Big Dogs House

Hollywood Libs And The Things They Say

Sep 25, 2011 Political

It would be nice if the liberals who are in the world of entertainment would stick to what they are paid to do and quit making fools of themselves by saying moronic things. We have plenty of wealthy actors telling us the wealthy should pay more taxes and they would be happy to do so and all the while they have accountants working to keep their tax burden low. They could all write checks to the government but for some reason, they don’t.

The latest liberal lunacy from the world of entertainment comes to us from Michael Moore and Morgan Freeman.

Moore is always talking about peace and how we should not be at war but he is OK with violence against the “man” if things are not going the way he likes. Moore has no problem with liberals attacking and harassing people on Wall Street and he certainly is not opposed to liberals who protest people like George W Bush even when those folks carry signs calling for Bush’s assassination.

But Moore had some advice for his fellow rich people and that is they can only build walls so high and that people are going to deal with them. He says it should be non violent for now. Moore is saying to let the political process take care of things but if they are not how people want then violence is OK. If people take to the streets or do something crazy will the left blame Moore for his veiled threat?

Then we have child molester Morgan Freeman. This whack job thinks the TEA Party is all about a bunch of racists who can’t stand a black man being in the White House. It does not occur to him that perhaps the people are opposed to Obama’s policies. No, they just have to be racists because they oppose Obama. What were the people of color who opposed Bush? I say people who were opposed to his policies and you can bet that is what Freeman would say. Let people oppose a black politician and it must be racism.

It is amazing a guy whose name is Free-Man would throw in the race card.

Who is Freeman to question the motives or moral position of people in the TEA Party? Freeman is dating his 27 year old step granddaughter and has been for 10 years. It is reported that he was having a physical relationship with her when she was 17 and that makes him a child molester. Rumor has it they are getting married.

How creepy is that?

Perhaps Freeman dropped his TEA Party attack in order to take the heat off himself. I would gladly allow most any member of the TEA Party around my daughter. Freeman, not at all.

Just another day in the land of entertainment. Liberals acting moronic with veiled threats of violence and child molestation.

And these people think we should listen to them.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: child molester, liberalism, mental disorder, michael moore, morgan freeman, violence

How Many People At The Rally And Were They Racists?

Aug 29, 2010 Political

Moron Liberal’s Sign

The usual post rally numbers game is underway and people are saying that as few as 87,000 and as many as 1 million people attended the Restoring Honor event in DC. The liberal left needs to minimize the numbers because the bigger the numbers are the weaker its position becomes.

I was at the rally and I believe there were closer to a million people than to 87,000. The New Carrollton Metro station had 8000 to 10,000 people in line when I arrived. It took nearly 2 hours to get to the train and when I did get on the train the line down below was longer than when I arrived. The entire Mall was surrounded by people and the crowd extended to the Washington Monument. The open area to the left (when looking at the Lincoln Memorial) was completely full of people and the right had densely packed groups way into the wood line (they cannot be seen from the overhead shots but they were there and they were packed in there).

The crowd was mostly white (as is the population of this country) but there were quite a few people of color in attendance. I saw many, many people who were not white and they appeared to be enjoying themselves. In fact, two women of color were walking next to me on the way to the Mall and one looked to the other and said; “Can you believe he asked me where the Al Sharpton event was? I told him over there where those 10 people are. I am going down here where everyone else is.” She was amused that the person would assume that since she was not white she would be on her way to see Sharpton rather than Beck. She got a huge laugh out of it as did everyone with whom she shared the story.

I understand that the left is upset by all the attention non liberal groups get and it needs to fight it any way it can. This is why everything is labeled racist. But minimizing the crowd at this event and repeating the same tired lines about it being very white is getting old. Whites are a majority of the population and when one considers that 95% of blacks are held captive on the Democrat plantation then it is easy to see why throngs of blacks are not at these types of events. However, rejecting the validity of an event because it has too many people of one color and not enough of another makes no sense and is very dangerous. Those who think that any rally that consists of mostly white people is not valid would have to invalidate the Al Sharpton rally that consisted mostly of black people.

