Petty Larceny Or A Hate Crime And In Your Face Politics

Police in York County South Carolina are reporting that the county Republican headquarters was targeted by vandals. Some of the in your face Obama supporters spray painted “Republican means slavery” on the door and stole (as well as defaced) some McCain signs. The police state that the vandals could face charges of petty larceny (for the stolen signs) and damage to property. The question is, why is it not a hate crime?

This act absolutely has a racial component to it. The criminals mentioned slavery and indicated that Republican [rule] means slavery. This was obviously written by a moron who, if he attended school, was a part of the public school system. Otherwise this person would have known that the Democrats have the long history of opposing civil rights and Republicans have always been in favor of equality. Republicans died to end slavery. Frances Rice of the NBRA details the racist history of the Democratic party here. So, once again, why is this not a hate crime?

If someone had spray painted “KKK” on the doors of a Democratic headquarters and across Obama signs then it would be investigated as a hate crime. Why do you suppose there is this double standard?

At the same time we have in your face Obamamaniacs defacing Republican property we have Representative John Lewis of Georgia saying that the rhetoric coming out of McCain’s camp is incendiary and racist and could cause violence. Lewis compares McCain to George Wallace whose rhetoric Lewis claims led to the church bombing in Birmingham Alabama. I will remind those of you who attended public schools that Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP in his first failed election bid and then he returned to his segregationist roots after complaining of being “outniggered” by his opponent. It is important to keep in mind that Wallace was a Democrat. It is also important to remember that pointing out your opponent’s flaws is not racism and the only people who are playing the race card are Democrats.

Obama and his surrogates like Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are happy to point out how racist the Republicans are and how they are stoking anger that might be directed against The One. I don’t believe that the rhetoric from the McCain campaign is any more likely to inspire someone to hurt Obama than Obama’s rhetoric is to incite a wacko Obama supporter to off McCain or Palin. There are plenty of people following Obama who hate whites (Obama is one himself) who would be happy to off McCain and if he were in the lead I would not be surprised to see and in your face Obamamaniac give it a try. Obama has a relationship with a known, unrepentant, domestic terrorist and he has the support of terrorists around the world. Leaders of Muslim countries that sponsor terrorism want Obama to win and have expressed those sentiments. If Obama is so worried about ties being made between him and terrorists then he should explain why they see him as so appealing.

Even Fidel Castro has gotten in on the act. He says that racism in the US will cause Obama to lose a lot of votes. I think there are plenty of whites who will not vote for him because he is black. I also believe there are just as many blacks who will vote for him based solely on his color so it is a wash. These reasons are as legitimate as any. People are free to vote for or against someone based on anything they want. Some people vote based solely on the issue of abortion. You will either vote for a person who supports murdering unborn children or you won’t. Not voting for Obama for whatever reason does not make you a racist. You might be one, but not voting for him is not what makes you one.

Perhaps Castro should worry about Cuba’s food crisis instead of American elections. Perhaps Congressman John Lewis should be worried about something important with regard to the elections. Maybe he should be looking into the rampant Democratic voter fraud that is taking place in many states, especially the swing states. ACORN is registering dead people who are actually showing up to vote and there are hundreds of thousands of registrations that are illegal. Obama will benefit from multiple votes from one person and fraud as dead people vote for him. This should not be surprising since Obama paid ACORN nearly 1 million dollars to commit this fraud.

The last few weeks are going to get very ugly and if stupid Americans elect Barack Obama then it will get uglier. There are plenty of examples of people committing voter fraud and this vandalism will get worse. It is time to ensure that America remains whole.

Get rid of ACORN and throw out every registration they have filed. This means all of them whether they are good or not because we can’t be sure. If people want to register they can go to or call the elections office. The people Obama worked for, and eventually paid, at ACORN are breaking the law. We also need to stop all taxpayer money from going to them and we need to put the ones who broke the law in jail.

We need to catch those who vandalize and prosecute them and then put them in jail.

