme Court has defined “cruel and unusual punishment” as something that offends society’s “evolving sense of decency.” When we see how many people volunteer for the firing squad, we’ll at least have a back-of-the-envelope estimate on whether society’s “evolving sense of decency” is more offended by the death of Clayton Lockett or that of Stephanie Neiman.

I know I’d volunteer. Having read the truth about what psychopaths like Clayton Lockett have done, I’d pay for the opportunity, especially if they promise my gun won’t have a blank.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

WE MUST NEVER FORGETVOTE 02

These “11 Types of Liberals” are the worst liberals there are…


http://youngcons.com/these-11-types-of-liberals-are-the-worst-liberals-there-are/#.U2gBbtBJe7U.facebook

1. The “Holier Than Thou” liberal.

This is the liberal that thinks they have the moral high ground.  “Hey, look at me! I am a liberal and I care about poor people.”  This liberal never donates money to charity or volunteers their time, but they support welfare, so they care about poor people, or something.

2. The “Pro-Choice” liberal

This liberal defines themselves by being pro-choice.  Ironically, the only choice they believe in is the choice to be able to kill an unborn baby.  This liberal doesn’t think you should be able to choose to own a gun, buy a light bulb, or a large slurpee, but they still have the stones to say they are “pro-choice”.

3. The “Anti Death-Penalty” liberal

This liberal is good friends with the pro-choice liberal.  They think that murderers and rapists on death row shouldn’t be killed, only the innocent unborn babies.

4. The “Oil Companies Are Evil” liberal

This liberal hates oil companies.  Obviously, this liberal loves driving in their car, flying in planes, eating at restaurants that get their food from delivery trucks, etc.  You would think they love oil companies because of how much taxes they pay.

exxon

5. The “Conservatives Are Racist” Liberal

This liberal hates conservatives because they are racist.  Why are conservatives racist? Because Obama, Al Sharpton, and MSNBC told them so.  This liberal believes in affirmative action, a policy that says minorities are too stupid to succeed without help.  This liberal is also against voter ID laws because they think minorities aren’t smart enough to figure out how to get an ID.

6. The “Anti-War” liberal

This liberal thinks we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan.  This liberal changed their tune once Obama was president, obviously.

7. The “War on Women” liberal

This liberal thinks the world, and by world I mean conservatives, are out to get women.  This liberal stands up and does there happy dance when Obama says women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, even though that myth has been debunked time and time again.

8. The “Jesus Was A Socialist” Liberal

Jesus did promote charitable giving on behalf of individuals through voluntary actions, not as a secular and spiritless exercise of government through forced taxation. Naturally, this liberal ignores the fact that Joe Biden and his wife gave 0.2% to charity for an entire decade, and that Barack Obama gave less than 1% to charity from 2000 to 2004. This liberal only loves helping the poor if they’re using other people’s money.

Moreover, helping poor people means being pro-capitalism.  Nothing raises the standard of living of poor people better than a free market economy.

fox

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or “Obama is our dad” liberal

chris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. The “Global Warming” Liberal

This liberal literally spends their time trying to figure out how to make cows fart less to stop global warming. This liberal said in 2007 that global warming will make the arctic ice free by 2013.  Of course, in 2013 the polar ice caps grew by 60%.

2007: Global  Warming will make arctic ice free in 2013 // 2013: Record return of arctic ice cap as it grows 60% in a year

Complete Message

VOTE 02

It’s Really a Question of Faith


http://joeforamerica.com/2014/03/really-question-faith/#UogDqZabAkBjlABH.99

A time to believe.

Jesus paid it allTo begin, I won’t even argue that Christianity is under attack in America and also around the world, as any casual observer would have to be comatose not to see it. From schools to courthouses, liberals are on a constant mission to remove God and any mention of Him from the public discourse. And bear in mind, this author is by no means a Holy roller nor a Bible thumper, but I do believe in God, and pity those who mock Him. (Notice that I do not condemn the heathens nor call for their deaths, but pity and pray for them. May God have mercy on your souls, as I believe He will, while you scoff at the notion).

Still, I wonder not only of the collective motivation of the liberals in America, but of their absolute disdain for the believers as well. While the left demands an answer to the question regarding homosexuals, that being, “how does their lifestyle affect you?”, I would ask the same of them; “Why does Christianty offend you so”?

I can already hear the cacophony of protest from the left, claiming that Christians oppress gays, but what of the oppression given in return? Christians are pummeled daily and publicly over their opposition to gay rights, when all that opposition really is is a matter of opinion. Aren’t the opinions of everyone given equal merit in a place like America? Have we abandoned free speech altogether? It seems that the free exchange of ideas has lost its validity in the Land of the Free, and the perpetrators of such a heinous trend have absolutely no regrets over the apparent loss of the most basic freedom we have defended for a few centuries.

With all of that said, I want to get to the real crux of the matter, and that is the question of faith. Ask any liberal why they reject God or why they refuse to accept Him, and a majority of the time they will turn to attack mode and demand proof of His existence. When we can offer none, they laugh, throw their hands in the air and assume that they have achieved victory, yet when questioned on the proven failure of their own faith, liberals get defensive and claim intellectual superiority when none is evident. Still, they are convinced of it despite physical proof.

Sure, I could launch into a tirade on the perfection of the universe and the miracle of life on Earth, but I won’t To me and millions like me, it is self evident. Could this all be an enormous accident? Well, it’s a matter of faith, and the arguments of theologians make much more sense than those of atheistic “scientists”, but let’s get to the faith of liberals.

Liberals have faith in the philosophies of men like FDR, Obama and yes, even Lenin and Marx, but here’s where that faith gets interesting: those collective philosophies are demonstrably detrimental to humanity, judging by recent history. Yet, when confronted with the historical proof of these failures, the left believes with all their hearts. And Christians are deemed irrational?

We have the terrible eyesore of Detroit, a once vibrant city considered the jewel of modern America, a city alive with capitalism and productivity and now dying a slow, horrible death. (And not far from it). And then Wisconsin democrats tried to recall Governor Scott Walker, a measure that thankfully failed. As a result of that failed campaign, Wisconsin now boasts a surplus of $977 million after a deficit of 3.6 billion (yeah, with a “B”). Politifact.com fact-checked this claim and gave it a half truth. Fine, but nonetheless, what ever the true numbers are, there is no dispute that Walker is moving in the right direction.

We also have the “gun safety” numbers, with anti second amendment advocates urging the removal of guns from our society. Again, the faith of the left comes into question when towns like Kennesaw, Georgia — with a requirement of household males to own a firearm — boast the lowest crime rate in the nation. How does that figure in the liberal world? They have faith that no guns means a safe society, and don’t dare argue the point, and never mind that the hard evidence contradicts the liberal position…just have faith in them. But don’t believe in God.

Which brings me to my final point; global warming, climate change, or whatever the liberals want to call it tomorrow. We must all have faith in the prognostications of supposed scientists who parrot the mantra of environmentalists lest we are labeled heretics. The word “heretics” reminds me of the earlier Biblical days, ironically enough. Today, the left prefers the term “liars”, as in all of us who doubt them, but the faith of liberals is clearly beyond reproach, at least in their minds.

But we are the crazies who believe in God. Yeah, makes perfect sense in someone’s world. I just don’t want those “someone’s” running the country.

 

Muslims Demanding Their Own Sharia Patrols in Michigan


http://wizbangblog.com/2014/02/22/muslims-demanding-their-own-sharia-patrols-in-michigan/

February 22, 2014

During the public comment time at the Dearborn city council meeting, a Muslim stood to demand that the city institute sharia patrols to keep young people out of parks and to prevent the sale of “offensive” magazines in stores.

The man named Hassan took his place in line during the public comments and when it was his turn to speak he prefaced his comments with loud chanting of Islamic prayers. He then went on to demand that the city begin patrols of the parks because people used them for “sexual activities.”

The Muslim would not tell the council where he lived claiming he feared for the safety of his family but said he lived near Westland.

As reported, “Hassan also stated that there were magazines and newspapers at the public libraries and civic center that can ’cause colossal damage to a child’s health,’ asking the city to review and monitor literature before they are distributed.”

So, Mr. Hassan wants sharia compliant patrols to prevent people from using parks and he wants the city to perpetrate sharia compliant censorship at libraries.

Fortunately, the city council shot down Hassan’s demands. This time.

But this is how we begin to lose our nation to invading Islam just as it has happened in Europe, Britain, and elsewhere. Muslims use our own system against us, using democracy to destroy democracy.