Additionally, this picture of the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech shows the crowd to be almost all black. No whites are found in the picture of the crowd. I am sure some were there but since whites made up 60%-70% of the population (probably more like 80% back then) at that time then this crowd is disproportionately black. I find that perfectly acceptable but if we are going to use the diversity of color at an event to give it credibility or validity then MLK’s speech was not credible and not valid. I would also point out that Obama’s inauguration had huge numbers of blacks in the crowd, numbers that were hugely disproportionate to their representation in the country. Does this mean that event lacked validity?

There are plenty of pictures of the crowd and they tell a story that makes it clear more than 87,000 people were there. MLK had 200,000 to 250,000 at his speech and the Restoring Honor pictures show more people than attended King’s speech so it is logical to assume that there were more than 200,000 people there. I think that the number is 600,000 to 1 million but have no way of knowing and no agency does any official counting.

It would be interesting to know how many Metro tickets were sold. That would give a good indication of how many people were there.

Suffice it to say that the event is not well received by liberals who cannot grasp the concept of honor and who cannot see anything but racism in such events. It will drive them nuts for some time to come.

I also add that there were many people opposed to Beck having this rally in the same place where MLK had his speech and on the same date that the speech occurred. Al Sharpton was very upset about this claiming that Beck was against what MLK stood for (which Sharpton erroneously believes to be the removal of state’s rights) and challenged Beck to debate the Ground Zero Mosque issue, which Sharpton supports. This challenge came as Sharpton appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show. So does anyone else find it ironic that Sharpton complains about the location of Beck’s rally but dismisses this concern (location) from people opposed to the mosque? Thanks to Rick for this insight.

Anyone want to wager that the people offended at Glen Beck’s choice of location for his Restoring Honor rally in DC (where Martin Luther King held his I Have A Dream speech) are the same people defending the location of the mosque at Ground Zero?

Anyone?

We will hear more in the days ahead…

Here are some great pictures and interesting takes on the rally:
Affirmative Action Counting for DC Events
Leftists Could Find No Racism at Restoring Honor Rally
Wrap Up and Whitewash (Plus, who is cleaner and where is the racism)
An enormous and impassioned crowd (and from the New York Times no less)
Washington Compost (the added “mostly black” to the Sharpton crowd report later, probably in response to a comment asking why it was not reported the same way as the RH Rally)
CNN article Note how many comments refer to the WHITE crowd
Why is there this assumption that MLK and his speech were a black only thing?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: al sharpton march, civil rights, DC, glenn beck, liberalism, mlk, racism, restoring honor rally, sarah palin

BREAKING: Obama Embraces Limbaugh Policy Ideas

Jan 27, 2010 Political

Obama the Great is giving his State of the Union Address and in it he just said that his plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs will involve giving tax credits to small businesses and ELIMINATING the capital gains tax on small businesses. He also talked of corporate tax breaks.

This is nearly the exact thing Rush Limbaugh TOLD Obama needed to be done. On January 26^th of last year, six days after the coronation, Limbaugh proposed the Obama-Limbaugh Bipartisan Stimulus Plan of 2009. In it he said that his part of the plan would include tax cuts:

These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax rate cuts.

Limbaugh said that the way to stimulate the economy and create jobs was to cut the capital gains tax and the corporate tax. This was poo pooed by the left who claim that tax cuts do not achieve the stated goals and that only spending will work. Obama opted for the spending and unemployment is now at 10% and his Stimulus has been a bust.

Tonight Obama embraced the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh. He did not go for it in total because he only wants to cut small business capital gains on investments and Limbaugh called for a capital gains tax cut on individual capital gains as well. But this is a start.

By making this proposal, Barack Obama has admitted that the liberal ideology is wrong. He has admitted that liberal tax and spend policies do not work. He has admitted that liberalism and its ways is a complete hoax.

And he has admitted that Limbaugh was right.

He has embraced the conservative principle of tax cuts to stimulate. He has taken the advice of the man he tried to demonize only a few short months ago.