The last thing we need to do is ensure Obama does not get elected. Remember to keep lists of anyone you know who is voting for him so that you can hold them responsible later. After Clinton screwed up you could not find someone who admitted voting for him. This time we will know who to hold accountable.

The funny thing about all this is that Obama said for his people to be in their faces. As soon as the McCain folks got in faces it was deemed incendiary and racist.

Democrats, always the victims….

Big Dog

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

10 Responses to “Petty Larceny Or A Hate Crime And In Your Face Politics”

  1. Barbara says:

    This election is a battle of good vs evil. Only christians will see this. Christians need to ask God’s mercy for America and repent for the sins of this country. The bible says that God sets the king in office and also removes him. Pray that the ungodly people in our government will be removed. We are to vote God’s way, which is righteousness, and not for the color of one’s skin.

    Obama is evil and I don’t understand how people cannot see this after what America suffered on 9/11. If you put him in office, you are saying that what the terrorists did was okay. You will suffer with socialistic medicine (ask the people in Canada). Aborted babies who survive will be thrown down to suffer and die. He has lied so much that he doesn’t know what the truth is anymore. The democrats are laughing at how much they have gotten away with and think the people don’t know it. Yes, it’s time for a change. The democratic congress is killing America. Please think and pray before you vote.

  2. Mustang says:

    What I assume you refer to is the sliding scale of integrity. This is a prevalent tool used by most every politician, providing “wiggle room” should anyone call them on it later on. Now obviously, what Mr. Obama meant to say was, “Speak to your adversaries in a way that let’s them know you have passion in your souls for an Obama presidency.” Of course, to you and I “in your face politics” means something entirely different from what is probably means to a three-time convicted felon. Here’s an example of acceptable IYF politics: “Mr. Obama is the messiah . . . listen to him when he speaks.”

    For the record, it does not mean, “Is Mr. Obama an Arab Terrorist?” You see, that’s just plain racial politics and we can’t have that. No, not even if true. Another unacceptable example is, “Mr. Obama has associated himself with anarchists and domestic terrorists for the past 20 years.” You see, the truth is no defense in such matters.

    I’m glad I could explain this to you, Big Dog. Let me know if you need further consulting services. Also, please remit $10.00 for this session.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Thanks Mustang,
    I was unclear on that so it was good of you to point it out. I am a bit short on cash, the gubmint took it all to pay off Wall Street but I am good for it.

  4. ice9 says:

    I see you’re slurping up Michele Malkin’s vomit again, dawg.

    As to the dildonics on sign vandalism, note that there is a big difference between vandalizing signs–plenty of people have done that, on both sides of the argument–and inciting violence against a candidate from the top of the ticket. Even in your slavering state of institution-quality insanity, you must see that McCain and Palin are inciting violence–why else would McCain try to back it off?

    In your dimness, are you aware that Palin quoted in her acceptance speech, without attribution, a man who called for the assassination of Bobby Kennedy (by headshot) in the pages of major newspapers? A man who regretted an assassin’s decision to spare FDR and kill another man on the same stage? That’s a clarion call to your ilk, doggy-style. Your people revel in obscure conspiratorial code-phrasing, and imagine Sarah Palin, of all people–an incompetent small-town politician–as the savior of this Christian Nation.

    And McCain pals around with Gordo Liddy, famous candle-hand, he of the mafia hit and the noble silence to protect Ehrlichman and Nixon, for god’s sake. Liddy who espoused, with his typical tough-guy grit, proper techniques for knocking down ATF agents. I see you forgot to mention that. Oh, he’s–and you’re–loyal, very. What patriots you are.

    Malkin, typically, elides the difference between the misdemeanors of the incited and the high crime of incitement. For her, one more mark of the intentional distortion (as opposed to your own distortions, which are just the outgrowths of a limited mind.) When you see copious proofs of a simple point, such as Malkin’s long lineup of deranged and terroristic democrats, you can be sure that she’s trying to divert attention from the true issue. Polls show that the people aren’t buying it, thank jebus, but you are, which is at least consistent in the one thing–and entertaining.