First they have a few people complain at a public meeting. Next they have a dozen. Then they shame the government to concede in a few demands. Next they demand more and government gives them, more. Then they are allowed their own enclaves where they have full power and can ignore the rule of law (this has happened in Britain). Then they branch out from their enclaves and begin to force other areas to observe their medieval rule.

Be ware of this, America. Sharia is coming if these Muslims have any say at all over it. Sharia is un-American, anti-democratic, anathema to freedom and liberty and it must be stopped.

 

Posted by on February 22, 2014.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com “The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.” –Samuel Johnson

Nearly 100 lawmakers descend on Mt. Vernon to discuss Convention of States


http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/09/nearly-100-lawmakers-descend-on-mt-vernon-to-discuss-convention-of-states/

Monday, Dec  9, 2013 at 10:27 AM PST

EDITOR’S NOTE: Due to inclement weather in Dallas over the weekend, Glenn and his staff were still unable to make it into the office. Instead, Glenn broadcasted his radio program from home. As a result, no video clips will be available from Monday’s radio show. You can listen to the entire Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE. The story below is based on one of Monday’s radio segments.

***

Last week, Glenn shared the news that South Carolina and Virginia have formally called for an Article V Convention of State (COS). On Saturday, close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Virginia to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states. A convention of states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, allows state legislatures to vote on amendments to add.

“There was a really important meeting on Saturday. Nearly 100 state legislators from 32 different states met to discuss the possibility of the convention of the states,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “They said that they were looking for congressional term limits and limits on federal taxation and spending.”

“Need six more states, and we got ourselves a convention,” Pat added.

No constitutional amendment has ever been added through a COS, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a check against the federal government. Mark Levin lays out the argument in his book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public.

According to Article V, two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34 states, must approve an application for a convention to occur. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, with each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures.

“This was [written as] the last resort, the ejector seat,” Glenn said of the COS. “Your media has broken down. Your parties have taken over. Your Congress is corrupt. Your president is corrupt. Everything is corrupt, but before there’s a coup, you pull this chute.”

“And up until the last maybe a year, year and a half, I’ve always been dead-set against this, and I think you were too,” Pat said to Glenn. “Because the problem is you open up the Constitution. And you could potentially open it up to what everybody fears – globalists and all that kind of stuff. But you’re not because you’ve got enough states that are going to oppose that. You need 13 and you’re going to get 13 to oppose losing our sovereignty or repealing the Second Amendment.”

As Glenn explained, the COS offers an opportunity to refocus our federalist system away from the federal government and back to the states. While the progressives in Washington may want to keep the power as centralized as possible, Article V of the Constitution allows the states to push back against the federal government and exercise their own power.

“That’s the way it was intended in the first place. And I think it would be really good because what you have right now is all of these senators that care about the United States of America, not their own state. They’re supposed to care about their state,” Glenn said. “And it was Woodrow Wilson and the progressives that moved in and said, ‘No, we’ve got to stop all of this. We’ve got to get people to care about the United States of America and not their individual state.’ And that’s why our states are being raked over the coals.”

Language Bandits — Subtle Enemies of Freedom


http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/language-bandits-subtle-enemies-freedom/#41oi4IXjyyrvIPym.99

By / 24 January 2014

speak

When you think about Orwell’s 1984, it’s easy to go right to the heavy-handed intrusive measures.  Things like Big Brother, the secret police, and midnight arrests make it easy to draw comparisons to today’s IRS and NSA abuses that would have made Nixon blush.  Or the arrest of that guy responsible for the video that “caused” Benghazi.  Or maybe the swelling pseudo-police powers of various non-policing entities now carrying firearms.

But these were not the only threats Orwell saw to citizen freedoms, were they?

A far more subtle, and in a sense, dangerous threat to those freedoms, Orwell called Newspeak.   In his own words:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

In his book, acceptable boundaries of thought were enforced by shaping — co-opting — language.  We see this today.  Just ask Paula Deen why the word that cost her dearly in her career is ubiquitous in some music genres.  What gives anyone the right to sanitize our speech by force?

  • How else does a Christian Restauranteur’s private opinion about marriage become a national headline?
  • What about Duck Dynasty?  Runaway hit show threatened because one guy said something controversial in an interview?
  • I don’t remember that reaction in ‘08 when Obama said he was “not in favor of gay marriage”.

Instead of using words constructively, to engage conversation, or hammer out differences of ideas, activists and political hacks are short-circuiting political process.  If someone dares say something controversial, two things are considered.  First, “Who said it?”, and second, “What it is said about?”

For example, the word that brought Paula Deen to court was also used by Madonna. Difference?  Madonna is committed to the same values as the P-C police.  Likely, it will cost her nothing.

They play the same game with sexuality.  Gay is a relatively new term.  It replaced other more vulgar, or more accurate words.  Notice they chose an innocuous word synonymous with happy?  People later manufactured the word “homophobe” to bludgeon the noncompliant into submitting to the new orthodoxy. This, too, is selectively enforced.  

Where are the complaints about their treatment in places like Iran, where homosexuals are publicly executed under Islam?  Yet somehow Christians are scapegoats to be reviled for their commitment to traditional marriage.  Do they think only Christians held this view, rather than practically every cultural group in the world (other than our aggressive strain of secularism)?

Maybe I missed it, but around the time Phil Robertson called homosexuality “a sin,” Louis Farrakhan spoke of the Islamic teaching that homosexuals be beheaded or stoned. Where, exactly, was that outrage?  Has a reference to violent death from the religion so often in the news for violence less newsworthy than Phil’s private opinion?

Well, that would overlook one little fact: they aren’t interested in debate, or justice, but naked power.  Like good little thought police, they’re trying to bully people into obedience.  For now, the Islamophobe card seems enough to protect them from charges of “homophobia.”

What can we learn from this?  We can be conscious of their tactics, and use deliberate word choice to frame our own position.  For example,

  • they use ”pro-choice” rather than ”pro-abortion”, it’s more “friendly” even if the latter is more accurate.
  • “Progressive” is used to imply progress, and “forward” (another word often used).

If you use their language, you are already fighting the battle on their turf.  Worse, you may be using terminology they use to stereotype you.

  • Frame your ideas in the context of what you are for, not against.  It lets you define yourself on your own terms.

  • Don’t be afraid to take the gloves off.  If they’re going to invent accusations against you, try to “Judo” that energy back at your attacker.

  • If they call you racist, be ready to show why they are, and you are not.  If they call you a hater, make them prove it. Show them up as cowards, flinging accusations because they have no actual arguments.

Remember how Orwell’s novel had a “Ministry of Truth” that was actually a State-run Propaganda House?

Part of the fight, is to call things what they really are.  Barbara Walters — alleged journalist of no small reputation — said the following: “We thought he was going to be … the next messiah”.

That’s not objective reporting, that’s the language of religious devotion and Personality Cult.  I fail to see how that is meaningfully different from the adulation given a little Austrian with a funny mustache so many years ago.

Above all, when you are dealing with someone that no longer feels the sting of conscience (as any group that rejects the Ten Commandments must be), use ridicule!  Tweak the ego!

Since images and sound bites have become more important than ideas and substance, this can be devastating to those me-monkeys.

Image: Courtesy of: http://annasenglishstuff.wikispaces.com/I+can%27t+speak+ English

Interstate Batteries: Charged With God’s Love!


Zon

Interstate Batteries doesn’t hide their Faith in Christ or conservatism. They embrace it and fare well because of it. I hope there’s a shift in the culture where more business will promote the message that the Way to Peace, Joy, and Prosperity is with Christ. More in this ZoNation!

More at AlfonzoRachel.com

Ann Coulter Letter


Mental health laws are trouble for Democrats

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/18/mental-health-laws-are-trouble-for-democrats/

Mental health laws are trouble for DemocratsBy: Ann Coulter  12/18/2013 05:01 PM

Instead of always taking incoming fire, how about Republicans start sending some back? It’s great that they stopped HillaryCare, but if they had actually fixed health care by forcing health insurance plans to be sold in a competitive free market, there would have been no opportunity for shyster Democrats to foist Obamacare on us.

It’s fantastic that we caught the Boston Marathon bombers, but why don’t Republicans fix an immigration system that brings foreign terrorists and mass murderers to our country? Let the Democrats explain why we couldn’t make room for a Danish surgeon because we needed another Chechnyan terrorist.

And it’s terrific that Republicans have managed to block sweeping gun bans after every mass shooting over the past few years — opposition to new gun restrictions has more than doubled since Newtown — but how about they actually do something to stop the next mass murder?

All these shootings are united by one clear thread: They all were committed by visibly crazy people, known to be nuts but not institutionalized.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.

But in every instance, Democrats’ response was: Let’s ban high-capacity magazines! Let’s limit private gun sales! Let’s publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!

