Nov 6, 2012 Political
Serial sex offender Bill Clinton said something quite interesting and very ironic while campaigning for Barack Obama. Clinton asked the crowd if they wanted a president that repeatedly lies.
“You’re laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?” Daily Caller
Bill Clinton repeatedly lied to the American public regarding his affair with an intern and he continually denied that he had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers. Yes, Bill Clinton repeatedly and knowingly lied to the American public.
And yet he was OK with running for election and then reelection. He had no problems with having a liar when he was the liar in question.
His allegations about Romney lying are just that. There is no proof that Romney knowingly and repeatedly said things that were not true.
But we know Obama did and continues to do so. Obama has repeatedly and knowingly lied about the murder of four Americans in Libya. Barack Obama was responsible for their deaths and he has been covering it up with one lie after another.
So Bill, you might be on to something. Obama is a liar and we do not want him.
Thanks for endorsing Mitt Romney and explaining why America should never have put you in office.
Is there nothing a Clinton won’t do or say?
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 8, 2011 Political
Bill Clinton is upset by proposed laws in Florida and New Hampshire. Those laws would not allow people from other states, who happen to be attending college in these two states, to register to vote in the states. The law would require them to vote in their home states.
Clinton likens this to Jim Crow laws. This is nothing more than rhetoric designed to inflame the issue, which really should be a non-issue.
The members of our military who are stationed in a state other than their state of residence are not allowed to register to vote in the states in which they are stationed. They use a little thing called an absentee ballot. They request one, fill it out, and send it in. Then Democrats work really hard to have them discounted.
College kids from all states should be required to do the same thing. This IS the reason we have an absentee ballot process.
What Clinton fails to understand (as do many Democrats) is that voting requires a bit of personal responsibility. Now I know Democrats are not big on personal responsibility (and one only needs to look at Clinton to see that) but it is required nonetheless.
If college students can’t request an absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it in then they do not need to vote. This is not an undue burden and it certainly does not rise to the level of Jim Crow.
What is it with Democrats and voting? Why do they claim ID requirements will disenfranchise people when the very people they claim will be disenfranchised need IDs to collect from the many government programs from which they benefit?
Why is it some kind of burden for people to fill out an absentee ballot if they will not be home on election day?
This all requires people to be responsible for their vote. If they can’t do that then they do not need to vote.
Hell, will we have to spoon feed them next to ensure they eat properly?
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 3, 2010 Political
Robert Byrd of West Virginia died earlier this week and was eulogized on Friday. Byrd had a long career in the Senate and directed billions of taxpayer dollars to his state so he could get everything named after him. They might rename the state after him by the time it is all said and done.
One thing that happens when people have long public lives that are controversial is that their friends try to whitewash the history or rewrite it. Bill Clinton did this when he indicated that Byrd had a fleeting association with the KKK. Byrd had more than a fleeting association. He was also, contrary to what is NOW being reported, in the Klan long enough to break in his sheets.
Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while he was in his 20s and 30s. This is contrary to his claim of losing interest after a year and not paying his dues any longer. We also know that Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. This is not something he would have been put into immediately. It takes time to be appointed to these things so it is unlikely that he had only a fleeting association with the KKK.
This is how liberals like Bill Clinton rewrite history. They and their allies in the media, those who never held the racist views of Byrd against him because he is a liberal, whitewash the facts.
People like Clinton claim there was a fleeting association and we are supposed to believe that it was solely because Byrd wanted to get elected (as Clinton claims).
If he did this only to get elected (which is moronic to even suggest) then why would we want him in office? The implication from Clinton is that Byrd was not some foaming at the mouth racist and only joined the KKK in order to get the votes of all those people who were. If this is the case he is no better than they and anyone who would join a hate filled racist group just to get elected is not worth having in office (though one could argue that joining the Democrat party amounts to joining a hate filled racist group in order to get elected).
And if we are to believe that Byrd did not join because he is a racist but only to get elected then why did he say so many racist things? Why did he oppose Civil Rights Legislation? Why did he lament that we needed a resurgence of the KKK (well after that year he supposedly became disinterested)? [Wikipedia]
Supporters of Byrd (liberal apologists) will claim that Byrd apologized for this and was truly sorry. While it is true that Byrd has apologized there is no indication that he actually meant it. How do we know, as Bill Clinton might suggest, that the only reason he apologized was so he could get reelected? How do we know he actually repented?
Late in his life he advised young people wanting to get in politics not to get the albatross of the KKK around their necks. He never denounced the KKK in the advice, he only indicated that membership in it would harm a political career. Later in his life he used the word “white nigger” on television to refer to poor white people and nary a word was said by the same people who demanded Don Imus be fired for saying “nappy headed hos”. What would posses a person who repented for his racist past to use such a word? We know he got away with it because he is liberal but why would he even use it?
Perhaps Byrd was truly serious and he had changed his ways. I know people who were racist and who later in life realized they had been wrong all along. It happens and maybe this is true with Byrd.
However, it is not right to sugarcoat or whitewash his past in an effort to rewrite history or give legitimacy to what he did. Byrd was in the Klan longer than he led us to believe and longer than Clinton’s assertion of a “fleeting association” and Byrd was certainly a racist much longer than he was in the Klan. Regardless of what the KKK speculates or Bill Clinton says, the history is there and it suggests a different story.
And it suggests that saying Robert Byrd had a fleeting association with the KKK is like saying Bill Clinton had a fleeting association with sexual misconduct.
