SF Wants Arizona Boycott And Obama Plays The Race Card

There is a big uproar by the morons in this country who seem to think that it is perfectly OK to break the law and that there should be no consequences for doing so. The same people who were apoplectic during the Plame controversy in eager anticipation of some unruly Republican lawbreaker being frogmarched out of the White House are working to help. and actively support, those who are here illegally.

Al Sharpton is organizing his group of rabble rousers to stir up trouble in Arizona. Pat Buchanan makes an interesting point about that. How many blacks will follow Sharpton given that a number of jobs they could be doing are held by the illegals who Sharpton is supporting?

Now San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is calling for a boycott of Arizona. What kind of moron is this so called attorney? Here is a guy who is an officer of the court who is expected to uphold the law and he is calling for a boycott of Arizona because he does not like the law they passed. If this law is unconstitutional then the courts will sort it out. Is it appropriate for parts of this country to call for boycotts because they happen not to like a particular law in another state?

Suppose California passed a gay marriage law and the rest of the country boycotted that state. Do you suppose people like Herrera (whose name and actions show where his loyalties lie and they are not to his country) would be up in arms?

I say screw San Francisco. Boycott them. California is on the brink of insolvency and it should not take too much more to push it over the edge. Start with San Francisco and see what happens from there. If we can hurt it enough they might need to get rid of Herrera. I have an idea where they can send him.

I like what Arizona did and I will wait to evaluate, on a case by case basis, whether or not there is “racial” profiling going on (can’t happen because Hispanic is not a race). If things turn out badly then they can fix it but it is time that the states started taking an active role in this mess because the federal government has no desire to fix it. The feds want to grant amnesty to all the illegals and be done with it so we can start over again and accumulate another 12 million illegals so they too can receive amnesty in five or ten years.

Arizona decided that this was not satisfactory. I could not agree more. I think that people should have to provide the same documentation to get a home, a loan, a driver’s license, a job, and assistance that I had to in order to join the Army and in order to get the job I currently have. If it is good enough for me it is good enough for them and if they cannot show the proper documentation then they need to get on out of here.

As for me, I think I will take a week and visit Arizona sometime this summer. Maybe they will stop me and ask if I am here legally. That would be fun and I would be happy to comply. I won’t even scream that they racially profiled me.

Don’t “profile” in Arizona but play the race card in DC.

Barack Obama released a new video this weekend and it is a desperate call for votes in the November election. In it he asks young people, women, African-Americans and Latinos to come out once again and vote in November (he ignored you for a while but now he needs you). He is begging for the help that these groups gave him in 2008 because he knows his party is going to get its head handed over on a platter in November. Mr. balls to the walls Obama is working hard to cram as much legislation through because after November he will be a lame duck first termer and Viagra won’t be able to help his impotence.

In his call to arms Obama neglected to ask for help from a group of people who ensured his victory and that would be the millions of white folks who voted for him in the last election. I guess he figures those folks are not that important. Let’s face it though, he needn’t ask blacks to vote for Democrats. Those votes are a lock. The Latinos, those folks supported him and now that he is trying to give them all amnesty they will be real happy. However, the group that overwhelmingly pays the bills in this country was excluded from his request. That is the one group that gave him the election because he could not have won without it.

Not that it matters. All politics are local and the local races are what will matter. Obama will lose a lot of them in November. It will be death by a thousand cuts.

And I will love watching it play out.

Be sure to visit Arizona this year and boycott San Francisco.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


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.

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.

36 Responses to “SF Wants Arizona Boycott And Obama Plays The Race Card”

  1. victoria says:

    I think this says it all right here about MSNBC and the left. There was a headline running across the screen apparently yesterday or last evening on that channel that said “New law makes it illegal to be in this country illegally”—because they just cannot understand the word illegal, I guess. Somewhere there is also a law about coming to this country that our federal government will not enforce which has made Arizona have to do this because US citizens are being kidnapped and killed and are living in fear down there.

  2. Bunny Colvin says:

    Good eye, Victoria! As usual, you miss half of the story. FauxNews ran the header “Illegal to be Illegal” during Fox and Friends the other morning. Is Fox News part of the “lamestream media”? Do tell.


    • Big Dog says:

      I think Fox was referring to what MSNBC said, not giving stating the same thing.

      Pointing out what MSNBC said is different than taking the stance.

      Nice try Bunny. Even you watch Fox because it is lonely at the other places.