Mass shootings don’t correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We’re not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We’re worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.

There’s absolutely no point in making it more difficult to buy firearms at gun shows — unless gun dealers have no trouble getting files on the mentally ill. Until we do that, we’re wasting our time.

Fixating on guns after a crazy person commits mass murder is like draining the ocean to find a ring you dropped.

Liberals can take the position that crazy people living on the street and filling up our prisons and homeless shelters are a necessary evil that is a consequence of their idee fixe. But then, when one of their pet victims shoots up a movie theater, they don’t get to blame it on guns.

In every one of these mass shootings, there was someone in a position to say before the attack, “Trust me, this person is a psycho.” Try getting Jared Loughner or James Holmes through any mental illness hearing in which they’re required to speak. (Though both might end up being offered their own shows on MSNBC.)

If someone was brought back from the 1950s to today, he’d tell us: “I couldn’t help but notice that all the people who committed mass shootings were batsh*t crazy. Why were they not locked up or forced to take medication?”

We’d have to say, “Because some people — we call them ‘liberals’ — get a warm feeling of self-righteousness by defending the right of the deranged to crap in a shoebox, carefully label it and put it in a closet.”

Democrats absolutely will not address the one thing that was screaming out from all of the mass shootings: a crazy person committing the crime. We can’t medicate them and we can’t lock them up because the ACLU has handcuffed society’s ability to deal rationally with the mentally disturbed.

Not only will Democrats refuse to address the problem of the mentally ill on their own, but they will fight to the last ditch to protect any crazy person’s right not to take his medication.

At some point in the 1980s, not being “judgmental” became the highest form of virtue — although the left is plenty judgmental about things they don’t like, such as white males, smokers, Christianity, Wal-Mart, Fox News, talk radio and NASCAR.

Liberals are so determined not to stigmatize anybody that their solution is always to make all of society suffer instead:

– To avoid hurting Muslims’ feelings, everyone has to strip to his underwear at the airport.

– So no one feels excluded, we’re not allowed to say “Merry Christmas!”

– To avoid singling out gays, the government and media lied to Americans for a decade about the coming explosion of heterosexual AIDS. (We’re still waiting.)

– To stop people from noticing patterns, the media bend over backward to avoid telling us the race of dangerous criminals on the loose.

– To prevent hurt feelings, everybody gets an “A.”

And to avoid “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, society has to live with the occasional mass murder.

These anti-stigmatization rules don’t even help the people they claim to be protecting. But defending ridiculous rules that ruin things for everyone else makes liberals feel heroic.

Rather than constantly playing defense on gun rights, why don’t Republicans force Democrats into taking uncomfortable positions for once? Make them choose between ticking off the ACLU or ticking off soccer moms — as well as all of sane America. (Don’t kid yourself: The non-insane are still a potent voting bloc in this country.)

Republicans should say, “We owe it to the memory of these kids to unclog the regulations that prevent us from forcing psychotics to take their medication.”

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Liberals talk race and crime – and hilarity ensues!


Ann Coulter Letter

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/04/liberals-talk-race-and-crime-and-hilarity-ensues/

Liberals talk race and crime - and hilarity ensues!

By: Ann Coulter  12/4/2013 06:32 PM

On a break from pretending to believe they live in a country bristling with violent white racists, the Non-Fox Media have been trying to debunk stories about the “Knockout Game,” in which young black males approach random strangers and try to knock them out with one punch.

 

The left’s leading line of defense against the Knockout Game is to argue that young black males have always been violent, so, hey, this is nothing new.

You’re welcome, black America!

In Slate, Emma Roller wearily recounted other episodes of black-on-white violence in order to announce: “The ‘Knockout Game’ is a myth.”

Reminiscing about the flash mobs that shook many parts of the country a few years ago, Roller wrote: “I remember the summer of 2011, a story about a crowd of (black) teenagers at the Wisconsin State Fair randomly attacking fairgoers went viral as a sign of a burgeoning race war.”

So you see, stupid right-wingers, young black males have always been violent, so what’s the big deal about the Knockout Game? Your honor, my client’s not a killer; he’s a serial killer.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reached for a different example of monstrous black-on-white violence in order to dispute that the Knockout Game is anything new.

Looking like a translator for the deaf with all the air quotes he had to make for “supposed” “trend” and “Knockout Game,” Hayes compared it to what he called the fake trend of “wilding” after a mob of black youths violently attacked and raped a white woman jogging in New York’s Central Park in 1989. According to Hayes, “there never was such a thing” as wilding.

Whether the boys who were convicted of the crime did it or, as liberals now claim, a man already sentenced to life in prison did it, the Central Park jogger was brutally raped and nearly murdered by either one or several young black men. (They all did it — see Chapter 13 of my book “Demonic.”)

The following year, 1990, blacks committed 57 percent of all the violent crime against whites, while whites committed only 2 percent of the violent crime against blacks, according to the Department of Justice’s annual Victimization Report.Thanks for the memories, Chris!Oh, and contrary to Hayes’ proclamation, black men raping white women is something of a “trend” — at least according to FBI crime statistics. At least since 1997 (I got bored and stopped looking any farther back) blacks have raped several thousand white women every year, while white-on-black rapes have numbered between “0.0″ and “Sample based on 10 or fewer.” (See Chapter 11 of “Mugged.”) 

In a particularly incomprehensible defense of black America in Mediaite, Tommy Christopher denounced the “sketchy” news reports of “the so-called ‘Knockout Game’” by citing the video of a group of black teenagers walking past teacher Jim Addlespurger, when one of the black teens steps from the group and knocks the teacher out cold, and then they all laugh about the assault as they continue walking.

But Christopher helpfully notes that a cop said this “was just a random act of violence.” So don’t worry about the Knockout Game, white people — this is mostly just ordinary, everyday black-on-white violence.

Flash mobs, wilding, day-to-day black violence — talk about damning with faint praise!

Liberals have to work so hard to avoid noticing the astronomical crime rate among young black males that their brains freeze.

Roller attributed public interest in a story about mobs of young black males attacking families at a state fair to white people’s need to validate their “fear” that black people are dangerous. (Milwaukeeans hardly even notice when mobs of whites surround their families at a state fair, punch them, kick them and smash their cars, while shouting racial slurs.)

But Roller implied that blacks engaging in violence is wildly unusual: “When a few YouTube videos are able to convince terrified white folks that young black people are dangerous, they may as well assume that all cats can play the keyboard.”

Is a disproportionate amount of keyboard playing in the country being done by cats?

According to the FBI, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, who are about 12 percent of the population, committed 53 percent of all felony murders and 56 percent of non-felony murders. The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that young black men are 14 times more likely to commit murder than young white men.

White liberals know this. Blacks certainly know it. Despite the hoo-ha over George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, most black people’s experience is not that white vigilantes are shooting them. For every one of those, there are 1,000 black teens killing other black people.

But if liberals took the first step toward sanity and admitted that young black men commit an awful lot of violent crime, they might have to ask why that is.

That’s a dangerous question for people who refuse to acknowledge the devastation of fatherless boys caused by liberal welfare policies. (See Chapter 6 of “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3″ to see how the British welfare system has created the same social disaster among hordes of white people.)

Unable to consider the obvious explanation — single-motherhood — liberals are left with nothing but genetic determinism.

So liberals defend young black males from the charge of playing a Knockout Game by telling us young black men are always violent.

Don’t worry, black America. White liberals have your back.

Illinois vs. Oklahoma


 Author Unknown

 These two set of facts, the first about Illinois and the second about Oklahoma, make an interesting contrast. 

PART ONE: Illinois

A State with No Republicans! Very interesting… Makes you want to move there, doesn’t it? A wonderful state with zero Republicans – The State of Illinois.

 Some interesting data on the ‘state’ of Illinois …  

  • ·        There are more people on welfare in Illinois than there are people working. Chicago pays the highest wages to teachers than anywhere else in the U.S. averaging $110,000/year. Their pensions average 80-90% of their income. Wow, are Illinois and Chicago great or what? Be sure to read till the end. I’ve never heard it explained better. Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?
  • Body count: In the last six months, 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago.
    • 221 killed in Iraq;
    • Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.
  • Here’s the Chicago chain of command:
    • President: Barack Hussein Obama
    • Senator: Dick Durbin
    • House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
    • Governor: Pat Quinn
    • House leader: Mike Madigan
    • Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike Madigan)
    • Mayor: Rahm Emanuel
    • The leadership in Illinois – all Democrats.
      • Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course, they’re all blaming each other.
      • Can’t blame Republicans; THERE AREN’T ANY!
    • Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country. Can’t blame Republicans; THERE AREN’T ANY!
  • State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country. Can’t blame Republicans; THERE AREN’T ANY!
  • Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% which is the highest in country. Can’t blame Republicans; THERE AREN’T ANY!
    • This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he is going to ‘fix’ Washington politics for us?  
  • George Ryan is no longer Governor, he is in prison.
    • He was replaced by Rob Blagojevich who is, that’s right, also in prison.
  • Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned.
    • He and his wife both are in prison also.  