    Only problem with her post (yours much less sophisticated, but still completely illogical too) is that it’s a complete turnaround from your “rhetoric” during the Bush Administration, soon to be late and unlamented. Do we support the president because of the inherent dignity of his office, or not? You and your ilk have demanded for eight years that we give the president the benefit of the doubt, repudiate our constitutional rights to speak and criticize, just because he’s the Prezdent. Do you follow your own logic? If you don’t, well, yet another confirmation that you are a dishonest person, and not a patriot by any stretch. By the way, how do you know Obama will not make a good president? Aren’t you being a tad hasty in your evaluation?

    kay pero, a true SOB–the Dog.


  5. Big Dog says:

    Ice, you do well with the talking points. Liddy was discussing federal agents storming a home illegally and said that if you shoot at the people storming in aim for the head because they wear body armor. Good advice. Liddy committed NO acts of terror in this country. He broke the law and paid his price in jail, Ayers did not and he killed people.

    The only people who say McCain/Palin are inciting violence are the idiots who see racism in everything. I could play that game. You stated “That’s a clarion call to your ilk, doggy-style. Your people revel in …”

    Your ilk, your people? How racist of you. These are code words for white people and you are a racist.

    You see, anyone can find something in nothing. I knew what you meant but then again, I am brighter than the average Obama supporter.

    They are not inciting violence. Inciting violence is when you tell people to get in their face.

    Obama is not the president yet. I will respect his office if he gets there but I am free to do as you and your ilk have done to Bush. I can criticize him and call him names and say what I want because you see, I can be like you all and claim he is not my president.

    BTW, I never said you should blindly follow President Bush. I have had many problems with things he has done and have expressed them. But I have agreed with some of the things he has done. I expect people to express their differences but it would help if they actually expressed a cogent thought rather than spewing DNC talking points or regurgitating the Daily Kos.

    How do I know Obama will make a bad president? I have seen his kind before.

    It might be hard to notice at first because the media, like they have done all along, will cover for him. But it will show. Socialism and Communism have a way of showing themselves like when they say; We want to redistribute your money so everybody gets some.

  6. ice9 says:

    Ouch. Panties-in-a-twist alarm. I don’t use talking points, I write my own, and make up the facts I need. Go ahead, check me.
    By “ilk” of course I’m just referring to the inbred catchphrasers that amen your posts here. I didn’t intend any offense by using that word. The offense was in the other more explicit statements I made. Though I don’t think I asserted racism.

    Not sure where the race card comes from. I explicitly omitted Palin’s antisemitism-by-association because it’s obviously outside of the intent of her references in the acceptance speech. I accuse McCain and Palin and especially their surrogates of inciting violence by calling Obama a terrorist and a communist, and encouraging falsehoods about him–he’s foreign-born, for example, or a Muslim. Furthermore the violence is visible at the rallies, so is it unincited?–I saw firsthand a woman refer to Obama as a terrorist and an “arab” recently, received enthusiastically by the crowd and uncritically by the candidate (though he did refer to Obama positively in the next breath). The next day I attended a calm and positive Obama rally. Nobody called McCain anything but old, though I did hear one person say that Palin had “a nice rack.” That one went uncorrected.

    But if it’s racism you want, the cowardly and ugly use of Raines in the Fannie Mae ad is good enough for me. I suppose you wouldn’t call the Willie Horton ad racist. And all the lynching, that was just good fun, and those boys was communists anyhow and deserved to burn alive with their testicles in their mouths. See how we liberals do that? Jump from one related thing to the next…it’s obvious to any right-thinking Murican that there’s no relationship between those things. Just ask Strom or George or Orville. No relation at all, whatsoever. Nope. We have a clear conscience.

    Actually I’d take you at your word on supporting the next president–and probably agree that a few bright lights on the left have played the “not my president” card as well. But that card was invented by Clinton-haters (well, Truman-haters first, more specifically the John Birch Society, who were promptly chastised for it by none other than Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, but by then Eisenhower was in so it was moot). Do you repudiate that practice? Sounds to me like you do. See? We’re all just getting along.