  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Thank God the wise old Dog graciously committs his time to explaining to the ignorant masses how the same word-for-word caption can mean two entirely different things depending solely on what network is being viewed. Your brilliance never ceases to amaze me Dog.

    I’ve watched FauxNews every night for years. It’s my one stop shop for disinformation. No two hours of television can compete with Beck and Hannity for constant repitition of provable falsehoods.


    • Big Dog says:

      Can you show otherwise?

      And care to back up the claim about Perry with a source?

    • Blake says:

      Perhaps you could demonstrate a “provable falsehood” on the part of Beck, for example- I have yet to see ANY refutation of any statement by Beck yet- I have seen baseless smears, just as you do with Gov. Perry-
      But no FACTS that you use to back yourself up.
      You are just like a gaybasher who is secretly gay, but doesn’t want others in your little club to know- so you watch Fox News in the dark, behind closed doors, because if your liberal little friends get ready to throw YOU under the bus, at least Fox News will tell you, unlike the other networks, which have probably ten viewers, most of those in the WH.

  4. Cheapshot911 says:

    A word for word quotation, actually.
    Maybe it looked like a caption in the graphic.

    I saw it too.

    They were chuckling at it, not hawking it.

    What tha heck is a provable falsehood?
    It would seem that it would require an imaginary truth to counter it.

  5. Bunny Colvin says:

    Can I show otherwise? How can I “show” the meaning of a caption? Especially if only you can decifer its meaning.

    Who is this cheapsl*t charachter? Some johnny come lately? A provable falsehood is something that can be proven a falsehood. Like, I don’t know, if Hannity said “This bill ensures that should another ‘too big to fail’ situation arise, the gubment will be on the hook to bail them out”.

    The claim about Perry comes from an irrefutable source. Larry Sinclair. If he’s good enough for you people, I’ma have to take his word. Apparently, he’s got info that coyotes aren’t the only thing Ricky hunts. He and Lindsey Grahaba$$ been “hiking the Appalacian trail” together, as they say.


  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    Oh yeah. That’s yesterdays news, Dog. What you people don’t realize is that Perry was there too. And Larry Craig of “wide stance” fame. And Massa and Lindsey Graham were having a “tickle fight”. It was really wild from what Sinclair told me. Of course, Obama brought the drugs because he is black. Duh.


    • Big Dog says:

      I know there have been allegations but without any proof…

      Certainly if this guy has proof he needs to present it. And if Sinclair told you then I would have to ask what you were doing with him…

    • Big Dog says:

      Since Perry is the Texas governor it is unlikely he was in DC with the other guys you mention. Nice try though.

    • Soldier's Wife says:

      I don’t remember anyone here mentioning Obama’s 1/2 color, but you, Bunny. Sounds like you have a grudge against people of certain colors. Hope you can get help for that.

  7. Cheapshot911 says:

    Who am I?
    Who I am would only tend to matter if stereotyping is a large part of your strategy.
    In another tactic, liberals will make a lofty statement, then tinker with the definitions.
    “Provable falsehoods” infer that there is clear evidence to support the denial of veracity.
    And, as in your case, the “proof” is another series of contrivances.
    That’s why I questioned the definition,, and proposed the countermeasure, which you appear to vigorously apply.
    ‘Just wanted to see if you were any different than the rest.
    BTW, on a purely personal note,, do you only respect Johnny come early’s?
    Ahh, thass’ right, you’re a bunny,, my bad.

  8. Cheapshot911 says:

    And to answer:
    “How can I “show” the meaning of a caption? Especially if only you can decifer its meaning.”

    Actually, I was usin’ Dawg’s decoder ring (Thank Bro’).
    ‘Make’s it tough to spin it into sumthin’ else eh?

  9. victoria says:

    Haven’t seen Adam or Darrel around lately so now we have Bunny back. Do you plan this Big Dog or what?
    “In another tactic, liberals will make a lofty statement, then tinker with the definitions.”
    Couldn’t of said it better myself Cheapshot.

    • Soldier's Wife says:

      Good observations, victoria and Cheapshot.
      I am surprised they have not questioned our college educations or lack thereof, yet,
      I am sure it will happen though.

    • Blake says:

      Victoria, don’t you know that the liberals have a corps (as Barrie would say, “corpse”) that do nothing but come onto conservative blogs to muddy the discourse?
      If one or another can’t make it, you can be sure they will plug in yet another brain-dead idiot to try and cause the thread of the blog to veer off course- because they cannot abide people making up their own minds, or having thoughts that are not sufficiently “progressive”- that drives them crazy, because their egos demand that we not laugh at them- and yet, there they are.
      Bunny is just one of the nastier ones.