Rush Limbaugh was right and Obama was wrong. Obama as much as admitted that.

Make no mistake. Obama is trying to appeal to an electorate (particularly Independents) that is fed up with the way he is running things. He is trying to stop the bleeding from the wounds of the Brown victory in Massachusetts. He is taking this approach to try and win in November.

But he has thrown his party and its ideology under the bus. When things get better the country will see that liberalism is a failed exercise in futility.

And they will see that Limbaugh was right all along.

Tags: failure, liberalism, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, tax cuts

Who’s Right? Who’s Left?

Jun 1, 2009 Political

Ever since the election, which saw a rookie politician win the presidency, (even a blind pig finds an ACORN every once in awhile), the Republican party has had a debate with itself over just what is the definition of a Republican. The words are flowing fast and furious, with Rush Limbaugh, as I understand it, saying that Colin Powell should just become a Democrat and get it over with, and Powell insisting he is not leaving the Republican party.

After every election loss ( and there have not been as many as the Democratic party) the Republican, and indeed the Democratic parties always feel as if there should be a “makeover” of philosophy- as if it was the philosophy alone that was responsible for the loss. Philosophy alone is never the culprit, the blame can and must be shared with the candidate who is the face of the party.

During the 1980 primary contest between President Carter and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Kennedy supporters worried that Carter had moved too far to the center to energize the party base; Carter supporters blamed the president’s loss to Ronald Reagan on Kennedy’s more-liberal-than-thou insurgency. Moderate and liberal Democrats are still arguing about whether Al Gore went too far in 2000 in abandoning Bill Clinton-style triangulation for a more populist pitch — or whether he didn’t go far enough. Limbaugh and like-minded, if less strident, Republicans can make the case for purity by citing the party’s capture of Congress in 1994 under the banner of Rep. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. 

latimes.com

The Republicans are split now over ideology, and  just how inclusive they need to be, when what they need is to develop a consistent, ethical platform that reflects the conservatism that is and should be the heart of the Republican party. Then they need to begin living that philosophy.

The most consistent fault I have found, was that the Republicans had relented on fiscal conservatism, and when they were in power, spent like drunken Democrats. Trying to emulate your opponent is not a winning strategy, and the Republicans, including Powell, came off looking like Democrat- lite. When a Republican, even Powell, votes for the opponent, it’s possibly not a black thing, but it is  trouble in River City.

I have said before that Barama didn’t so much win the election as McCain lost it. I know there will be many libbies who will come on here with interminable stats to refute my assertions, but the truth is that as trashed as the Republican brand was, Barama should have swept every state. The fact that he didn’t reflects the fact that for many, even as faint as McCain’s efforts were, the idea of conservatism still runs deep and true among many of the people in the U.S., and if presented correctly, with a candidate who truly reflects this conservatism and free market values, the Republicans can win.

But I do have to caution the Republican party- you have to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That was the big problem before
.

Not every Republican — or Democrat — agrees that inclusiveness is the ticket to electoral success. One of the hoariest debates in both parties is whether majorities are built by uncompromising allegiance to principle or a willingness to abide and even encourage diversity within the ranks. For some conservative Republicans, Powell, Ridge and Schwarzenegger are RINOs — Republicans In Name Only. From that perspective, the RINOs let both the nation and the party down by acquiescing in President George W. Bush’s overspending.

It wasn’t so long ago that the Democratic tent seemed too small to hold its disparate elements. Through the early 20th century, Southern segregationists and Northern liberals met uncomfortably at the party’s quadrennial conventions; during the Vietnam War, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s hawks and Sen. George S. McGovern’s doves similarly elbowed one another for position. Those tensions were refashioned but not eliminated at the century’s end. 

latimes.com

As can be seen, angst is in both parties, and the Democrats have done better in their ” big tent” philosophy than the Republicans, even though there is still rancor in their ranks. Republicans should heed that simple fact here demonstrated by the Dems- not everyone shall agree.

In this sense, the “Big Tent” can be large enough for most of the disparate views of conservatives, as long as there are core values all share, and central to this is the philosophy of smaller government, and fiscal conservatism. Really, all else is a distraction, side issues that are important to some, not as important to others.