The thing that works out best is that Byrd is no longer in the Senate so his sorry butt will not have to be abused to get votes. I did not like him but it was pathetic to see him wheeled around in a snowstorm at midnight just to have enough votes to pass something.
Be kind of funny if that is what killed him…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 16, 2010 Political
Wow, I hope the use of the word target in the title does not cause progressives to become apoplectic. I would not want them to get visions of violence and start having fits about how language might incite people to do bad things. Not to worry little libs, the only violent people are on your side and the radicals in Islam.
Feminism is a movement that started a long time ago when women burned bras and demanded to be treated the same as men. Then when they were in the workplace and subject to listening to men talk they filed suits for harassment. The radical part of that movement has been largely associated with liberal women and their love the one you’re with, I can do it better, don’t hold that door for me attitudes. I bet the founders of that movement wish they had kept those bras so that their navels would not be between their breasts.
Women demanded equality. A noble cause to be sure but anything can be carried to extreme. I hold the door for people behind me no matter who they are and I have never had another man tell me he did not need me to hold a door for him. I can’t say the same about a few women I have encountered along the way. The problem is that some of these very people who demand the equal treatment whine when they get it.
Sarah Palin is a person who unites a lot of people. She either unites conservatives who agree with her or she unites the liberal/progressives who oppose anything she says and are afraid of her because she gets attention and she can influence races involving their beloved candidates. They claim not to fear her but they go out of their way to lie about her, attack her and her family, and to attack anything involving her. They do this because she scares them.
So Palin has set her sights on several Democrats in the upcoming election. She is working on getting them defeated and they don’t like that too much. Yes, several of the ones she has picked to defeat are women and they are not too happy about it.
Now it makes sense to say they are not happy. No one would be happy about being targeted for defeat but these women are upset because she is attacking other women. They feel that women in Congress get along pretty well regardless of party and that Palin, a conservative feminist, is not doing the feminist movement any good by going after the sisterhood of women. You got that? They are upset because she is going after women who have worked so hard to make it in a man’s world and that is just terrible. Women should not treat each other this way, boo, hoo.
Perhaps these women would care to chime in on how well the women in Congress get along and demonstrate how well Michele Bachmann is treated by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has made Bachmann the number 1 target of the Dems so I don’t see much love and cooperation there. Certainly there is not as much as the Fem-Dems claim.
Let me help them out. Listen up ladies, you all wanted equal treatment and this is what you are getting. Palin has a number of males on her list so you are treated the same as any other Democrat who needs to be removed from office regardless of sex. It is your equal treatment so quit your whining. If you don’t like it then work hard to stop it and work hard to get reelected. Work hard to dispute what Palin and her supporters will say about you and your record. Run on your abilities and your leadership. If what you have is good then you should be reelected.
Whining about another woman targeting you is not effective and does little for the feminist movement you claim to defend. It makes you look like the weaker sex. It makes it look as if you can’t handle the same heat as the men. It makes it look as if you want it both ways, equality but special treatment when it benefits you.
Buck up ladies because Sarahcuda has you in her cross-hairs.
Oops, there I go again with that talk that Bill Clinton thinks could incite violence. Funny Clinton’s name came up.
The feminist reaction to his antics helped them lose a lot of credibility.
Perhaps they secretly wanted treatment equal to Monica’s…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 13, 2010 Political
As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of taxing the rich more to pay our bills. The wealthy in this country pay most of the bills and suffer the biggest burden for the spending of our government while 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes and many of those get back money they never paid in (redistribution of wealth). Progressives are big on having the rich pay the bills and they work hard every day to raise taxes on the wealthy but only on the wealthy who are not politicians. The political class thinks the taxpayer should foot the bills for them as well.
Case in point, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008 and she lost to Barack Obama. Clinton amassed a lot of debt during that time and has yet to pay all of it off. She still owes just over three-quarters of a million dollars. The Clintons have over 100 million dollars and Bill earns at least $250,000 each time he gives a speech but they have decided that they should not write the check for her debt even though it would not dent their personal fortune. Hillary’s campaign still has over 600 thousand dollars in the bank so she could settle a large part of this debt with money that was already donated (and pay the rest out of her personal fortune) but the Clintons do not want to do it that way.
By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million (£73 million) through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves. Times Online UK
Instead, they want voters to pay off the debt for them. Bill Clinton is offering a day with him in New York to a person selected from those who donate to settle Hillary’s debt. People are urged to donate as little as $5 to get a chance to be picked to spend the day with Bill. This is reportedly the second time such an offer has been made (I guess he is not as hot a commodity as he thought) as Bill works to get others to pay his debt.
This is typical of progressives. They love to spend money but they do not like to pay the bills with their own money. They would rather get money from others to pay their bills.
When Bill was president and, later, Hillary a Senator, they loved taxes and making the rich pay. Bill Clinton said he did not feel he was taxed enough (though he has not sent more money to the government, which he could do) and he and his wife love the idea of taxing the rich to pay the bills. They just don’t want rich people to have to pay the bills if they are the rich people in question.
I have a suggestion for the Clintons that would erase their campaign debt.
Take the money the campaign has in the bank and add it to enough of your personal wealth to pay the bill. Then write a check to pay it off.
You get the responsibility of paying your own bills, your creditors get their money, and the people do not foot the bill for what you spent.
Progressives love to spend other people’s money.
Never surrender, never submit.