  10. Bunny Colvin says:

    Hmm, so let me get this straight Dog. Governors never go to Washington? That’s a new one. I always said you’d make a good detective. This case is closed. Perry could not possibly have been at the big gay drug party Obama and Mark Foley co-hosted. Because the bash was held outside the state of Texas. Got it.

    Soldier’s Wife- I’ve been reading your posts. You no doubt lack a college education. No questions asked.

    Victor- I don’t know Darrel or Adam. It’s too bad if they are no longer around though. Clearly both have attended college and their comments are far more enlightening than yours.

    Flake- wrong again. I am open about my FauxNews viewing. I came out long ago. I think it was after that sissy Beck started crying one night. No way I could play dumb on that one. Classic television.

    CheapSl*t- Your premature ejac issue is between you and your boyfriend. It makes no difference to me whatsoever.


    • Blake says:

      Well Buns- if you are open about your Fox News obsession, perhaps you might try listening for comprehension- and you still have not provided any example to back up your baseless assertions- perhaps you were the main focus of this alleged party?
      Were you the party favor? Is that how you “know”?

  11. Big Dog says:

    Sure governors go to Washington. You are asserting things based on nonsense like Obama/Foley parties and such.

    You keep asking for data for people’s claims but you make claims that you cannot back up and then call people names for calling you on it.

  12. Bunny Colvin says:

    Flake- why would I want to “comprehend” blatant lies and distortions?

    Ok ok, I’ll come clean. I wasn’t at the party. I was just trying to point out that if Larry Sinclair makes a claim about Obama, you fools believe it. If he were to make a claim about Rick Perry, you would immediately call him a liar.

    Rick Perry is gay. There is no “smoking gun” evidence out there to back it up, but then again there was no evidence to show Larry Craig was gay until he walked into that airport and spread ’em wide. Believe what you want to belive. Would any of you folks be comfortable taking a leak in a urinal next to the former senator?


  13. Bunny Colvin says:

    C’mon, Dog. Answer the question. You’re a homophobe, so tell me- would you be comfortable at a urinal next to Larry Craig? He’s a big “family values” republican, if you need your memory refreshed. Though gay himself, he was vehemently opposed to any same sex marriage bills or hate crime legislation protecting gays. You do remember him, don’t you?


    • Big Dog says:

      Of course you mischaracterize me as is the liberal way. I am not a homophobe and I don’t care who I am taking a leak next to. I use the restroom lots of times a year (in plenty of airports across the country no less) and often have no idea who is next to me or what his sexual orientation is and I don’t care. I am there to do one thing and that is what I do.

      Of course, Craig (and I am not defending him) was not caught doing anything lewd. His behavior was interpreted as such but no one knows what his real intent was. He should have just fought it and been done with it instead of playing games (pun intended).

      In any event, I would not care if he was at the urinal next to me. I am comfortable in my sexuality so it matters not to me (and for the record, he was in a stall).

  14. Bunny Colvin says:

    Yeah I know he was in a stall. No need for a “wide stance” at a urinal. I’m proud of you, Dog. I thought for sure you’d say you wouldn’t want to take a leak next to Larry Craig. How about Ted Haggard? Even my lefty self wouldn’t want to share a restroom with that guy. What a freak!


  15. Bunny Colvin says:

    I’d be worried if Ted Haggard strolled into a bathroom I was using and picked the urinal next to mine. Anyone not worried in this situation has issues.


  16. Bunny Colvin says:

    No, wrong. Barry Frank has been open about his sexuality for as long as I can remember. He doesn’t need to lurk in restrooms for anonymous gay sex. Or call male escorts to get him meth. These are the actions of closeted gay republicans, not out in the open liberal gays. Nice try, though.


    • Big Dog says:

      No, Frank has to have male brothels run from his house and has to sleep with the people in the mortgage industry while he worked on legislation that ruined the industry.

      Being open about one’s sexual orientation does not make that person less creepy…

  17. Bunny Colvin says:

    Ah, I thought the congress determined that Frank had no knowledge of the illegal activities being conducted at his house. That’s what the investigation found, unless I’m mistaken. Please correct me if I am wrong. And wasn’t it Larry “wide stance” Craig who howled the loudest that Barney should be thrown out of the House? Seems kinda hypocritical.

