Friday, November 20, 2009
Let Me See If I Understand This...
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN EVEN VOTE.
Hmmmm... I'm confused....
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN EVEN VOTE.
Hmmmm... I'm confused....
Militia Movement Resurfacing Under Obama Administration
Disclaimer: I do not belong to a militia group.
I am not the least bit surprised by this development. Frankly it's not really a new issue. It simply an issue of the 'sleeping giant' lying still until something disturbs it.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34070149/ns/us_news-life
While the article is interesting, the author errs on a few points. I suspect the errors are for two reasons: 1) typical liberal agenda and ignorance, and 2) yuppie ignorance of our nation's real history.
First, she erroneously labels militia members as right-wing extremists. That is simple ignorance, fed by the mainstream media and their truth-filtered agenda.
Right-wing extremists are those who despise all forms of liberalism. Militias do not adopt right-wing philosophies, they adopt anti-government philosophies, which are the basic platform of the Libertarian party. That's where the militias mainly come from. Libertarians accept both conserve and liberal ideas as long as they do not infringe on the rights other individuals. Militias exist not to force conservatism into society, but to prevent government from depriving the people of their rights.
Second, she erroneously associates militia members with white supremacists. This is more of a social ignorance, not necessarily confined to liberals. It is true that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white supremacists, and that they had ties to militia groups. But to assume that all militia members are racists is simply irresponsible. Such a preposterous view is congruent to the purpose of the militia, which is to protect individual rights against an oppressive government. The Union Army in the Civil War was not a national military. It was the collaberation of several state militias to accomplish a common objective. Further, regarding the racism mistake, the Ku Klux Klan is not a militia, perhaps contrary to the beliefs of some.
Third, she is apparently ignorant of the Constitution of the United States. It is one thing to have read it in high school civics class. It is quite another to study it, study the lives of the Founding Fathers, understand what they intended, and what was actually happening at the time it was drafted and ratified.
{And I don't mean 'what was actually happening' according to modern pseudo-historians who try to sanitize the facts and change them to fit modern liberalism and political correctness. Such historians are not historians at all. They are liberal imposters.}
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment was not proposed and ratified just so people could own guns. Neither was the 'right to keep and bear arms' granted so one individual citizen could protect himself from other individuals. A correct reading of the Amendment, after having studying the writings and intents of the Founding Fathers, clarifies beyond debate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of the citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government.
Why would the Founding Fathers encourage such a thing? Why would they preserve, and possibly even encourage, the right of the people to rise up against their government? The answer is very simple: the states had just been through a living hell, trying to eradicate that very thing, an oppressive socialist government (Great Britain), from their lives. The Founding Fathers saw the evil of such oppression, and desired to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and their new nation against such tyranny in the future.
Another popular misunderstanding exists regarding the first part of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," did not refer to a federal military. There was no such thing at the time as an all-powerful federal government. The federal government grew over time as it slowly usurped power from the people and the states until it reached critical mass and could not be overpowered by the states which it was intended to serve, not control.
The 'well regulated militia' was a militia of the people. Much like everything else the early settlers in this nation had to do for themselves, from common public safety to emergency medical treatment to volunteer firefighting, they fought their own battles. The colonies had their own militias (or several of them), which, in the Revolutionary War, combined efforts to fight a common enemy. The 'well regulated' part could be the function of the federal government, because one of the basic tenets of the Constitution was the common defense of the people.
So let's get back to the article. The resurgence of militia activity is consistent with the original intent of the Second Amendment in one respect: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I do not believe that these individual militias were the idea, because they are not 'well regulated', and they are not unified. Yes I believe they are somewhat radical as groups, but as individuals they have the right idea according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Looking further at the Amendment, it says the militia exists "for the security of a free state." State in this context can mean 'nation'. But if the federal military is used to oppress the states, they are acting unconstitutionally, because it is contrary to the security of a 'free state'. This issue goes back to what powers the federal government now has because of its size and ability to silence dissent, and not because if any constitutional authority granted to it.
One thing I like about the several individual militias is that, although they share a common general goal, since they are not regulated by one body, they will not yield collectively. If the federal government ever makes a real effort to confiscate the firearms owned by the people, I would expect the militias to fight agressively. Many of them, if not most, have military training. Civilian snipers aiming at government targets, domestic guerrilla warfare, ambushes of federal military forces, etc, may become commonplace. The federal military probably could not stop them, and it will truly become the 'war that never ends'. There are far too many of them, and they are willing to put their lives on the line for their rights. There are no rules of engagement when one's own rights are at stake. The federal government would need to allocate far too many people and too much equipment to sieze individual weapons. Any time government officials stepped into the light of day to attempt this, they would become targets for militia members. It's not worth the potential loss of life for the Washington elitists to satisfy their lust for power. Yet, knowing liberal elitists, they will stop at nothing to get that power. It is all-important to them. Those who are supporting tyranny might call the militia terrorists. This would not be accurate. It is no more accurate than calling the soldiers in the American Revolution terrorists for fighting the British for similar reasons.
Regardless of whether they are right or not, I feel a lot more secure with the 'radical', yet constitutional, militia whackos spread around the country, than I ever will with the radical, unconstitutional, liberal whackos in Washington. The first group wants to protect my rights, the latter wants to deprive me of them.
I am not the least bit surprised by this development. Frankly it's not really a new issue. It simply an issue of the 'sleeping giant' lying still until something disturbs it.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34070149/ns/us_news-life
While the article is interesting, the author errs on a few points. I suspect the errors are for two reasons: 1) typical liberal agenda and ignorance, and 2) yuppie ignorance of our nation's real history.
First, she erroneously labels militia members as right-wing extremists. That is simple ignorance, fed by the mainstream media and their truth-filtered agenda.
Right-wing extremists are those who despise all forms of liberalism. Militias do not adopt right-wing philosophies, they adopt anti-government philosophies, which are the basic platform of the Libertarian party. That's where the militias mainly come from. Libertarians accept both conserve and liberal ideas as long as they do not infringe on the rights other individuals. Militias exist not to force conservatism into society, but to prevent government from depriving the people of their rights.
Second, she erroneously associates militia members with white supremacists. This is more of a social ignorance, not necessarily confined to liberals. It is true that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white supremacists, and that they had ties to militia groups. But to assume that all militia members are racists is simply irresponsible. Such a preposterous view is congruent to the purpose of the militia, which is to protect individual rights against an oppressive government. The Union Army in the Civil War was not a national military. It was the collaberation of several state militias to accomplish a common objective. Further, regarding the racism mistake, the Ku Klux Klan is not a militia, perhaps contrary to the beliefs of some.