The Land of Lincoln, where our Governors and Representatives make our license plates. What?  

As long as they keep providing entitlements to the population of Chicago, nothing is going to change, except the state will go broke before the country does.  

“Anybody who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” 

“Don’t forget Detroit, another great example of a Democratic empire.”

 

PART TWO: Oklahoma  

OKLAHOMA – may soon have plenty of new residents! THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING, AND TRUE … PLEASE READ IT!  

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election. While everyone is focusing on Arizona’s new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!  

An update from Oklahoma:  

  • Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol.
    • The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…
    • HB 1330: Guess what… OKLAHOMA DID IT ANYWAY!
  • Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered.
    • HB 1804: This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what… OKLAHOMA DID IT ANYWAY!
  • Recently they passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal’s to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes.
    • Pelosi said it was unconstitutional.
    • SB 1102: Guess what… OKLAHOMA DID IT ANYWAY!
  • Several weeks ago, they passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives, joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.
    • More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Carolina’s, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida.
      • Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again.
  • HJR 1003: The federal Government has made bold steps to take away their guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles.
    • I’m sure that was a setback for the criminals The Liberals didn’t like it — But…. Guess what… OKLAHOMA DID IT ANYWAY!
  • Just this month, the state voted, and passed a law, that ALL drivers’ license exams will be printed in English, and only English. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple. By the way, the Liberals don’t like any of this either . Guess what… who cares… OKLAHOMA DID IT ANYWAY!

 

If you like this information, please share it. if you don’t, well, the rest of us will ANYWAY!

All this is confirmed. See the following; 

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/oklahoma.asp

The Mysterious Paradox of Liberal Tolerance


http://lastresistance.com/3815/mysterious-paradox-liberal-tolerance/#xdGigXycqfe0leUE.99

Posted By on Nov 26, 2013

Tolerant Liberal's Car

For many years, every time I saw a “Coexist” bumper sticker, I would get  perturbed in my spirit, and I didn’t really know why. It wasn’t that I felt  criticized. Particularly speaking, I’m an open and forgiving sort. I love  discourse and conversation, and the command to “coexist” with people who  disagreed with me didn’t seem to have any teeth. I was already doing that.

It wasn’t until recently that I realized exactly why this bumper sticker is  so patently false in concept and sentiment. To tell others to “coexist” indicates, for one, that you do not think they are coexisting.  But, also, it is in itself an imperative, even a religious imperative.  Apparently, the people who display these bumper stickers on their cars have not  thought this out.

This might make a good bumper sticker in response (if it weren’t so wordy of  course): “Coexist is a moral imperative. Perhaps you should learn to get  along with people without telling them what to do.” Which amounts to, “Why don’t you coexist?” Ironically, the inclusion of all  these current religious symbols indicates that various  religions already are coexisting, at least in the strictest sense of the  word. It is the very “tolerant” person driving around with a one word sermon  pasted to his bumper that feels most compelled to tell everyone else  how they should think and what they should believe.

The very foundation of liberal tolerance is therefore a paradox, to put it  graciously. It might, perhaps more accurately, be called a “self-contradiction.” Moral philosophers have been talking about it for quite some time. Even as far  back as the nascent years of the American Republic in 1783, Ezra Stiles, then  president of Yale, preached  a sermon to the Connecticut General Assembly (But what about separation of  church and state?!), in which he criticized the so-called open-mindedness of the “Coexist” faction of his own day—the Deists. His words are worth repeating:

I pity from my heart . . . those who are caught in the vortex, and are  captivated with the wily satirical delusory and deficient reasonings of deism.  Elevated with the pride of mental enlargement, of a supposed untrammeled  understanding, they ascend aloft above the clouds of prejudices into the Pisgah  heights, from whence they fancy that they see all religions the same,  that is, equally nothing but priestcraft and artificial error. Whereupon they  complement themselves as endowed with a superiority of discernment in morals,  with high sensibility, sentimental and liberal ideas, and charm themselves with  other fine self-applied diction, which in truth only clothes the tedium of  weariness of half-discussed unfinished inquiries; or perhaps the hope that at  worst the want of certain knowledge may pass with God, if there is any, as a  sufficient excuse for some of the doubtful levities of life.

I’m afraid many modern skeptics may not be educated enough to realize just  how insulting that was. Let me put in plainer terms: Moral skeptics and  irreligious people are not freed from morality or religion by their skepticism  and supposed “open-mindedness.” They are in fact most to be pitied because they  are freed from the virtues of religion while still retaining its  vices—self-righteousness and hypocrisy. The modern “tolerant” liberal is only  tolerant in broad terms. When it comes to specifics, he still holds his own  version of ethics and morality to be higher and better than any other. That is  the paradox and irony of both the “coexist” bumper sticker and the immutable  modern doctrine of tolerance. In a sense, what it is saying is, “My irreligious  stance is better and more reasonable than all religions. All religious people  should therefore follow my moral and religious code. They should all  become active members in the church of me.”

[Humans] are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that  torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the  first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door. Do what you will,  there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient’s  soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbors  whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote  circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real  and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming  his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is  growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the  train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the  innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly  hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the  Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are  finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward  into the Will. It is only in so far as they reach the will and are there  embodied in habits that the virtues are really fatal to us. (I don’t, of course,  mean what the patient mistakes for his will, the conscious fume and fret of  resolutions and clenched teeth, but the real centre, what the Enemy calls the  Heart.) All sorts of virtues painted in the fantasy or approved by the  intellect or even, in some measure, loved and admired, will not keep a man from  our Father’s house: indeed they may make him more amusing when he gets  there. [Emphasis added]

That is an apt description of liberal tolerance: it positively raves about  general love for humankind, the celebration of diversity, and the acceptance of  all differences. But when it comes to specifics, it is even more close-minded  and malicious toward diverse opinions and practices than any rabid religious  fundamentalism. Aside from making a person feel better about themselves, general  tolerance is ultimately and practically useless. I would much rather be  tolerant specifically than seem tolerant generally. General tolerance  purports to serve all of mankind. In the end, it serves only the “tolerant” person’s own ego.

There are many historical examples of liberal tolerance faltering in  particulars, but one that is presently fresh in my mind comes  from Gone With the Wind. In it, Scarlett O’Hara muses about the  relationship of the Northern abolitionists to the Southern slaves. This is a  classic example of Screwtape humanitarianism, and this particular brand is still  alive and well actually:

What damnably queer people Yankees are! Those women [Yankee women who had  just told Scarlett they wouldn’t trust a “negro” to be a nurse to their  children, and who had insulted Scarlett’s black chauffeur, Uncle Peter, to his  face] seemed to think that because Uncle Peter was black, he had no ears to hear  with and no feelings, as tender as their own, to be hurt. . . . They didn’t  understand negroes or the relations between the negroes and their former  masters. Yet they fought a war to free them. And having freed them, they didn’t  want to have anything to do with them, except to use them to terrorize  Southerners. They didn’t like them, didn’t trust them, didn’t understand them,  and yet their constant cry was that Southerners didn’t know how to get along  with them.

In other words, the myth of liberal tolerance, open-mindedness, and good will  has been going on for years, and many people have been taken in by it. It is  likely that, in fact, the most deceived people of all about liberal tolerance  are liberals themselves.

So, next time someone tells you that you’re close-minded and intolerant, and  that you need to learn to “coexist,” I hope you have the forbearance and grace  to show that person real love by attempting, as futile as the attempt may be, to  disabuse them of their self-delusions.