Fiscal conservatism and smaller government are issues that transcend race, or gender- these issues affect everyone, and I’ll bet that if the Republicans can beat the drum of opportunity, and walk the walk of smaller government, instead of having a contest to see who can “out- republican” the other, conservatives will win.

Let’s face it- there are more people who are in the heartland of this country, and who are conservatives, than liberals who live on the coasts.

Conservatives have to learn to agree to disagree on certain issues.

Remember, an oak tree is uprooted by high winds and dies, but a willow tree bends with the wind and lives.

Tags: conservatism, fiscal responsibility, liberalism, political parties, RINO

Straight Down The Middle

May 22, 2009 Political

Justice David Souter retires in June, at the end of the Supreme Court’s term for this year, and a new replacement for a Supreme Court Justice will be picked by Barama and his crew. A lot will be revealed by the choice of person he makes- will he/ she be an “activist”, a person who “champions the little people”? I expect so, although I will tell you why I think this is a bad idea.

First, a Judge is, by his/ her very nature, NOT supposed to favor any side in an argument, instead, relying on proper interpretation of the law to reach a reasoned decision. Any prejudice towards one side or the other, renders the Judge’s decision biased, and presupposes a predetermined position, in which case a responsible Judge would and should recuse him/ herself from ANY decision.

In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Tara Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas- Austin, says, “Judges are not to be passive spectators; adjudication is an activity, calling for the exercise of careful, objective judgment. Appellate courts’ responsibility is to police the Constitution. The rhetoric of “activism” notwithstanding, the proper interpretation and application of our law cannot be reduced to a purely mechanical process. If it cold, we would be replacing Justice Souter with a computer.”

Neither can these justices MAKE  law- the best they can do is to interpret the laws that the legislators draft, in order that they conform to the Constitution- a hard job in and of itself, and made infinitely harder by the leading (some would say EXTREMELY MISLEADING) words inserted into various bills, designed to cause the reader of the bill to tilt for or against the content itself. 

Some examples, “unfair methods”, “predatory pricing”, a “hostile or offensive work environment”, an “appropriate fair balance”, all of these terms and more are found in the content of actual bills, and the terms are put there to satisfy the constituencies that the lawmakers wish to appease, but these same terms make the job of Justices much harder, as the terms involve nothing related to law, but everything related to a specific perspective- something the Justices must not buy into, or their decisions are not true, but tainted.

Barama wants a Justice with “Empathy”- capital E- but as Tara Smith warns, it is not enough that the Justice must be an umpire, but also more than this in adjudicating law:

“In sports, umpires do not have a say in what the rules are. They are given a complete set of rules at the start of each season and charged to call the games accordingly. In the U.S. legal system, by contrast, courts are presented not only with the Constitution ( the fundamental rules of the game, as it were), but with specific laws made by legislatures, and by agencies of the executive branch (not to mention the court’s own precedents). The court’s responsibility is precisely to determine whether all of these purported laws are compatible with the Constitution, which is our ultimate legal standard.”

The route the court must navigate is fraught with dead ends and legal land mines, but in the end, what the court must determine is if these laws are indeed valid laws. In this sense, the Justices are more than umpires in that they have a say in determining these laws’ validity. The nine Justices, whatever their personal bias, cannot roll over and acquiesce to one side or the other- to do so would be gross dereliction of duty.

It is nice that Skinny B can consider a man, a woman, a Black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever puts a tingle up his leg, but the one thing he absolutely should not do is to attempt to put an ideologue on the court with a built in agenda of social engineering. If he does this, the damage to the court could last a generation, at least, before common sense could purge the wrongful decisions made in the name of social engineering and activism.

There is no place for activism on the bench- if you want activism, hire a great attorney with passionate convictions to argue your case, but the Justices are supposed to interpret law, not be pre- disposed to one side or another. To not be neutral is to do this country an extreme disservice, bordering on traitorousness.

Let the judges judge.

Tags: activism, liberalism, social engineering, souter