Third, she is apparently ignorant of the Constitution of the United States. It is one thing to have read it in high school civics class. It is quite another to study it, study the lives of the Founding Fathers, understand what they intended, and what was actually happening at the time it was drafted and ratified.
{And I don't mean 'what was actually happening' according to modern pseudo-historians who try to sanitize the facts and change them to fit modern liberalism and political correctness. Such historians are not historians at all. They are liberal imposters.}
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment was not proposed and ratified just so people could own guns. Neither was the 'right to keep and bear arms' granted so one individual citizen could protect himself from other individuals. A correct reading of the Amendment, after having studying the writings and intents of the Founding Fathers, clarifies beyond debate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of the citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government.
Why would the Founding Fathers encourage such a thing? Why would they preserve, and possibly even encourage, the right of the people to rise up against their government? The answer is very simple: the states had just been through a living hell, trying to eradicate that very thing, an oppressive socialist government (Great Britain), from their lives. The Founding Fathers saw the evil of such oppression, and desired to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and their new nation against such tyranny in the future.
Another popular misunderstanding exists regarding the first part of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," did not refer to a federal military. There was no such thing at the time as an all-powerful federal government. The federal government grew over time as it slowly usurped power from the people and the states until it reached critical mass and could not be overpowered by the states which it was intended to serve, not control.
The 'well regulated militia' was a militia of the people. Much like everything else the early settlers in this nation had to do for themselves, from common public safety to emergency medical treatment to volunteer firefighting, they fought their own battles. The colonies had their own militias (or several of them), which, in the Revolutionary War, combined efforts to fight a common enemy. The 'well regulated' part could be the function of the federal government, because one of the basic tenets of the Constitution was the common defense of the people.
So let's get back to the article. The resurgence of militia activity is consistent with the original intent of the Second Amendment in one respect: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I do not believe that these individual militias were the idea, because they are not 'well regulated', and they are not unified. Yes I believe they are somewhat radical as groups, but as individuals they have the right idea according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Looking further at the Amendment, it says the militia exists "for the security of a free state." State in this context can mean 'nation'. But if the federal military is used to oppress the states, they are acting unconstitutionally, because it is contrary to the security of a 'free state'. This issue goes back to what powers the federal government now has because of its size and ability to silence dissent, and not because if any constitutional authority granted to it.
One thing I like about the several individual militias is that, although they share a common general goal, since they are not regulated by one body, they will not yield collectively. If the federal government ever makes a real effort to confiscate the firearms owned by the people, I would expect the militias to fight agressively. Many of them, if not most, have military training. Civilian snipers aiming at government targets, domestic guerrilla warfare, ambushes of federal military forces, etc, may become commonplace. The federal military probably could not stop them, and it will truly become the 'war that never ends'. There are far too many of them, and they are willing to put their lives on the line for their rights. There are no rules of engagement when one's own rights are at stake. The federal government would need to allocate far too many people and too much equipment to sieze individual weapons. Any time government officials stepped into the light of day to attempt this, they would become targets for militia members. It's not worth the potential loss of life for the Washington elitists to satisfy their lust for power. Yet, knowing liberal elitists, they will stop at nothing to get that power. It is all-important to them. Those who are supporting tyranny might call the militia terrorists. This would not be accurate. It is no more accurate than calling the soldiers in the American Revolution terrorists for fighting the British for similar reasons.
Regardless of whether they are right or not, I feel a lot more secure with the 'radical', yet constitutional, militia whackos spread around the country, than I ever will with the radical, unconstitutional, liberal whackos in Washington. The first group wants to protect my rights, the latter wants to deprive me of them.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Your Tax Dollars Wasted... err, I Mean... At Work
The first picture is of the private jet that is normally assigned to the Speaker of the House. It is a Gulfstream III (military designation VC-20), capable of flying intercontinental missions. It holds about 15 people.
Something else comes to mind: Nancy Pelosi wants us all to conserve energy, drive smaller cars, and not contribute to global warming (while she and Al Gore are two of the biggest polluters in the world).
Most corporate executives in the world would be thrilled to have a G-III. It's newest version, the G-V, has a $50 million price tag. It's also the heaviest polluting private jet in the world. Al Gore, in his worldwide crusade to save the world from global warming, flies a G-V.
But that's apparently not good enough for Nancy Pelosi. She's not satisfied with the VC-20. Her majesty complained, so now she gets a VC-32, the military equivalent of a 200-seat Boeing 757 (second photo).
Something else comes to mind: Nancy Pelosi wants us all to conserve energy, drive smaller cars, and not contribute to global warming (while she and Al Gore are two of the biggest polluters in the world).
U.S. Treatment of Iraqi Children is Disturbing!
You should see the way the American G.I.s treat the Iraqi people. I wonder why we didn't see this on the evening news.
Iraqi child spits in GI's face after obvious torture.
Iraqi girl held in solitary confinement until she divulges secrets.
Iraqi child spits in GI's face after obvious torture.
GI's force Iraqis to undergo physical exertion to subdue them.
Iraqi children subjected to new 'tickle-torture' technique to extract information.
Iraqi girl held in solitary confinement until she divulges secrets.
Iraqi children hung by their fingers until they cooperate.
Evidence of forced child labor by the American military.
GI spits in Iraqi child's face for not cooperating.
Nothing funny about this one. But all we hear about is how many innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of the American military presence in Iraq.
GI spits in Iraqi child's face for not cooperating.
Nothing funny about this one. But all we hear about is how many innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of the American military presence in Iraq.
If only the cowards and co-conspirators in the media would report the truth...
Michele Obama's Personal Staff: 22 People!
From the Canada Free Press :
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
July 7, 2009
Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to
give back to this country that has given me so much,"
she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big
law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First
Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But
this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented
number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy
her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china
for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower
had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of
millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning
less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart
or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come to realize that the benefit package for these
servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the
national security and defense departments and the bill for
these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the
President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the
President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to
the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the
President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events
Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time
who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties
are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid
Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny
Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press
had to publish this perhaps because America no
longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared
that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands
of Obama. Sorry America !