Barack Obama Wants His Name Off of Obamacare


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#ixzz2lJbaJBZH

Anyone who has ever bought a car knows about “sticker shock.”  You’ve eyed  that car on the dealership lot from afar.  Finally, the time is right to take a  test drive then seal the deal to make that purchase.  However, the price on the  sticker is more than enough to send you into hyperventilation fits as you try  to  convince yourself the sticker price is wrong.  Well, Mr. Obama and his band  of  merry Democrats are currently suffering “Obamacare shock.”  Yes, they knew  millions of Americans would lose their healthcare insurance and many would not  be able to keep their doctor.  It was obvious to those who analyzed the effects  of Obamacare that healthcare insurance premiums would increase on most  Americans  who would be forced into the exchanges, along with other abominations  that have  yet to gain the attention of the public.  So, why are Mr. Obama and  his  Democrats experiencing “Obamacare shock?”

obama-national-securityThe law’s namesake and Democrats in Congress are  shocked at the reaction of Americans to Obamacare after its implementation.   Just as the Congress passed this law so they could find out what’s in it, many  Americans reserved their judgment of the government healthcare insurance law  until after its roll-out.  Millions of Americans received cancellation notices  from their healthcare insurance providers while the government website for  enrollment into Obamacare was, in the most pleasant of terms, inoperative.   Those who were able to access the new Obamacare exchanges were hit with higher  premiums, deductibles, and some discovered they were ineligible to receive a  subsidy to offset the increased cost.  The result is Americans who originally  supported Obamacare have now jumped ship, previously insured Americans will now  be uninsured, and those Americans the law targeted will continue to be  uninsured.  Add to this equation the dismal numbers of Americans who have  actually accessed the exchanges and the emerging picture of “failure” becomes  clear.

Now, some Democrats, who previously supported this monstrosity, have begun to  distance themselves from the disaster using many different tactics ranging from  blaming the Republicans, dropping the affectionate designation “Obamacare,” to  calling for complete repeal.  Obama has entered damage control mode, but his  goal of a single payer system is still the brass ring he strives to reach.  In  his latest attempt to soothe the masses, Obama has indicated his signature  healthcare law needs “a  full-blown rebranding effort.”  Once again, Obama hits the campaign trail  in  public relations gear attempting to remarket a product that is more than  defective – it’s totally broken.

At  a meeting in Washington, hosted by the Wall Street Journal, Obama told  attendees, “I am confident that the model we’ve built, which works off the  existing private insurance system, is one that will succeed.  We’re going to  have to, A., fix the website so everybody feels confident about that.  We’re  obviously going to have to remarket and rebrand and that will be challenging in  this political environment.”

Translation:  “What we have is causing me grief; it’s not working so  I want my name off of it.”

(added by me, Jerry Broussard)

Rebranding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, and competitors.[1][2] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate.

Rebranding can be applied to new products, mature products, or even products still in development. The process can occur intentionally through a deliberate change in strategy or occur unintentionally from unplanned, emergent situations, such as a “Chapter 11 corporate restructuring,” “union busting,” or “bankruptcy.”

Obama and a Democratic majority Senate and House decided that 30 million  uninsured Americans needed to purchase healthcare insurance.  They declared our  healthcare system “broken” and passed Obamacare.  These same politicians  modeled  Obamacare “off the existing private insurance system.”  Now, due to the  negative  backlash, Obama has decided that a new marketing campaign and  rebranding this  atrocity is the solution.

One question that should be asked of Obama is:  If our system was “broken,”  why was the existing private insurance system used as a model to build the  current one?

The 30 million Americans who are uninsured is not because of a “broken”  system.  Those uninsured are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid.  Private  individual healthcare insurance policy premiums are out of reach for some based  on their income and/or numerous economic difficulties.  Then, there are those  Americans who choose not to purchase healthcare insurance policies for reasons  that are not income or economic based.

The premise made by Obama and his idolatrous worshiping Democrats was  individuals without healthcare insurance coverage did not have access to  healthcare or “good” healthcare services.  Access to healthcare is very  different from the ability to pay for those services.  Having healthcare  insurance does not guarantee the receipt of healthcare services nor does it  guarantee payment for those services.  Healthcare insurance coverage is  designed  to offset the cost of medical services thereby reducing out of pocket  expenses  to the individual.

An individual may not be able to “access” healthcare services when needed  because of logistics.  In very rural areas, healthcare facilities are not as  prevalent or varied as in cities.  It may be inconvenient for individuals to  travel long distances to receive services.  And, the healthcare industry is  suffering from lack of doctors and support personnel, such as nurses, to  adequately expand services in needed areas.  Depending on the need for  specialty  services, individuals may wait months to see an orthopedist,  neurologist or  rheumatologist, to name a few.  Mandating individuals to  purchase healthcare  insurance does not solve the problem of logistics.

During the Washington gathering, Obama  did acknowledge problems with the Obamacare website stating, “There is a  larger problem … the way the federal government does procurement and does IT  is,  just generally, not very efficient.  In fact, there’s probably no bigger  gap  between the private and public sector than IT.”

Translation:  “I know we gave a no-bid contract to Michelle’s  friend’s company but Congress allows it.  The company is the one who defaulted,  so it’s not my fault.”

The company selected to build the federal website for access to the exchanges  was awarded to the company where Michelle Obama’s friend held a high position.   According to one source, the company responsible for the failed website was paid  $394 million – four times the original quoted cost of $94 million.   Facebook  and Twitter were created for less.  When procurement of a company to  do business  with the federal government is based on cronyism, one can almost  predict there  will be problems.  So, the problem is not a big IT gap between  the public and  private sector nor is it inefficiency with procurement.  The  problem is  politicians and presidents rewarding friends and monetary  contributors with  government contracts or positions instead of basing  procurement and employment  on qualifications.  That is not inefficiency.

During one of my second year nursing classes, a guest speaker stated “no  matter how many times you kiss a frog, it’s still a frog.”  It’s the same with  Obamacare.  No matter how Obama and the Democrats try to dress it up, change  its  name, change its website or flip-flop the disaster that it is, it is still  an  unconstitutional law that forces Americans into a system that ultimately  removes  individual choices regarding healthcare in favor of government dictates  in an  area the government has no business.

So, keep kissing that frog, Nancy.

Obamacare shock among its namesake and Democrats is already having its  effects.  Obama is being derelict in his duty to make sure the law is  faithfully  executed by legislating changes in the mandate deadlines through  executive  order.  Democrats and RINOs in Congress are swiftly attempting to  pass  legislation so those millions who have received cancellation letters from  their  carrier can keep their policy, for only a year.  They are having a  knee-jerk  reaction to problems they knew would occur when the law was passed  three years  ago.  Ego and desperation are the driving actions, nothing  more.

Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, the government mandating individuals  purchase healthcare insurance or the government providing socialized medicine  is  not an enumerated power of Congress per our Constitution.  All branches of  our  government ignored this stipulation regardless of whether it is described  as a  “tax” or not.  Instead of adhering to the Constitution, the egos of Obama  and  the Democrats chase after this pig of a piece of legislation that’s covered  in  lard.

Americans are saddled with this unconstitutional law and are, basically,  being forced to obtain a healthcare insurance plan or face a penalty (tax)  imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.  Obama and his donkeys continue to  kiss  the frog in hopes of a prince or continue to put lipstick on the pig in an  attempt to disguise the “pork.”  Either way, the American public can expect  more  posturing, more lying, more deception and more unlawful behavior from our  elected officials as more information is revealed about this law.

More Obamacare shock is on the horizon for Americans as well.  Congress can  repeal this nightmare of an abominable, unconstitutional law or states can  nullify it.  Until then, the only recourse Americans have against this shock is  to walk off the dealership lot.

 About the Authior, Suzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered  nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of  Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand  up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian  political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of  education.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#ixzz2lJdwtsiv Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/barack-obama-wants-name-obamacare/#T6EDEXBrvyprXvq3.99

Ahem, There Is An Obama Cure


http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/ahem-obama-cure/#LjClI7wC2qO4PVwa.99

By 

Screen Shot 2013-11-16 at 6.17.31 PM

Obamacare is making us sick.

Just the very idea of any law being thousands of pages long in the first place is enough to give you a queasy feeling in your head and stomach.  I even get a bit nauseous merely buying stuff at the supermarket,  when the self-checkout computer thing starts spitting out seemingly endless coupons and a receipt longer than my arm.

As a general rule, I don’t trust any document involving more than a single page, especially when lawyers are required to administer it.  There comes a point where you know they’ve got something over you, and it’s only made much, much worse when the bureaucrats are suddenly in charge of even more of your most personal medical/financial decisions and information.

Obamacare, like so many horrible governmentschemes, exists only because socialist flim-flam artists sold it as an alleged way to “help people.”  Just over half the country smelled the scam and tried in vain to stop it, but it was shoved down our throats by Democrats who controlled both the legislative and the executive branches.

Those who really know the score have studied and understood the “Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis,” and that all of this chaos and economic devastation is really the core of what Obama hinted at when he howled in exultation about “fundamentally transforming” our country, five days before winning his first presidential election.

In a valiant stand a month ago, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee led the charge to try to head off the funding/implementation of Obamacare, only to be betrayed by craven fellow Republicans, stonewalled by democrats, and vilified by the corrupt, leftist media for the fiscal impasse and partial government shutdown which resulted.