    I’m also gladdened to see you accept that Liddy’s “paid his price in jail”–that exonerates a lot of your usual-suspect villains on the left, too, as well as a couple hundred thousand voters. No need to exonerate Ayers, who though he admitted “setting bombs” was never convicted of anything more than unruly protesting and bad grooming. Fact is my Hyde Park sources say Ayers is a poseur who never really did much Weathermanning–mainly strutting around and making it with the notoriously easy Weatherwomen. And of course he lost his nerve when his more courageous bomb-buddies cut the blue wire and turned themselves into a fine red mist. Definitely more heroic to fire nearly 70 rounds from M1’s at a bunch of hippies in Ohio. No terror there. Or to destroy a village to save it. It requires complex logical contortions to perceive North and Liddy as noble and Ayers as some sort of awful terrorist; why not condemn them all? Obama has.

    By the way, Professor Ayers probably did more to improve Chicago education than the entire Bush administration Department of Education. (by the way, you should read up on the new gay high school in Chicago. I’d expect some lovely frothy screeching on that one.)

    But suppose I concede Liddy–what’s your response to the coterie of other McCain/Palin “terrorist buddies?” You got some talking points of your own, there? More important–is one terrorist enough to impeach a candidate’s integrity? Or does it take two, or five? What’s the cutoff? Because I can see you one Ayers and raise you a bunch of Nicaraguan Contras, torturing children and raping nuns on the American dollar (even recently, McCain wrote a check.) And let’s not forget that North was selling weapons to Iran while they held American hostages–in order to finance the Contras’ terror under the table.

    No, the only clear difference here is that some of the terrorists are commies and some are not. On that I suppose we must disagree, though recent rather commie behavior on the part of the GW Bush executive and the congress–not to mention both candidates–muddies the waters that were so clear before.

    Always a pleasure

    Yours in Bokonon,


  7. Big Dog says:

    70 rounds at Kent State. That really disappoints me. Only 4 people were killed. Not that I think any should have been but what kind of training did they have to miss that many times? You put a bunch of people with weapons where they are outnumbered and let all hell break loose and someone is going to get shot. Maybe the hippies should have been in class.

    I am glad you brought up the lynching and cut testicles. All acts of the Democrats who are the racist party and who developed Jim Crow laws. The history of that party is replete with atrocity after atrocity while Republicans were trying to pass civil rights legislation.

    I don’t see a connection between North and Liddy to Ayers. Ayers attacked this country. I don’t care who says he did not do it, he said he did and he said they did not bomb enough.

    Anyone who reads what I write here knows I have long advocated for us to vote them ALL out of office regardless of party. I am not happy with any of them and the bailout was the final straw. Ron Paul was correct all along. I have had my problems with Bush but I think he is better than the choices we had at the time.

    The choices we have now are not great. 300 million people here and these 2 are the best we can do? But I agree with some of McCain’s policies and none of Obama’s.

    If elected, Obama will be my president because I am an American. That means I get to applaud him when he does good and I get to go after him (read that as in the non threatening way) and take him to task.

    As for the rumors. You see Obama WAS a Muslim. His denial is the problem. Obama might have been born in Kenya because there are conflicting stories and no records to prove otherwise. Obama’s mother gave up his American citizenship when she moved him to Indonesia and he was registered as Indonesian (and Muslim).

    Obama could be forgiven for his association with Ayers if that was the only bad choice. He could say it was not the Ayers he knew and move on but he has had so many questionable associations that one has to get to the point where one realizes that this is not a coincidence.

  8. ice9 says:

    wow, more agreement. If nothing else, Kent State was a wonderful argument for keeping the National Guard out of combat because, even with a giant crowd of hippies to aim at, they only registered four kills.