SICKENING.........ISN'T IT?
by Dr. Paul L. Williams
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
July 7, 2009
Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to
give back to this country that has given me so much,"
she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big
law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First
Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But
this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented
number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy
her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china
for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower
had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of
millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning
less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart
or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and
then come to realize that the benefit package for these
servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the
national security and defense departments and the bill for
these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the
President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the
President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to
the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the
President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events
Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time
who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties
are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid
Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny
Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press
had to publish this perhaps because America no
longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared
that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands
of Obama. Sorry America !
SICKENING.........ISN'T IT?
by Dr. Paul L. Williams
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
An Open Letter to Obama From a Former Proctor & Gamble Executive
Please read, even if you are an Obama fan. I have it from reliable authority that this letter is legitimate, written by highly-respected Lou Prichett, formerly of Proctor and Gamble. Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends-an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering. " Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
*** Rick's note: I'm afraid that all of the 'You scare me' lines will make Obama feel successful. I believe that's what he wants to do to those who don't agree with him.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
*** Rick's note: I'm afraid that all of the 'You scare me' lines will make Obama feel successful. I believe that's what he wants to do to those who don't agree with him.
Cartoons for Nov 17th
Cartoons are so much better at conveying messages. It's ironic how everything about liberals can be so easily summarized by the method of communication that six-year-olds understand best...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
The REAL Reason The Fort Hood Massacre Happened:
Liberal Democrats. Plain and simple. There is no other reason.
Why? Because they continue to prostitute themselves for votes by playing 'sympathy cards'.
It is well known to nearly everyone who isn't naive enough to get their daily dose of news from the mainstream media, that Muslim radicals are exploiting the political maneuvering of the left. Every time someone's feelings get ruffled, the liberals are there to wipe away the tears, to rub their sorry little heads, and punish the big bullies that stepped in their corn flakes. Not because they care about the people, but because by pretending to be sympathetic, they can win voters. Cowards.
The liberals have made the nation paranoid about profiling. They have made it out to be an evil thing, unacceptable in any circumstance. Idiots! That attitude is exactly what empowers the radicals to continue their jihad against America. It gives the 'legal' access they need to continue slaughtering us. The extremist Muslims are exploiting this legal debate, which has become a huge, gaping hole in our armor, a hole made bigger every day by the cowardice and pandering of the Democratic party.
So it is with Fort Hood. Major Hassan had been showing signs of mental instability for a long time before he killed 13 innocent people. Yet nobody did anything about it. The federal government knew about it (the Army), but nobody did anything. The liberals have made them afraid of being accused of profiling, and being labeled as racists, and possibly guilty of 'hate' crimes. The government knew about Hasan, but they did nothing. Now 13 people are dead. Profiling would have saved them. Was a little racial profiliing, maybe a small infringement on Hassan's rights, so bad, especially in light of his open, notorious, hateful and violent anti-American statements? Do you think that 13 innocent lives are a worthy sacrifice so we don't hurt someone's feelings a little bit? It has been constitutionally tested many times that the rights of the one are outweighed by the freedom and rights of the many. This should be no different, but the Democrats have made it so. It is a corruption of our Constitution and our liberty.
This could only happen on the liberals' watch, because they loathe the military so much: a major (a person of impressive rank) in our own army who hates that very army, who hates the country he has taken an oath to protect. And the U.S. government knew about this hatred, yet they let him continue to serve. This would not have happened except for liberal stupidity (sorry for the redundancy there). The liberals have been so worried that a gay person might be discharged from the army if it is discovered they are gay (don't ask, don't tell). And they apparently weren't concerned about discharging an Army officer once it was discovered that he hated the country he was sworn and employed to serve, and against whom he has sworn a holy war (don't ask, don't kill me?). And if he had been discharged, despite his openly hateful and anti-American rants, someone would have cried foul. Liberal IDIOTS! Oops! Sorry again for the redundancy.
Let's get this straight, people. For those liberals who don't get this, it's because you are brainwashed by your degenerate leaders in Washington. Now listen up. PROFILING CAN BE GOOD. Did you get that? Yes I said it. Profiling can be good. It serves a useful purpose. It serves the domestic security interests of our nation. Now, for those of you who will call me racist or hateful... before you say something really stupid and ignorant like that (because I am not racist or hateful in any way), I also know that profiling is a tool that must be used with caution.
In February 1942, two months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and thrust the U.S. into World War 2, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered thousands of Japanese-Americans into temporary internment camps. Why did he do this? Because his first priority was to protect the American nation and the American people from further internal attacks (the same reason why President Bush grounded all flights for 3 days after 9/11/01). He had to assess the situation on a national level and understand who was and was not a threat. The Japanese people in those camps were not treated harshly. They were simply isolated until it could be determined that they did not pose a threat. One reason for the camps is that is was know that there were Japanese spies living in the states.
Did Roosevelt, a Democrat president, use profiling? Of course he did. Was it wrong? No, it was not. It was necessary for the time, and it was based on national security amid known espionage, not on hate or bigotry. The Supreme Court agreed. Their ruling stands, as it was given at that time, in that context. For pseudo-experts of history to claim today that it wasn't necessary almost 70 years later, contrary to the greatest minds of the time, is based only on their own need for self-aggrandizement and not in fact. The internment camps put an immediate stop to the domestic espionage efforts of Japanese sympathizers. It worked. It helped preserve our sovereignty. All of the Japanese in the camps returned to normal life. It was proper at the time, despite how liberal pseudo-experts of today try to paint it.
The Democrats in Washington, with the help of the media, have fabricated the drama about the mistreatment of the terrorists at Gitmo. In fact, it has become politically incorrect to refer to them as terrorists. It's insensitive, I suppose. These are people who are known terrorists, not just investigative leads. And Obama and his bands of pansies want to treat them better. Awww, that's sweet. Maybe they'll vote for you, too!
The liberals in Washington and the media have been so busy trying to discredit George Bush and Dick Cheney at election time, that they have forgotten the whole point: national security. Instead of worrying about finding and stopping people like Major Hassan, the Democrats have spent their efforts worrying about wiretaps and waterboarding, and anything else Bush and Cheney may have done that isn't sensitive to people's feelings. This is especially poignant since the government knew about Major Hassan. They let him continue until he finally cracked. 13 people are dead. Profiling would have saved them.