My, how things have changed in a month.

Suddenly, not only is it looking somewhat safe to be a Republican again, Ted Cruz can grin and know that he’s coming up smelling like a rose after all.  He was right in trying to stave off the disaster which Obamacare is proving to be.  And speaking of betrayal, Americans have been rudely awakened to the fact that Obama brazenly lied to them over and over and over and over again, again and again, in order to carry out the scam.

So now democrats and even Obama himself are lifting their cues from Ted Cruz, calling for a “fixes” for the debacle that poetically align with the kind of prescriptions which Cruz and the Tea Party brain-trust have been proposing all along, especially while he was increasingly being treated like a political pariah.

Tea Party Texas Senator Ted Cruz is the OBAMACURE.

Even democrats are now so desperate that they’re clamoring for the life-saving antidote, though they still refuse to ask for it by its proper name.

Politics is an extremely tricky business, but if there’s any justice in this world (and it’s actually starting to look again like there might be) the Tea Party contingent and Ted Cruz will be able to pick up the reins, somewhat master the media, and lead our country out of this socialist morass.  Ideally, Obama and his entire administration will resign in order to try to avoid impeachment/prosecution–but of course that’s just my idealistic dreaming.

For the time being, until the full-blown Republican revolution comes, I’ll settle for a gradual, generic remedy of the worst symptoms.

Let’s keep supporting upright, courageous public servants like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and their Tea Party brothers and sisters.

About the author: Donald Joy

 Following his service in the United State Air Force, Donald Joy earned a bachelor of science in business administration from SUNY while serving in the army national guard. As a special deputy U.S. marshal, Don was on the protection detail for Attorney General John Ashcroft following the attacks of 9/11. He lives in the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia with his wife and son.

Democrat Minority Whip: Obama Grossly Misled American Public on Obamacare


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/democrat-minority-whip-steny-hoyer-barack-obama-grossly-misled-american-public-obamacare/#ixzz2keypowCm

Victims of Obamacare are sharing their stories across the internet; by victims, I mean those individuals who have had their healthcare insurance policies canceled and hit with higher premiums and deductibles because of the Obamacare roll out. Some of these individuals favored health care insurance for all in the form of Obamacare while others did not support government intrusion into their private lives.

steny hoyerBecause of this backlash, Obama made what is now being called a “fake apology” on national television. But, what how are the Democrats in Congress handling this “bungled” implementation of a “thrown together in a rush” health care fiasco? With the 2014 elections just around the corner, one Democrat is calling Obama’s guarantee of “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period” grossly misleading the American public.

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) stated on KGW-TV, “A lot of Americans, a lot of Oregonians, have stayed with the same policy for a number of years and are shocked that their policy got canceled.”

According to The Daily Caller:

“So I think the President saying you could stay with it and not being honest that a lot of these policies were going to get canceled was grossly misleading to the American public and is causing added stress and added strife as we go through a really difficult time with healthcare,” Schrader added.

Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer acknowledged two weeks ago that Democrats had been aware that some people might lose their insurance plans when the law took effect, saying, “We knew there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage.”

At a Tuesday briefing with reporters, Hoyer said he disagreed with Schrader’s statement.

“Do I think he grossly misled? No,” Hoyer stated.

“I think the president was not precise, and I think that, he should have been precise,” Hoyer said. “We all should have been more precise.”

Wow! There is so much manure coming out of Washington these days that a couple of these Democrat Obama idolators needs to stand in the small garden plot my parents have to fertilize it for this spring’s planting season. They would have a bumper crop for sure!

It is nice to see that Schrader is calling Obama’s statement “grossly misleading;” however, Obama lied – not once, not twice, but repeatedly, in order to deceive the American public into accepting Obamacare for something it is not. The only reason America is going through a “really difficult time with healthcare” is because of the unconstitutional, atrocious Obamacare. Schrader is attempting to fool his constituency and the American public into thinking he is advocating for the citizenry. The only thing he is advocating for is keeping his seat in the House to be exempt from Obamacare and assist with the “nobility rule” of the American masses.

“We knew some people had policies that covered what they needed but we wanted them to purchase more than what they needed because we know what is best for everyone where their health is concerned.”

I can see where single males might need that prenatal care coverage or contraceptive coverage and possibly baby murder coverage; after all, the pregnancy rate among single males is staggering. (Yes, this is heavy sarcasm.)

Hoyer, in contrast to Schrader, excuses outright lying by qualifying that the president and Congress “were not precise.” Hello? Hoyer? Anybody home in that brain of yours? I can see the lights are on but no one is answering the door!

These people think Americans are stupid. Video evidence abounds showing Obama making a precise, definitive, clear, unmistakable statement – “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period.” I pride myself on reading and verbal comprehension as it was drilled into me by first my mother, then my college professors and nursing instructors. Can someone please tell me where this statement is not precise and where this statement is unclear? Obama didn’t give all the details and hid from the American public the true effect of this healthcare monster. He engaged in deception and fraud.

Obama has been back-peddling and issuing qualifying statements in contrast to his “less than precise” statement, even to the point of denying making that definitive statement. This man thinks everyone in America is a fool and that video evidence is a lie. Everyone is lying; everyone is against him; everyone misunderstood. This is the repertoire of victim mentality.

Poor, poor Obama! He’s a victim of those nasty Republican, the terrorist Tea Party groups and those annoying Christians so we have to help him by supporting his anti-American agenda; if we don’t, we’ll be labeled as racists. Democrats act like their hands are tied by their political party. Democrats passed this law without a single Republican vote. Democrats passed this law without even reading it. Democrats chose to knowingly inflict injury on the American public. So, Democrats own this mess and no amount of “playing victim” can change that. There are no victims in Washington.

Schrader and Hoyer need to go; vote them out. Obama and his cronies knew when this law was passed millions of Americans would lose healthcare insurance they were satisfied with. Those Democrats who were elected after the law was passed knew weeks before implementation millions of Americans would lose healthcare insurance they were satisfied with. Schrader is hitting the band wagon early to keep his position. Hoyer, his nose still up Obama’s anus, really doesn’t give two shakes so he follows lead by issuing qualifying statements.

As time goes on and the full impact of Obamacare is exposed, there will be more manure, back-peddling, and qualifying statements issued all around in order that these deceiving Democraps can keep their seat of power. It all revolves around keeping themselves part of the “ruling nobility:” no more, no less. Sadly, they don’t care what they have to do to remain there even if it means selling out their constituents and all of America. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson would be so proud of this “New Deal – Great Society.”

 

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/democrat-minority-whip-steny-hoyer-barack-obama-grossly-misled-american-public-obamacare/#ZjC3GcOqLqarJSp6.99

BOOMBOX Cartoons


Backwards Benghazi Brainwash a Liberal Consititution Control Hilary 1 Hilary 2 Martin Nixon Obama and the liberals Pelosi and Reed Proud of Sex scandal Tea Party

Barackalypse Now: Slavery is Legal Again and Food Stamp Zombies Want All Your Candy


http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/barackalypse-now-slavery-legal-food-stamp-zombies-want-candy/#8Ewqgu8M6OsjQ1TC.99

By 

Barakalapalis

Trick or treat!!  The word, according to Neil Cavuto, is that the gazillions of food stamp recipients across the land are to have their “benefits” reduced as of November 1st, and that the Department of Homeland Security is gearing up for widespread riots.

Such wonders abound in our neo-socialist dystopia of “hope & change.”  For the past several years, the Obama administration has aggressively sought to solidify and expand the democrat party’s grip on power by encouraging as many people as they possibly can to sign up for food stamps and other government programs, to make dependency on government a way of life for more and more generations of future voters.  For most readers, this is by now an elementary fact of political life.

Problem is, the free-lunch tree is being stripped of goodies very quickly…

Remember that story from about a month ago, where the socialist regime in Venezuela was stationing armed troops inside toilet paper factories, in order to enforce production and distribution quotas, due to severe shortages resulting from price controls?  Seems that centrally-planned economies can never satisfy human demands for goods and services, no matter how many times central planning is tried; nor does it matter who is doing the planning.

Government’s proper role is not to feed & take care of people, nor could it do so adequately even if that was its job.  Instead, government should promote the general welfare by helping to create conditions which allow people to prosper in freedom–chiefly, by protecting individual rights, especially property rights.