    I believe he was sleeping with a person in the mortgage industry before that person joined either Fannie or Freddie (I forget which). I’ll admit it appears shady but “power couples” in Washington often consist of an elected official and his/her spouse working in an industry that the gubment is involved in overseeing/regulating. Do you know who Phil and Wendy Gramm are, Dog? Did Phil “have to sleep with Wendy” (on the board of directors at Enron) while he worked on legislation that championed risk-taking at unprecedented levels and helped bring down Enron and drive world financial markets to the brink?

    Personally, I don’t know why anyone would want to sleep with either Barney Frank or Phil Gramm. I find them both physically repulsive. But you’re probably unaware even at this late stage in the game of how much harm Phil Gramm did to the U.S. economy while in office. Because as far as you’re concerned, he was a “champion of unregulated free markets”. And markets always work fine when free of gubment intervention. So simplistic. So wrong.


    • Big Dog says:

      Just because Congress found there was no problem or that he did not know does not mean that is the case. It is a good ole boy network for a reason.

      If Frank did not know then he is an idiot and should not have oversight of anything.

      It is a conflict of interest for him or anyone to be involved with someone and still have oversight. That is why people should recuse themselves. Frank was a major reason for the downfall of FANNIE (funny that name would apply to him) and FREDDIE.

      Gramm? Come now. Enron was guilty of no more wrong doing than the government. In fact, government uses the same accounting methods that Enron used and thinks it is OK? Enron was involved in energy and wanted the cap and trade scheme that is now being proposed. There need to be minimal regulations (like speed limits) but intrusion of government is what causes the problems. The CRA was the biggest downfall and it resulted in bad government regulation.

      The free market allows people to make thei rown investment decisions and businesses thrive or fail on their own. This is different than them getting all the profits when they thrive but the taxpayer paying the bill when they fail. This is because of government intrusion. Let those that are going to fail actually fail.

      Imagine how well Vegas would do if you started with 10,000 of your own money and got to keep the winnings but if you lost money the house gave it back to you…

  18. Bunny Colvin says:

    As usual, you oversimplify. (To give you a taste of your own medicine, so did I in my last comment re: Elian Gonzales). Like I said, you know little of markets or the fundamentals of finance. You have no idea why everything went down the way it did so you assume that it was due to the damn gubment tryin to regulate everything.

    Should Paulson have let the entire financial industry fail? Would that have been the proper solution? Do you have a 401(k) or some other type of retirement account? If so, would you have been content to watch your savings disappear due to flawed risk-management models at almost every investment and major commercial bank in America?

    Yeah, just let the market sort it out. Even if that means the next great depression. Good thinking, Dog.


  19. Big Dog says:

    I have a 401 k and I moved the money to a less risky investment when things went bad. I am in better shape now than I was then. That is the reality, we are responsible for our own investments and when i need information I talk to my broker. If you are going to invest then have professionals handle it for you if you do not know what to do. I do some of my own stuff and he handles the more complex stuff and he finds me nice opportunities.

    You make assumptions about what I do an do not know about finances. I do quite well with my own investments. I know about finances, investments and the market. I am no stock broker but I know how things work. I also know less government is good. Government rules allowed those “flawed” models.

    The government did not need to jump in and spend a trillion dollars. The problem is going to get worse and be payable in the future. Yes, if they are going to fail then let them fail.

    We had a Great Depression while the rest of the world had a depression because of government intervention. FDR screwed that all up.

  20. Bunny Colvin says:

    “Yes, if they are going to fail then let them fail.”

    Well, however misguided, at least you stick to your guns. You are a true believer, Dog. Unlike those pansies on Wall St. who could always be counted on to oppose any type of gubment spending…unless of course, it was to save their own a$$es.

    “I also know less government is good. Government rules allowed those ‘flawed’ models”.

    Wrong. It was lack of regulation that allowed the flawed models to exist. Had the gubment implemented capital controls, excessive risk taking would have been reined in. Do you know what leverage is, Dog? Also (as I’ve stated before yet you refuse to believe), regulations of OTC derivatives very well might have done some good. But you just can’t admit it. Regulation bad, free market good- right caveman?

    “We had a Great Depression while the rest of the world had a depression because of government intervention. FDR screwed that all up”.

    Oversimplified, to say the least. But hey, we’re used to it by now.