Oh, yes, I should clarify. The liberal democrats do indeed believe in profiling. They do it all the time. But instead of employing this very useful tool for the good of the nation, against obvious threats like Major Hassan, they use it against Republicans who don't agree with their socialize health plan or their radical agenda. That's what they did with the people who would voice their disapproval at the town hall meetings. According to Janet Napolitano (man, I'm sure glad she's not my governor any more!), Military veterans who voice their dissent and protesters at socialized health care town hall meetings are extremists and threats to national security. So let me get this straight. The very people who risked their lives fighting for this nation, many of whom are permanently handicapped, are threats to national security? Janet must have been hit in the head really hard with a great big STUPID STICK!
Now I do agree that profiling can be wrongfully racially motivated. If I have no important purpose, such as security or safety, and I don't have some type of at least reasonable suspicion, it's racism. I want nothing to do with that.
Back to the real point. We have an important choice to make. The proper and prudent use of profiling will save American lives. Potentially thousands or millions of innocent lives in the future. But the complete abolishment of profiling for any reason will win thousands of voters for the Democratic party, but at the expense of many more lives than just the 13 who were murdered at Fort Hood. Which makes sense to you?
The answer to this question will reveal some 'true colors'.
Because people have died as a result of the way that the Democrats have politicized the issue and prevented actions for the sake of national security for their own electoral advantage, I believe that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many other Democratic leaders are guilty of murder. It can't be first-degree, because they didn't have the state of mind for a premeditated killing. But at common law, a person whose depraved actions, or reckless disregard for the life of others, which results in a homicide, is also guilty of murder in a lesser degree.
If only we could find someone to issue the arrest warrants... I can wish, can't I?
Why? Because they continue to prostitute themselves for votes by playing 'sympathy cards'.
It is well known to nearly everyone who isn't naive enough to get their daily dose of news from the mainstream media, that Muslim radicals are exploiting the political maneuvering of the left. Every time someone's feelings get ruffled, the liberals are there to wipe away the tears, to rub their sorry little heads, and punish the big bullies that stepped in their corn flakes. Not because they care about the people, but because by pretending to be sympathetic, they can win voters. Cowards.
The liberals have made the nation paranoid about profiling. They have made it out to be an evil thing, unacceptable in any circumstance. Idiots! That attitude is exactly what empowers the radicals to continue their jihad against America. It gives the 'legal' access they need to continue slaughtering us. The extremist Muslims are exploiting this legal debate, which has become a huge, gaping hole in our armor, a hole made bigger every day by the cowardice and pandering of the Democratic party.
So it is with Fort Hood. Major Hassan had been showing signs of mental instability for a long time before he killed 13 innocent people. Yet nobody did anything about it. The federal government knew about it (the Army), but nobody did anything. The liberals have made them afraid of being accused of profiling, and being labeled as racists, and possibly guilty of 'hate' crimes. The government knew about Hasan, but they did nothing. Now 13 people are dead. Profiling would have saved them. Was a little racial profiliing, maybe a small infringement on Hassan's rights, so bad, especially in light of his open, notorious, hateful and violent anti-American statements? Do you think that 13 innocent lives are a worthy sacrifice so we don't hurt someone's feelings a little bit? It has been constitutionally tested many times that the rights of the one are outweighed by the freedom and rights of the many. This should be no different, but the Democrats have made it so. It is a corruption of our Constitution and our liberty.
This could only happen on the liberals' watch, because they loathe the military so much: a major (a person of impressive rank) in our own army who hates that very army, who hates the country he has taken an oath to protect. And the U.S. government knew about this hatred, yet they let him continue to serve. This would not have happened except for liberal stupidity (sorry for the redundancy there). The liberals have been so worried that a gay person might be discharged from the army if it is discovered they are gay (don't ask, don't tell). And they apparently weren't concerned about discharging an Army officer once it was discovered that he hated the country he was sworn and employed to serve, and against whom he has sworn a holy war (don't ask, don't kill me?). And if he had been discharged, despite his openly hateful and anti-American rants, someone would have cried foul. Liberal IDIOTS! Oops! Sorry again for the redundancy.
Let's get this straight, people. For those liberals who don't get this, it's because you are brainwashed by your degenerate leaders in Washington. Now listen up. PROFILING CAN BE GOOD. Did you get that? Yes I said it. Profiling can be good. It serves a useful purpose. It serves the domestic security interests of our nation. Now, for those of you who will call me racist or hateful... before you say something really stupid and ignorant like that (because I am not racist or hateful in any way), I also know that profiling is a tool that must be used with caution.
In February 1942, two months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and thrust the U.S. into World War 2, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered thousands of Japanese-Americans into temporary internment camps. Why did he do this? Because his first priority was to protect the American nation and the American people from further internal attacks (the same reason why President Bush grounded all flights for 3 days after 9/11/01). He had to assess the situation on a national level and understand who was and was not a threat. The Japanese people in those camps were not treated harshly. They were simply isolated until it could be determined that they did not pose a threat. One reason for the camps is that is was know that there were Japanese spies living in the states.
Even back than, people cried foul. People challenged the authority of the government's actions. In 1944 the United States Supreme Court upheld the use of the camps. In 1988, Congress (controlled by the Democrats) sent President Reagan a piece of leglislation which officially apologized for the internment camps. I believe Reagan made a mistake in doing this. But the fact is that it was an election year. The democrats in Washington are always lying to the American people about Republicans, saying they are cold and insensitive. The opposite is true. The difference is that Republicans aren't so weak-minded as to legislate with feelings or whore themselves out for votes over every little emotional issue like the Democrats are.
Did Roosevelt, a Democrat president, use profiling? Of course he did. Was it wrong? No, it was not. It was necessary for the time, and it was based on national security amid known espionage, not on hate or bigotry. The Supreme Court agreed. Their ruling stands, as it was given at that time, in that context. For pseudo-experts of history to claim today that it wasn't necessary almost 70 years later, contrary to the greatest minds of the time, is based only on their own need for self-aggrandizement and not in fact. The internment camps put an immediate stop to the domestic espionage efforts of Japanese sympathizers. It worked. It helped preserve our sovereignty. All of the Japanese in the camps returned to normal life. It was proper at the time, despite how liberal pseudo-experts of today try to paint it.
The Democrats in Washington, with the help of the media, have fabricated the drama about the mistreatment of the terrorists at Gitmo. In fact, it has become politically incorrect to refer to them as terrorists. It's insensitive, I suppose. These are people who are known terrorists, not just investigative leads. And Obama and his bands of pansies want to treat them better. Awww, that's sweet. Maybe they'll vote for you, too!