To repeat a quote often attributed to our country’s first president, George Washington(a man who knew a little something about the proper role of limited government–he refused the suggestion by some that he be crowned king of the new nation of America, and rebuked those who suggested it):  “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Today, we are “evolving” into more and more of a democracy, rather than the republic once cherished by those who fought so long and hard for liberty.  Increasingly, the masses of people can simply vote themselves less personal responsibility, and more of the property produced by others, by electing democrats to use the force of government to redistribute goods.  How much longer do you suppose before stuff here is inadequately produced at gunpoint, like in Venezuela?

Eminent black economist Walter Williams points out that during the time when chattel slavery was legal on this continent, there was (in addition to the usual plantation-bound, field hand arrangement) a sort of journeyman category of skilled slaves who actually lived rather independently from their owners.  They plied their particular specialized trades according to their own comings and goings, and often had families and homes separate from their masters; however, the extent of their being slaves in bondage was that their masters still owned them, and owned what they produced.  Their earnings were turned over to their masters, who allowed them to keep enough to maintain their separate livelihoods.  If they tried to evade this relatively liberal arrangement in any way, they could be legally dealt with, and harshly, their owners resorting to bounties and whatnot if necessary.

Compare such a category of chattel slave of yesteryear with the taxpayer of today–is there really that much difference?

The more skilled and productive the taxpayer, the more of his or her product that the voting democrat masters seize, leaving him or her (if the taxpaying slave happens to be very resourceful) enough to enjoy a tidy or even splendiferous separate existence, yes, but the arrangement really is no different in essential character.  We also have some very wealthy and highly skilled slaves today, owned by a multitude of democrat voters helping themselves to upwards of half of what the slaves produce.

So all of this can just continue on indefinitely, right?  No?

You mean to tell me the takers are vastly out-breeding and out-voting the makers?  You’re saying the makers are becoming disillusioned and discouraged?

Yes indeedy, an Investor’s Business Daily headline from yesterday reads: “Welfare, Not Full-Time Work, Is Now America’s No. 1 Occupation.”

Trick or treat!!

About the author: Donald Joy

 Following his service in the United State Air Force, Donald Joy earned a bachelor of science in business administration from SUNY while serving in the army national guard. As a special deputy U.S. marshal, Don was on the protection detail for Attorney General John Ashcroft following the attacks of 9/11. He lives in the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia with his wife and son.

LOVE IT! Yale Study Finds Tea Partiers Know More About Science Than Liberals, Researcher Shocked…


http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/17/love-it-yale-study-finds-tea-partiers-know-more-about-science-than-liberals-researcher-shocked/

Although I doubt anyone here is even a little surprised by this, this will send shockwaves among the left who love to claim we’re uneducated morons.

Via Politico:

A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.

Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of a set of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.

However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.

Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.

“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote.

“But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” he continued. “All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”

HANNITY: COULD BE TIME FOR CONSERVATIVE THIRD PARTY


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/15/Hannity-Time-for-Conservative-Third-Party?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+October+15%2C+2013&utm_campaign=20131015_m117557490_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+October+15%2C+2013&utm_term=hannity-afp_jpg_3Fw_3D369

On Monday, Fox News host Sean Hannity declared it may be time for a conservative third party for those who are just “sick” of the establishment Republicans that undermine conservatives. 

Saying he did not “think this country is going to survive with half-measures,” Hannity declared, “either you believe that we need radical, positive, oriented solutions for this country and you willing to fight for them or you’re not.”

“Is it a third party we need? I’ve often argued no,” Hannity said on his radio show. “I’m not so sure anymore. It may be time for a new conservative party in America. I’m sick of these guys.”

He mentioned that nearly every Republican promised to repeal Obamacare but many abandoned the fight, instead trashing conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) more than they were fighting against the law.

“The problem here is the more establishment wing of the Republican party, they didn’t stick together with these guys and instead the establishment has been out there trashing principled conservatives for keeping their principles and for keeping their commitment and their promises to their constituents,” Hannity said.

Hannity called out establishment Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) for making it seem like “they have now declared war on principled conservatives like Ted Cruz, doing the bidding of the Democrats and the leftist media and now you’ve got the establishment Republicans trashing the conservative base of their own party.”

The Fox News host argued that Republicans would have been in a better position had they “stood by their promise like Ted Cruz.”

“If they held together, we wouldn’t have a problem today. You know, what is different here is, you know, every time the establishment wins, they want the tea party conservative base to go along with them,” Hannity said. “Now when the tea party stands up and fights for what they promise their voters, somehow they’re evil, somehow what they did is wrong.”

SEE VIDEO HERE>>>>>>> http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart_nws_pol_sty_vmpp&VID=25255925

 

A Refresher Course


We need constant reminders of the language of the Congress of the United States. They talk in “spin-speak”. Like any foreign language spoken, we need interpreters to understand what they are saying. Here are just a few examples;

  • President Obama: “If anyone has an idea that opposes this bill, I want to hear it and discuss it with them. So far, no one has presented anything.”
    • Translation: “If you oppose anything I say, you have the Constitutional right to express it. I will still do whatever I want because anyone who opposes me is an idiot and not worthy of my time.”
  • “The Republicans are not willing to negotiate with us”, or anything similar to those words.
    • Translation: “The Republicans refuse to go along with everything we say and want to do, therefore, they refuse to negotiate.”
  • “The Republicans do not want Americans to get health insurance.”
    • Translation: “The Republicans want to stop us from controlling and additional 16% of the national economy.”
  • “The Republicans shut down the government because they are angry they lost the last Presidential Election giving us a mandate to enforce the Affordable Care Act.”
    • Translation: “We shut down to government to make the radical Right Republicans (i.e., Tea Party Principled Conservatives).”
  • “The Republicans need to return to the table so we can solve these issues and get our government back open so we can get back to work.”
    • Translation: “The Republicans need to get in lock-step with us so we can continue the transformation of this government to a European Socialist Democracy.”
  • Any disagreement with the Liberals generates the most extreme of demonetization, character assignation, lies, and extreme denouncements.

There are so many more, but I don’t think you need any more reminders. There is one underlying constant: “If a Liberals mouth moves while they are speaking, they are probably lying”.

Obama Says Fight for Gun Laws ‘Ought to Obsess Us’


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Navy-Yard-Memorial-obama-guns/2013/09/22/id/527067?ns_mail_uid=41910912&ns_mail_job=1538622_09232013&promo_code=14F58-1

 

Image: Obama Says Fight for Gun Laws 'Ought to Obsess Us'

President Barack Obama on Sunday memorialized the victims of the Washington Navy Yard shooting by calling for a transformation in the nation’s gun laws to address an epidemic of gun violence, saying, “There’s nothing inevitable about it.”

Reprising his role of the nation’s consoler in chief after yet another mass shooting, Obama said Americans should honor the victims of last Monday’s shooting by insisting on a change in gun laws. “It ought to obsess us,” Obama said.

“Sometimes I fear there is a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal. We cannot accept this,” Obama said.

He said no other advanced nation endures the kind of gun violence seen in the United States, and blamed mass shootings in America on laws that fail “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.”

“What’s different in America is it’s easy to get your hands on a gun,” he said. He acknowledged “the politics are difficult,” a lesson he learned after failing to get expanded background checks for gun buyers through the Democratic-controlled Senate this spring.

“And that’s sometimes where the resignation comes from: the sense that our politics are frozen and that nothing will change. Well, I cannot accept that,” Obama said. “By now, though, it should be clear that the change we need will not come from Washington, even when tragedy strikes Washington. Change will come the only way it ever has come, and that’s from the American people.”

Obama joined military leaders in eulogizing the 12 victims killed in last Monday’s shooting, speaking from the parade grounds at the Marine Barracks, a site personally selected by Thomas Jefferson because of its close marching distance to the Navy Yard. The memorial service came on the first day of fall, which shone brightly in Washington, with sun sparkling off the instruments being played by the Navy Band and the gold dress uniform buttons worn by so many in the crowd.

The invitation-only crowd included around 4,000 mourners, with the victims’ tearful, black-clad family members directly in front of the speakers’ stage. The president and first lady met privately with the families before the service, White House officials said.

Authorities say their loved ones’ lives were taken Monday by shotgun-wielding Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old former Navy reservist and information technology contractor who struggled with mental illness. Police killed Alexis in a gun battle.

By the end of the day, the Senate’s chief gun control proponent, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was calling on her colleagues to restart the debate on gun control and “do more to stop this endless loss of life.” Obama didn’t speak out on the issue until Saturday night, when he urged a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner “to get back up and go back at it” to push gun control legislation that stalled in the Senate earlier this year. Obama proposed the legislation in the aftermath of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first graders and six staff.

Obama said it’s clear from the Navy Yard shooting that the country needs to do a better job to secure its military facilities and improve mental health services, but also address gun laws.