    If Obama is such a poor candidate, why mourn his questionable (you say) citizenship? Why is it relevant? Much keening over Ayers’ “getting off on a technicality”, yet aren’t you attacking Obama over a technicality? No hassle on McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone; a hundred Democrats on record as asserting that they’d drop any objection to Schwarzenegger’s foreign birth, if he were to run…but not Dog. Foreign born, better off dead. Never mind that the Constitutional disqualification of a candidate for high office because of his foreign birth is an archaism designed expressly to annoy Alexander Hamilton, who died a while back. It’s a textbook example of a technicality. Who cares that ample clear and unequivocal multiply confirmed evidence for a Hawaii birth certificate, and only drooling wingnuts disagree? (and Jerome Corsi, who doesn’t qualify for drooling wingnut due to insufficient intelligence and subpar moral fiber). Who cares. Get him. He’s a furriner.

    And why pursue Obama on the utterly bogus Muslim charge (PS–I know your answer on both counts–but bear with me–I’m having fun.) No religious test for office–why assert a religious test? Could it be that you are bigoted against Muslims? Could it be that the vote-against-my-own-interests-and-call-it-Patriotism crowd are more motivated by fearful ignorance than cool rational issues-thinking? No!

    Crap–I went to a catholic school for first grade. Some time in the future, after my legislative career takes off, I’ll be painted with the Jesus brush. Doomed, and it’s so unfair!

    Any high school senior knows, by the way, that the Muslim or Foreign-birth argument is a classic political fallacy. For the slower canines, a lesson: attack someone on a fact, then argue that it isn’t the technical detail–in this case, foreign birth or association with the forbidden Islam–but the candidate’s honesty in dealing straight with the American people. A classic perjury trap, like the masturbatory fantasy that took a jesus-freak special prosecutor from an Arkansas land-deal all the way to a gynecological cigar. Oh no–it’s beneath our dignity to attack Obama for technicalities…but if he’d only been honest about them!

    And I love the dimly dangerous “not a coincidence!” Questionable associations! Innocence by association was possible, but no! He chose Terrorists! Sought them out–philanthropist neighbor terrorists, who had infiltrated conservative do-good education organizations, laid low for forty years, a mole just biding his time until he could read his ugly head and…do what? The Ayers guilt-by-association charge is a loser, as are they who flack it.

    Gad, I’d better be careful. I may be associating with terrorists! Forty years ago, when I in catholic school, I hung out with a guy who…there goes my career.

    Lies, lies, lies.


  9. Big Dog says:

    Ice, it does not matter if the rules in the Constitution are archaic (in your opinion) or why they are there. They are the law of the land and until the Constitution is changed then that is what we go by. It is this attitude of a Constitution we can change to suit our needs that causes problems today. Maybe we can decide freedom of speech is not a good idea and jail people for speaking out.

    It was not a good idea to keep women from voting (OK, I might have to think about that LOL) but we changed the Constitution just like we did with regard to slavery. If you don’t like the rules, change them the way the founders set forth. There was no hassle on McCain’s birth (there was a hassle by the left who wanted him disqualified) because he is qualified under the law. He was born to two Americans at a military location. That is in the law. Of course Democrats would change for Arnold. He is one of them (RINO) and Democrats never follow the rules.

    That is why it is important. Rules are rules.

    No religious test for office. I don’t care one way or the other but it goes to character. We have written proof he was, at one time, an adherent of Islam. He said he never was. He said he never worked for ACORN and now we see he did and not just as their lawyer. It is a pattern and it goes to character. I get tired of Kool Aid drinkers saying that Obama was never a Muslim as if because he said it, it is true. He was and if he had admitted it there would be fewer questions about his character.

    Once again, character is at issue with regard to Ayers (as well as judgment). First he associates with this guy who bombed buildings, and he deals with Rezko for his house (and who knows what else) and he hangs with Wright and Pfleger and all the other misfits. You can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps. The left is quick to make the guilt by association with McCain to Bush or Bush to the Saudi family or Cheney and Big Oil but ask questions about Obama’s lack of judgment on who he associated with and you receive veiled insults from people who only believe they are entitled to an opinion.

    As for Clinton, remember he lied under oath and that is what they got him for. He could have ended all of that had he (actually Hillary) not stonewalled and screwed around. If you keep blocking an investigator he will keep digging deeper. Perjury is a crime, well only when Libby does it. When Clinton did it the left, who demanded Libby’s head, excused it.