The liberals in Washington and the media have been so busy trying to discredit George Bush and Dick Cheney at election time, that they have forgotten the whole point: national security. Instead of worrying about finding and stopping people like Major Hassan, the Democrats have spent their efforts worrying about wiretaps and waterboarding, and anything else Bush and Cheney may have done that isn't sensitive to people's feelings. This is especially poignant since the government knew about Major Hassan. They let him continue until he finally cracked. 13 people are dead. Profiling would have saved them.
Oh, yes, I should clarify. The liberal democrats do indeed believe in profiling. They do it all the time. But instead of employing this very useful tool for the good of the nation, against obvious threats like Major Hassan, they use it against Republicans who don't agree with their socialize health plan or their radical agenda. That's what they did with the people who would voice their disapproval at the town hall meetings. According to Janet Napolitano (man, I'm sure glad she's not my governor any more!), Military veterans who voice their dissent and protesters at socialized health care town hall meetings are extremists and threats to national security. So let me get this straight. The very people who risked their lives fighting for this nation, many of whom are permanently handicapped, are threats to national security? Janet must have been hit in the head really hard with a great big STUPID STICK!
Now I do agree that profiling can be wrongfully racially motivated. If I have no important purpose, such as security or safety, and I don't have some type of at least reasonable suspicion, it's racism. I want nothing to do with that.
Back to the real point. We have an important choice to make. The proper and prudent use of profiling will save American lives. Potentially thousands or millions of innocent lives in the future. But the complete abolishment of profiling for any reason will win thousands of voters for the Democratic party, but at the expense of many more lives than just the 13 who were murdered at Fort Hood. Which makes sense to you?
The answer to this question will reveal some 'true colors'.
Because people have died as a result of the way that the Democrats have politicized the issue and prevented actions for the sake of national security for their own electoral advantage, I believe that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many other Democratic leaders are guilty of murder. It can't be first-degree, because they didn't have the state of mind for a premeditated killing. But at common law, a person whose depraved actions, or reckless disregard for the life of others, which results in a homicide, is also guilty of murder in a lesser degree.
If only we could find someone to issue the arrest warrants... I can wish, can't I?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Opposite of Progress...
My 15-year-old son came home from school today with a profound thought.
We all know that PRO and CON are opposites. The 'Pros' are in favor of something, and 'Cons' are opposed to it.
So let's apply this is real-world terms:
What is the opposite of progress?
The answer is easy! It's congress!
We all know that PRO and CON are opposites. The 'Pros' are in favor of something, and 'Cons' are opposed to it.
So let's apply this is real-world terms:
What is the opposite of progress?
The answer is easy! It's congress!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Post That Will Never Die!
I posted this all the way back in July, and even today I am still getting comments from liberals on it.
"List of Obama's Accomplishments So Far"
Post: http://leftwingnuts.blogspot.com/2009/07/list-of-obamas-accomplishments-so-far.html
I repost this because you may be amused at the dialogue I have had with others. It is clear that certain people of certain beliefs simply do not possess the ability to debate intelligently, so they call names. That just drives another nail in their 'stupidity' stereotype.
One person even posted a list of Obama's accomplishments (all entitlements, tax increases and morally depraved issues), claiming that they were good. I love the quote from the Bible, "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil..." Isaiah 5:20.
Even 700 years before Christ, Isaiah saw our day exactly as it is right now. He was just as accurate seeing it in a vision 2,700 years ago as he would be today.
"List of Obama's Accomplishments So Far"
Post: http://leftwingnuts.blogspot.com/2009/07/list-of-obamas-accomplishments-so-far.html
I repost this because you may be amused at the dialogue I have had with others. It is clear that certain people of certain beliefs simply do not possess the ability to debate intelligently, so they call names. That just drives another nail in their 'stupidity' stereotype.
One person even posted a list of Obama's accomplishments (all entitlements, tax increases and morally depraved issues), claiming that they were good. I love the quote from the Bible, "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil..." Isaiah 5:20.
Even 700 years before Christ, Isaiah saw our day exactly as it is right now. He was just as accurate seeing it in a vision 2,700 years ago as he would be today.
The Plan, The Scam, The Man
Thanks to MachMomma for passing this one on.
********************************************
The Plan, The Scam, The Man, Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together?
The Scam
Here is what a learned friend had to say about my Democratic Math e-mail. It's even worse apparently than I first thought:
It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:
If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.
However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.
So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.
But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer.
For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.
When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before... (Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).
So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth:.......................... $3500
You got a discount of:............................... $4500
Net so far: .......................................... +$1000
But you have to pay: ............................... $1350
in taxes on the $4500
Net so far: ............................................. -$350
And you paid: .......................................... $3000
more than the car was
selling for the month before
Net: ..................................................... -$3350
We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.
So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.
Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.
Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme?
Just wait until we get health care with no additional costs over what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?
(I know this math isn't the same as if you traded in car of differing value, but the point is the same. It was a deceptive way to try to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenue.)
Hope and Change: I hope you got a good deal, because now you won't get to keep the change!
********************************************
The Plan, The Scam, The Man, Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together?
The Scam
Here is what a learned friend had to say about my Democratic Math e-mail. It's even worse apparently than I first thought:
It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:
If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.
However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.
So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.
But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer.
For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.
When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before... (Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).
So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth:.......................... $3500
You got a discount of:............................... $4500
Net so far: .......................................... +$1000
But you have to pay: ............................... $1350
in taxes on the $4500
Net so far: ............................................. -$350
And you paid: .......................................... $3000
more than the car was
selling for the month before
Net: ..................................................... -$3350
We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.
So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.
Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.
Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme?
Just wait until we get health care with no additional costs over what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?
(I know this math isn't the same as if you traded in car of differing value, but the point is the same. It was a deceptive way to try to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenue.)
Hope and Change: I hope you got a good deal, because now you won't get to keep the change!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Protecting Pervert's Rights On Facebook
This is pretty sick, but it should be no surprise to those who know the true agenda of liberalism. They want to spread the filth without censorship. British officials decided not to block pedophiles (child-seeking sex offenders, for those of you liberals who are reading this) from accessing Facebook, worried that it would be a violation of their human rights.
Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/08/facebook-sex-offenders-law
This it typical of liberalism. They are more interested in the rights of the perverted and corrupt than the rights of the virtuous and innocent.
So this means that they want the pedophiles to have access to the same social network as our children, because they are not worried about the safety of our children as much as they are about the rights of their degenerate followers. I wonder if the fact that most sexual perverts are liberals has anything to do with their motivation.