“Our tears are not enough,” Obama said Sunday. “Our words and our prayers are not enough. If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we’re going to have to change.”

The military leaders who spoke before Obama at the memorial service, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, avoided any mention of gun control. But Washington Mayor Vincent Gray spoke forcefully for action, mentioning that one of the Navy Yard victims, Arthur Daniels, had already lost his 14-year-old son to gun violence and citing a string of mass public shootings in recent years.

“Why is it that these tragic consequences and these tragic occurrences never seem to move us any closer to ensuring that guns don’t get into the hands of criminals or mentally unstable people?” Gray asked. “I don’t know the answer. But I do know this — that this time it happened within the view of our Capitol dome, and I for one will not be silenced about the fact the time has come for action.”

The service ended with a bugler playing taps and singing of the Navy hymn after a reading of the names of the fallen, who ranged in age from 46 to 73 and included civilian employees and contractors. Eight people were also hurt, including a police officer and two others who suffered gunshot wounds.

Obama also mentioned each victim, and said memories of them will go on, along with “the sense that this has happened before.”

“What wears on us, what troubles us so deeply as we gather here today, is how this senseless violence that took place in the Navy Yard echoes other recent tragedies,” he said. “As president, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence: Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and now the Washington Navy Yard. These mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America, from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here.”

Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

My Own Perspective – Jerry Broussard

Another Gun Control LawWith all the gun laws we have nationally, why do we need more? How is it working in Chicago and Washington D.C.? If we were able to strap these Liberals to a truth machine what would be revealed is their real desire to disarm America in order to transform our country from freedom to tyranny.

So here is a suggestion. Have the Marine Corps do a sweep, starting in Chicago, Every gang member, drug dealer, and any other crazy that have guns, bring them to a large open space that has been set up with triple row-stack razor-wire. Seize their weapons and leave them there to fend for themselves. If the kill each other off, oh well. Give the survivors some troop tents to erect, cots to assemble, and equipment to farm the area to grow their own food. Provide the water, and, after shutting down an unnecessary troop deployment (i.e., Germany), move part of those facilities to this new location, and guard the inmates until they are processed through court. Several of these can be established all over America. Instant detention facilities. We did that with the Japanese Americans.

We don’t need more law. We need better policing, the mental health organizations to do their jobs without Liberal interference, and let the law abiding citizens alone with their lawfully acquired fire arms.

This is the problem with progressivism. It is barren.


America’s Empty Progressive Culture

By / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/americas-empty-progressive-culture/

empyt headWe enjoy looking back to a time when generations of men were willing to fight and die for the things of value in this world, especially today.  Many of those men were mere teens when they took up their causes.  When Alexander Hamilton was around 19 years old, he wrote “The Farmer Refuted,” a lively response to the loyalist writings of Samuel Seabury in 1775.  Hamilton was not only a rowdy and confident teen, he knew well the ideas that this nation would soon be founded upon and that he would help to define:

Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled, and must be liable to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to intrust, is to violate that law of nature which gives every man a right to his personal liberty, and can therefore confer no obligation to obedience.

Hamilton also suggests that Seabury become more acquainted with the likes of Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui.  While I imagine some American youth are exposed to Locke and Montesquieu in the most empty fashion possible, they would be hard pressed to truly understand how important their ideas are.

Public school systems have dumbed down philosophy, history and all of the humanities which the founders of this nation studied extensively.  The very fabric of this nation was based on classical philosophical ideas.  Is there any way a student can be expected to understand their Second Amendment rights when they have no clue what liberty is or why it is worth fighting for?  They have studied culture relatively and are never asked to compare our republic to other nations (because of course, that might offend someone).

In George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796, he warned that “reason and experience forbid us to expect that popular morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”  To apply this to today’s world, it might be better to say a “global morality.”  This is what many children are being taught.  There is a “global” way of thinking that washes American culture in particular of its values and morality.  Even some modern conservatives shrink away from attempting to argue the value of religion for our nation and its people.

And what has been the happy result of this progressive mission to destroy our culture?  Suicide rates amongst teens and young adults have been higher than at any other recorded point in history.  Young men have the highest rates and this is not surprising.  Liberal culture has failed them.  It has confused the roles they should aim for, leaving them empty, void of tradition, values, or morality.

For the youth fortunate enough to get a “great” education, they are likely to become educated dumb people with no convictions on anything.  Obama’s 2007 campaign was powerful amongst youth for one reason, they had absolutely no faith in anything else.  American youth culture has grown to reflect the empty things on television and in public school curricula.  Bars are filled with young adults whose best attempt at life is to model something they hear in a Lady Gaga song.   Somehow, getting embarrassingly drunk or yelling obscenities to the world is a defining moment in their lives.  They resent anyone who tries to tell them about deeper things in life, philosophy, religion, anything that seeks to answer the questions that plagued them.  Somehow they know it all without understanding a thing.

This is the problem with progressivism.  It is barren.  Barack Obama caught youth attention because his media image sold him as hope, the Messiah come to earth; and needing something to link them to their sorry existence, to have a reason to experience joy or to feel tears on their cheek, they praised him.  Now that many of them have returned to their empty feelings, they still praise him out of the memory of having something to believe in.

Though it seems like a devastating picture, the culture war is still going.  In the book, “The Conservative Mind,” Russell Kirk described a few ways Conservatives or any loyal American can work to hold back the damaging emptiness of progressive culture:

  1. Reaffirm the truth that lies in tradition, i.e. stop saying morality and tradition do not matter.  That is the progressive game.  He who cares the most wins.  If you feel religion is pointless to the conversation, then you leave space for progressive “values” to fill in the gaps.
  2. Defend the classes and regions where tradition is still a living force, Middle America and rural communities.
  3. Humanize urban life, instead of destroying old buildings and landmarks for new ones, keep native architecture.  People have a deeper connection to their cities when their monuments remain for generations.  This was one reason why the World Trade Centers were targeted by terrorists, they were symbols of the Western world.
  4. And probably most importantly, return to family-centered and church-centered life, the glue that has held American culture together from the beginning.

 

*If you are curious to see Kirk’s arguments in more detail, they are contained in the chapter titled “The Problem of Tradition.”

“Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”


 Note to Liberals: America’s Founders Were Christians

Written on Friday, April 12, 2013 by

Screen shot 2013-04-12 at 11.06.33 AM

After spending 36 years in higher education as a professor and administrator, I grew accustomed to hearing liberals tell one of their favorite lies: America’s founders were not Christians. I don’t know what it is about Christians that liberals find so frightening that they feel compelled to adopt a position blatantly at odds with the historical record. However, my experience in higher education leads me to believe that anti-Christian liberals think they can get away with such rhetorical perfidy because they are typically speaking to people who simply do not know their American history or, worse yet, have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the public schools they don’t even care to know it. I taught hundreds of college students over the years—public school graduates—whose attitudes toward the religious beliefs of America’s founders can be summarized in this way: Don’t bore me with the facts—my mind is made up.

Having retired from higher education more than a year ago, it had been a while since I had heard some fact-challenged liberal claim that America’s founders were not Christians or that, at best, they were deists. But that changed recently while I was getting a haircut. My barber is a transplanted Californian so he probably cannot be blamed for his liberal worldview, nor can he be cured of it. I bristled a little when he made the comment to another customer that America’s founders were not Christians. However, since at the time he was using a straight razor on the back of my neck I thought it best to not excite him by challenging his comment. Instead, when he was done with my haircut I asked if he had ever studied the religious views and backgrounds of our founders. He admitted that he was just repeating what he had learned in school (Yes he went to public school in California). I recommended that he look into the question himself. This article summarizes what my barber will find if he follows through and actually does some legitimate, objective research.

About the religious views of the fifty-five men who developed America’s Constitution, my barber will find the following information: 26 were Episcopalians, 11 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Quakers, 2 were Roman Catholics, and one was Benjamin Franklin (whose religious views are still hard to pin down). Because Franklin’s views are difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty, he is the founder liberals like to use as their example of our “non-Christian” founders. Of course, by focusing the attention of listeners on Benjamin Franklin liberals are able to avoid having to discuss the religious views of the other 54 founders.

Anti-Christian liberals like to quote Benjamin Franklin’s views expressed at various times in his life to validate their claim that America’s founders were not Christians. However, they are forced to choose their Franklin quotes carefully or risk invalidating their biased claim. For example, anti-Christian liberals studiously avoid this Franklin quote: “God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.” Franklin made this thoroughly Christian statement during one of the hotter moments of verbal discord during the Constitutional Convention. It is quite a statement for a man who is the poster boy for liberals who want to claim that America’s founders were not Christians.

Tag Cloud