Brokaw Did It To Obama As Well
Jan 30, 2012 Political
NBC and Tom Brokaw have expressed displeasure with Mitt Romney for using footage from the 1990s, featuring Brokaw, in ads attacking Newt Gingrich. I read comments posted and people say NBC is imposing on the right to free speech. People are upset that Brokaw and NBC would request Romney to cease and desist.
The most important thing about this is that it is not a free speech issue.
However, Barack Obama used Brokaw in an ad when he was running in 2008 and NBC sent him a cease and desist order as well. In this particular case Brokaw is acting no differently toward the Republican than he did the Democrat. It is easy to see how folks would not see this since the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and has protected Democrats (particularly Obama) from day one.
What should bother people is Brokaw’s stated reason for not wanting Romney using the clip:
I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do no want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign. Politico
Who in their right mind thinks of Brokaw as a journalist? That would require objective reporting and proper vetting of political candidates. It would require an allegiance to the public and upholding the tradition of the media being a watchdog for the people of this country.
Brokaw is another member of the media wing of the Democrat party and he has failed to act as a journalist.
A commentator, sure, but in no way a journalist…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: barack obama, brokaw, journalist, lies, mitt romney, nbc, political ads
National Park Service Will Finally Enforce Law
Jan 28, 2012 Political
The FLEA Baggers (those affectionately called the Occupy Protesters by Democrats and their media wing) are causing ruin everywhere they go. In all the parks they occupy they bring in filth, rats, and disease (not including the STDs they are spreading). This is what happens when progressive types are left to set things up. They have some kind of organizational structure but there are very few rules in the do what you want environment so sanitation and hygiene become issues.
The FLEA Baggers have been given extraordinary access to public spaces. They have been given plenty of space and the laws have not been strictly enforced. If any other group of people had broken the laws and occupied spaces illegally they would have been removed but the laws were ignored by those charged with enforcing them.
Baltimore is a prime example. FLEA Baggers occupied an area in that city for quite some time stealing electricity and causing problems. The city finally sent the police to break up the crowd.
In DC, the FLEA Baggers have been occupying two parks in violation of the law. They are allowed to stay there but there are laws against erecting temporary structures and camping at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. The National Park Service will finally enforce those laws and tell the FLEA Bag crowd they must remove their tents and they are not allowed to camp there.
Ironically, they are protesting along K Street which is lobbyist road. The FLEA Bag crowd has attracted rats to their encampments but there is no indication if the rats are the vermin that lobby in DC or the four legged rodents that carry disease. My guess is the rats are the furry kind.
This will not go over well. The FLEA Bag folks have been given a pass on the laws and now they believe they have a right to break the law. The police should have been there enforcing the laws right from the start and there would be no confusion. By allowing the FLEA Baggers to stay for so long the police have given them reason to believe that the laws do not apply to them and that they are entitled to be there.
How long are people allowed to violate the law before police respond? How many times can people drive drunk or rob a bank (with police knowledge) before they are arrested? It seems that if you are a FLEA Bagger you can go for quite sometime while the police ignore you.
This will likely get ugly and the police will be perceived as the bad guys by the progressives and their media allies. The police will be cheered by those of us who think it is about time they enforced the law.
Unfortunately, if this is not peaceful the police will share the blame because they brought this on themselves by allowing the group to get away with breaking the law.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Democrats, flea bagger, laws, lies, occupy, park police, progressives
State Of The Union; Closer To Despotism
Jan 25, 2012 Political
Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address last night. It sounded pretty much like the last few except this was more like a state of his reelection effort speech.
Obama made it clear that Congress had failed to act (in reality, the Democrat controlled Senate has failed to act) and that if it does not act then Obama will take matters into his own hands.
What he basically said is, you guys need to do things and you need to do them the way I want or I will bypass you like I did with my appointments while the Senate was in session. I will ignore the Constitution and do what I want. So get busy.
Obama also said he wanted to push further toward being a dictator when he asked Congress for consolidated power.
The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. The Blaze
Given that Obama told Congress that if they did not act he would take matters into his own hands it is not unrealistic to assume that if Congress fails to give him the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy (consolidate power at the Executive, ie: Obama) then he will just do so on his own.
Since Obama has already bypassed Congress a number of times via Executive Order and through his agencies making rules because Congress did not act, not to mention making recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, he has effectively rendered that body irrelevant. He wants their blessing to consolidate power and become a dictator but that is a mere formality.
King Hussein will do as he wishes regardless.
Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence reads, in part:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. [emphasis mine]
They no longer have my consent. I do not wish to be governed by them and their disregard for the Constitution. If they don’t like that perhaps they should remember another part of from paragraph 2:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
It is our duty to throw off such a government and that we shall. We can start at the ballot box and if that does not work then we can go Founder on them.
Either way, I choose freedom.
Or to repeat another famous phrase (attributed to Patrick Henry):
Give me liberty, or give me death.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Abortion Is Safer Than Birth, For Whom?
Jan 24, 2012 Political
A new study shows, according to those who researched it, that women are 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth than they are from complications of an abortion. Dr. Anne Davis tells us that both procedures are safe but they are trying to let women who have reproductive issues know that abortion is not as dangerous as the anti abortion forces claim.
There is no doubt that childbirth is very stressful for women. A lot of stress is placed on the body and sometimes there are complications that lead to death.
However, while a woman giving birth might be 14 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion, the unborn children are nearly 100% more likely to die from an abortion than from child birth. I say nearly 100% because some infants die during child birth and some survive an abortion attempt (until Obama lets them be murdered) but they are much more likely to survive childbirth than abortion.
The study only takes into account the women involved and does not mention the unborn children. The fact remains that if women never died during childbirth or abortion, the unborn child almost always dies during abortion and almost always lives after childbirth.
These studies are designed to make abortion more acceptable and to attempt to discredit those opposed to the procedure. Abortions are safe, don’t worry about it. My God, you are 14 times more likely to die giving birth than you are having an abortion. Get the abortion, it helps you, it protects you, and it lines the pockets of Planned Parenthood.
How long will it be before the federal government requires the abortion murder clinics to tell women they are safer having an abortion than having a child?
Imagine if doctors told women that they are relatively safe either way but that their unborn children are nearly 100% assured of dying a horrible death if they have the abortion.
I know liberals. It is a woman’s body and her right to do what she wants with it. My question is, if it is her body then why are they tearing the arms and legs off her unborn infant. Whose body is it that gets aborted?
Pesky little kids, thank goodness we have abortions so that girls are not punished with pregnancy and they can have the same chances as boys in our society.
And it is safer than giving birth.
Really, tell that to the unborn children who thought they were being protected by their mothers…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, lies, planned parenthood, safer, unborn child
Obama, The Alleged Constitutional Law Professor
Jan 23, 2012 Political
The left fawns over Barack Obama. He, according to them, is the smartest prez ever, worldly, experienced, and a new kind of politician. He was, you know, a Constitutional Law Professor and he knows that document. We need to listen to King Hussein because he will bring us back to the Constitution.
Obama spoke to commemorate the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Roe v Wade, the decision that gave us federally recognized abortions and removed the decision on whether to allow them or not from the states. The decision violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that anything not in the Constitution (or prohibited by it) belongs to the states or to the people.
If you search the Constitution you will not find anything about abortion. There is nothing in there that allows the federal government to decide on abortions. Therefore, the issue belongs to the states or to the people.
But the SCOTUS decided on it anyway and we have been stuck with a flawed decision ever since.
Obama said that the 39th anniversary of Roe is a chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right to abortion.” There is no fundamental Constitutional right to an abortion because it is not enumerated in the document. Allowing an abortion or not is something that should have been left to the states but that would overshadow Obama’s murderous position on the subject.
Obama also said that abortions allow our daughters the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. Really now? Murdering your unborn child gives you this? I guess it should come as no surprise since Obama thinks pregnancy is a punishment.
What amazes me is that the alleged expert on the Constitution is all too happy to run around touting a nonexistent right while he completely opposes a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Barack Obama opposes gun ownership. He is a big proponent of gun control and he was even involved in a scheme to gin up phony gun problems in order to push for tougher gun laws (Fast and Furious). Obama does not believe that gun ownership is an individual right even though the SCOTUS has affirmed that which is written in the Constitution. Obama covertly works to impose tougher gun laws in violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a document of convenience for liberals and Obama is no exception.
Interestingly, Obama made this claim:
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.” [emphasis mine] CNSNEWS
How come that broader principle does not extend to not having to buy health insurance if you do not want it? That is a choice, that is a private issue and yet Obama is not on the side of allowing us to decide for ourselves. He will force this on us. Why is it that Obama favors gun control and wants to remove the private matter of whether to own a firearm?
Obama and his liberal/progressive/Socialist party have no problem getting involved in our private family matters each and every day. We have an intrusive government and Obama is fine with that. He has no problem being involved in private matters, just not abortion.
Obama thinks that pregnancy is a burden on women and that abortion allows our daughter to have the same opportunities as our sons.
Don’t you wish his mother had felt that way?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, lies, Obama, roe v wade, socialists
Loading ...
Loading...