This is right in line with their other so-called progressive agenda topics:
1. Trees have feelings and must be protected, but an unborn human fetus is just a blob of slime to be exterminated and discarded. A tree is more important than a human baby, apparently.
2. A minor child can kill her unborn baby without even telling her parents about it, but she can't be given a Tylenol pill without her parents consenting. (see today's cartoons) A Tylenol pill is more important than a human baby, apparently.
3. A farmer has his land siezed and is threatened with imprisonment because he unintentionally ran over and killed an endangered salamander while plowing his field. One stupid little salamander is more important than the property rights and Constitutional right to property, apparently.
4. A hunter is prosecuted for shooting a bear that was about to eat him. The angry bear was more important than the life of the self-defending hunter, despite his Constitutional right to life, apparently.
What other useless pursuits will liberals take on? Nearly everything else they are interested in is a perversion or a cancer to society. Apparently the safety of our kids is less important than the depraved gratifications of a sex offender.
2010 Masters Tournament Cancelled
I have just received word that the 2010 Masters Champion has already been awarded the green jacket, so there will be no need to hold the tournament. When asked why they would do this so prematurely, they Masters Tournament committee simply said, if we wait until after the tournament is over and the winner has actually accomplished something, it will be too late.
Please Feel Free To Copy And Circulate This Petition
As a rule, I don't pass along these "add your name" lists that appear in
email, but this one is important.
It has been circulating for one year. Please keep it going.
To show your support for Obama's health care reform,
please go to the end of the list and add your name.
1. Nancy Pelosi
2. Harry Reid
email, but this one is important.
It has been circulating for one year. Please keep it going.
To show your support for Obama's health care reform,
please go to the end of the list and add your name.
1. Nancy Pelosi
2. Harry Reid
If George Bush Was An Idiot...
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the
Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have
approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't
think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years
and seven months to come up with an answer.
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the
Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have
approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't
think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years
and seven months to come up with an answer.
European's Perspective on Islam
NOTE: This is particularly timely because of the killings at Fort Hood and the killer's motive.
*****************************************
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on 1-15-08. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
=====================================================
REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tue, 15 January 2008 14:30:20 -0500
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake is being made by America .
**********************************************
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?
HERE'S THE TEST
1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the a ges of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
*****************************************
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on 1-15-08. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
=====================================================
REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER
Date: Tue, 15 January 2008 14:30:20 -0500
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake is being made by America .
**********************************************
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?
HERE'S THE TEST
1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the a ges of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
A REAL Miss America!
This 19 year old ex-cheerleader (now an Air Force Security Forces Sniper) was watching a road that led to a NATO military base when she observed a man digging by the road. She engaged the target (i.e., she shot him).
It turned out he was a bomb maker for the Taliban, and he was burying an IED that was to be detonated when a US patrol walked by 30 minutes later.
It would have certainly killed and wounded several soldiers.
The interesting fact of this story is the shot was measured at 725 yards. She shot him as he was bent over burying the bomb. The shot went through his butt and into the bomb which detonated; he was blown to pieces.
The Air Force made a motivational poster of her:
(Folks, that's a shot 25 yards longer than seven football fields!) And the last thing that came out of his mouth ... was his [backside]!
If You Can Not Stand Behind Our Troops, please Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them!
It turned out he was a bomb maker for the Taliban, and he was burying an IED that was to be detonated when a US patrol walked by 30 minutes later.
It would have certainly killed and wounded several soldiers.
The interesting fact of this story is the shot was measured at 725 yards. She shot him as he was bent over burying the bomb. The shot went through his butt and into the bomb which detonated; he was blown to pieces.
The Air Force made a motivational poster of her:
(Folks, that's a shot 25 yards longer than seven football fields!) And the last thing that came out of his mouth ... was his [backside]!
If You Can Not Stand Behind Our Troops, please Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them!
John Allen Muhammad To Be Executed Today
The Beltway Sniper, John Allen Muhammad, is scheduled to die by lethal injection today for the killing of 10 people in the Washington D.C. area in 2002. I have two observations about this topic. First, the death penalty is appropriate here. I haven't heard any noise from the criminal's rights activists whining about how executing a serial killer is cruel and unusual punishment. I won't assume they have grown up and seen the light. Maybe they're too busy defending the right to kill unborn babies instead of the duty to punish convicted criminals.
Second is the utterly rediculous assertion that the manufacturer of the rifle used in the killings had anything to do with the murders. In 2004 the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle paid $2.5 million to settle with victims' families. The Sarah Brady gun-phobia whackos were behind the suit. This was nothing more than more liberal agenda-driven deception. It makes them look like they care, which draws in more votes based solely on emotion, not fact or rational thinking. That is a textbook liberal move, to attract votes based on emotional impact, because they cannot attract them based on intelligent thinking. Intelligence and liberalism are diametrically opposed.
The idea that the maker of the Bushmaster rifle was negligent in the killings would be like saying that my keyboard manufacturer is negligent for my own misspellings, or that Rosie O'Donnell's spoon manufacturer is negligent for making her fat. Typically stupid, liberal thinking. Oops, that's not possible... liberal thinking. I'll have to come up with another word because liberal and thinking cannot be in the same sentence.
Second is the utterly rediculous assertion that the manufacturer of the rifle used in the killings had anything to do with the murders. In 2004 the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle paid $2.5 million to settle with victims' families. The Sarah Brady gun-phobia whackos were behind the suit. This was nothing more than more liberal agenda-driven deception. It makes them look like they care, which draws in more votes based solely on emotion, not fact or rational thinking. That is a textbook liberal move, to attract votes based on emotional impact, because they cannot attract them based on intelligent thinking. Intelligence and liberalism are diametrically opposed.
The idea that the maker of the Bushmaster rifle was negligent in the killings would be like saying that my keyboard manufacturer is negligent for my own misspellings, or that Rosie O'Donnell's spoon manufacturer is negligent for making her fat. Typically stupid, liberal thinking. Oops, that's not possible... liberal thinking. I'll have to come up with another word because liberal and thinking cannot be in the same sentence.
Under ObamaCare, Pelosi Will Force All To Pay For Abortions
See this blog entry by House Republican Leader John Boehner. This just goes to show how depraved and perverted the liberals are and how they want to violate the rights of all who don't agree with them.
Link: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
Your hard-earned tax dollars will pay to kill the baby of someone who doesn't pay taxes. The responsible and morally sound people will have to pay for a morally repugnant procedure on behalf of the morally corrupt. Welcome to Obama's and Pelosi's Amerika, comrades.
Link: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
Your hard-earned tax dollars will pay to kill the baby of someone who doesn't pay taxes. The responsible and morally sound people will have to pay for a morally repugnant procedure on behalf of the morally corrupt. Welcome to Obama's and Pelosi's Amerika, comrades.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Voted Worst Influence on Youth
This news article claims that Miley Cyrus has been voted as the worst influence on teens.
Article Link: http://wonderwall.msn.com/music/miley-cyrus-worst-influence-2009-1524124.story/?gt1=28135
Interesting to me how Miley hasn't really done anything bad except her 'pole dancing' routine (which I have not seen), and maybe a few growing pains. They said she beat out Britney Spears and Kanye West. I can't say much about Kanye West except that, with his antics on stage with Taylor Swift, he's clearly misbehaved and immature, and with his comments after Hurricane Katrina, he's clearly a racist.
As for Britney Spears, I am curious what Miley has done that rivals with drunk driving, drug addiction, loss of child custody as, according to the court, an unfit mother?
We didn't even get to talk about Linsay Lohan and her drug and alcohol problems.
So what is it about Miley that's worse that this?
Actually let's quit talking about Miley. Let's talk about who the REAL WORST INFLUENCE on our kids is. It's the Democratic Party.
No celebrity in Hollywood, no matter how drunk, drug addicted, or sexually perverted, has done more to encourage young people to forfeit their rights of sovereignty, individuality, and personal dignity. No other person or group has encouraged them to despise the righteous and hard-working people who give them jobs. No other person or group has tried to lower the standard of achievement in society to the lowest common denominator. Rather than lift the lazy and dependent to a level of achievement, they punish the successful and try to lower them to a level that makes the dependent feel better about themselves. No other person or group has taught society to hate our military men and women who have fought, do now fight, and will fight, for the freedoms that we so often take for granted. No other person or group has encouraged society not only to accept, but to embrace and praise sexual perversion.
No, dear Miley, Britney, Linsday, and even Kanye you moron, you all aren't even close to being the worst influence on our teens. That award goes to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and a host of other anti-American and anti-God elitists in the Democratic Party.
Article Link: http://wonderwall.msn.com/music/miley-cyrus-worst-influence-2009-1524124.story/?gt1=28135
Interesting to me how Miley hasn't really done anything bad except her 'pole dancing' routine (which I have not seen), and maybe a few growing pains. They said she beat out Britney Spears and Kanye West. I can't say much about Kanye West except that, with his antics on stage with Taylor Swift, he's clearly misbehaved and immature, and with his comments after Hurricane Katrina, he's clearly a racist.
As for Britney Spears, I am curious what Miley has done that rivals with drunk driving, drug addiction, loss of child custody as, according to the court, an unfit mother?
We didn't even get to talk about Linsay Lohan and her drug and alcohol problems.
So what is it about Miley that's worse that this?
Actually let's quit talking about Miley. Let's talk about who the REAL WORST INFLUENCE on our kids is. It's the Democratic Party.
No celebrity in Hollywood, no matter how drunk, drug addicted, or sexually perverted, has done more to encourage young people to forfeit their rights of sovereignty, individuality, and personal dignity. No other person or group has encouraged them to despise the righteous and hard-working people who give them jobs. No other person or group has tried to lower the standard of achievement in society to the lowest common denominator. Rather than lift the lazy and dependent to a level of achievement, they punish the successful and try to lower them to a level that makes the dependent feel better about themselves. No other person or group has taught society to hate our military men and women who have fought, do now fight, and will fight, for the freedoms that we so often take for granted. No other person or group has encouraged society not only to accept, but to embrace and praise sexual perversion.
No, dear Miley, Britney, Linsday, and even Kanye you moron, you all aren't even close to being the worst influence on our teens. That award goes to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and a host of other anti-American and anti-God elitists in the Democratic Party.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Rush Fooled, But He's Not THE FOOL!
This article tells how Rush Limbaugh was 'punked', in an effort to make him like like a fool.
Article: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1
The hoax was about a thesis that Obama allegedly wrote. It is now being said that the story about the thesis was a hoax, and this appears to be done to discredit Rush.
Well, let's look at some facts.
As far as hoaxes go, Obama is the biggest hoax and the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States.
It is the American people that have been punked.
They wanted change. They got socialism.
They wanted out of the Iraq war. The soldiers were merely moved across the border into Afghanastan to fight a battle that is almost completely irrelevant to national security, whereas the Iraq war was very relevant.
They wanted a bailout of the financial system. The bailout failed because the money was not spent to stimulate the economy but largely for banks to pay off past foreign debts. And it was laden with pork programs that had nothing to do with national economic recovery. Now they are talking about a second stimulus. It will fail as well.
They wanted to save the economy. What they got was a virtual government takeover of the largest business sectors: banking, automobile manufacturing, and housing. More socialism.
They wanted affordable health care. What they are getting is the government trying to intimidate private health companies and tax them without any purpose other than to make themselves look competitive. What we're getting is tyranny.
They wanted a president who did what he said, and was what he said. What they got is someone who has not kept even half of his campaign promises, who pretended to be Christian but has hired a 'czar' to introduce Muslim Shariah Law into the United States.
They wanted (and expected) a legitimate U.S. citizen for their president. What they got is a person who has far more evidence that he is ineligible, possibly an illegal alien, and who not only hasen't proven his eligibility but is fighting hard in court to keep from having to provide such proof.
Nope, it's not Rush who got punked. If you think the thesis paper was a hoax, take a look at the whole Obama experience. Frankly, the entire liberal movement has been a big punk job on America. Liberals can be such FOOLS.
Article: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1
The hoax was about a thesis that Obama allegedly wrote. It is now being said that the story about the thesis was a hoax, and this appears to be done to discredit Rush.
Well, let's look at some facts.
As far as hoaxes go, Obama is the biggest hoax and the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States.
It is the American people that have been punked.
They wanted change. They got socialism.
They wanted out of the Iraq war. The soldiers were merely moved across the border into Afghanastan to fight a battle that is almost completely irrelevant to national security, whereas the Iraq war was very relevant.
They wanted a bailout of the financial system. The bailout failed because the money was not spent to stimulate the economy but largely for banks to pay off past foreign debts. And it was laden with pork programs that had nothing to do with national economic recovery. Now they are talking about a second stimulus. It will fail as well.
They wanted to save the economy. What they got was a virtual government takeover of the largest business sectors: banking, automobile manufacturing, and housing. More socialism.
They wanted affordable health care. What they are getting is the government trying to intimidate private health companies and tax them without any purpose other than to make themselves look competitive. What we're getting is tyranny.
They wanted a president who did what he said, and was what he said. What they got is someone who has not kept even half of his campaign promises, who pretended to be Christian but has hired a 'czar' to introduce Muslim Shariah Law into the United States.
They wanted (and expected) a legitimate U.S. citizen for their president. What they got is a person who has far more evidence that he is ineligible, possibly an illegal alien, and who not only hasen't proven his eligibility but is fighting hard in court to keep from having to provide such proof.
Nope, it's not Rush who got punked. If you think the thesis paper was a hoax, take a look at the whole Obama experience. Frankly, the entire liberal movement has been a big punk job on America. Liberals can be such FOOLS.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Entertainment for Retired People
I got this from my sister. I'm not retired yet, just tired.
Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.
Well, for example, the other day my wife and I went into town and went into a shop.
We were only in there for about 5 minutes. When we came out, there was a cop writing
out a parking ticket. We went up to him and said, 'Come on man, how about giving a
senior citizen a break?'
He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him a Nazi turd. He glared at me
and started writing another ticket for having worn tires. So my wife called him a poop-head. He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we abused him, the more tickets he wrote.
Personally, we didn't care. We came into town by bus and the car had an Obama sticker.
We try to have a little fun each day now that we're retired. It's important at our age.
Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.
Well, for example, the other day my wife and I went into town and went into a shop.
We were only in there for about 5 minutes. When we came out, there was a cop writing
out a parking ticket. We went up to him and said, 'Come on man, how about giving a
senior citizen a break?'
He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him a Nazi turd. He glared at me
and started writing another ticket for having worn tires. So my wife called him a poop-head. He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we abused him, the more tickets he wrote.
Personally, we didn't care. We came into town by bus and the car had an Obama sticker.
We try to have a little fun each day now that we're retired. It's important at our age.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Mafia Tactics: If You Can't Compete, Intimidate Your Competition
Dems go after antitrust exemption for insurers
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
The Obama-ites are wanting to hit the health insurance industry in their wallets in yet another way. Since the industry experts reported that ObamaCare would likely raise rates for millions of people, particularly seniors, the democrats are attempting to punish the industry for not being "on board". This isn't much different than the surprise IRS audits of Clinton critics during the 90's. Perhaps it isn't much different in principle from the people who got sent to Siberian gulags or labor camps for criticizing the Soviet government. We're probably not far from that kind of treatment here.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
The Obama-ites are wanting to hit the health insurance industry in their wallets in yet another way. Since the industry experts reported that ObamaCare would likely raise rates for millions of people, particularly seniors, the democrats are attempting to punish the industry for not being "on board". This isn't much different than the surprise IRS audits of Clinton critics during the 90's. Perhaps it isn't much different in principle from the people who got sent to Siberian gulags or labor camps for criticizing the Soviet government. We're probably not far from that kind of treatment here.
The Book Report
Students at a local school were assigned to read 2 books:
'Titanic', and 'My Life' by Bill Clinton.
One student turned in the following book report,
with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!
His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report.
Titanic:.... Cost - $29.99
Clinton :..... Cost - $29.99
Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read
Clinton :... Over 3 hours to read
Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton :.... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Titanic:.... Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton :...... Bill is a bull[crap] artist.
Titanic:.... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton :.... Ditto for Bill.
Titanic:..... During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.
Clinton :....... Ditto for Monica.
Titanic:...... Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton :... Let's not go there.
Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.
Clinton :.... Monica' s forced to return her gifts.
Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton :..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.
Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton :....... Monica... ooh, let's not go there, either.
Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton :..... Bill goes home to Hillary - basically the same thing
'Titanic', and 'My Life' by Bill Clinton.
One student turned in the following book report,
with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!
His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report.
Titanic:.... Cost - $29.99
Clinton :..... Cost - $29.99
Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read
Clinton :... Over 3 hours to read
Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton :.... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Titanic:.... Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton :...... Bill is a bull[crap] artist.
Titanic:.... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton :.... Ditto for Bill.
Titanic:..... During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.
Clinton :....... Ditto for Monica.
Titanic:...... Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton :... Let's not go there.
Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.
Clinton :.... Monica' s forced to return her gifts.
Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton :..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.
Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton :....... Monica... ooh, let's not go there, either.
Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton :..... Bill goes home to Hillary - basically the same thing
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ordering Pizza In Liberal Land
Watch this short video. Makes me wonder how far away this is...
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
I'm not a fan of the 'source', but this is definitely amusing.
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
I'm not a fan of the 'source', but this is definitely amusing.
Some of Obama's "Czars" - True Colors Exposed
Take a look at these wiki pages and video clips to learn about who Obama is surrounding himself with, in his effort to transform our country. Here's more hope and change for you!
Ron Bloom, B.H. Obama's manufacturing czar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Bloom
What Ron Bloom said about Chairman Mao, mass murderer, Chinese dictator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g
***************************
Anita Dunn, Obama's Communications Czar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Dunn
What Anita Dunn said about Chairman Mao, mass murderer, Chinese dictator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXAivdHYW0
Dunn compounded this by lying and saying she was only repeating what Republican strategist Lee Atwater had said. Maybe she thought she could get away with it because Atwater is dead. But she can't. Atwater never said any such thing.
**********************************************
Van Jones, Obama's former czar for green jobs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones
Oh, he's a racist and a communist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHiLpik9jew
and the beat goes on.... this is just a small sampling.
Ron Bloom, B.H. Obama's manufacturing czar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Bloom
What Ron Bloom said about Chairman Mao, mass murderer, Chinese dictator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g
***************************
Anita Dunn, Obama's Communications Czar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Dunn
What Anita Dunn said about Chairman Mao, mass murderer, Chinese dictator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXAivdHYW0
Dunn compounded this by lying and saying she was only repeating what Republican strategist Lee Atwater had said. Maybe she thought she could get away with it because Atwater is dead. But she can't. Atwater never said any such thing.
**********************************************
Van Jones, Obama's former czar for green jobs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones
Oh, he's a racist and a communist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHiLpik9jew
and the beat goes on.... this is just a small sampling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
