May 16, 2013 Political
Researchers conducted a study and concluded that men who are physically strong (have more upper body strength) tend to be conservative and men who are physically weak tend to support welfare and wealth redistribution. This should come as no surprise when one looks at liberals. They are metrosexuals who need someone to care for them because they are not able to care for themselves.
It is obvious that liberals are a bit wimpy, have you ever seen Obama throw a baseball? Lest we forget he bowled a 37…
Why do you think liberals oppose firearms? These are tools of strength and liberal men can’t have that. They would prefer to sip frou-frou coffee and collect government assistance because they know they are not able to care for themselves.
Now I know there are some liberal men who are physically strong (I know many) and some conservative men who are physically weak (I know some of them too) but the research does not say the results are true in all cases, just that they tend to be so.
Look at the liberal men you see on TV and see if they appear to have more upper body strength or less and also look to see if they look a bit girly. It should not be hard to find a number of these liberal weaklings beyond Obama and Holder. Look around in everyday life and you can figure which men are self supporting and strong and which ones are weak and need to be taken care of.
The study links the finding to evolution and claims that humans have always been political but in the past governments and courts did not make decisions about the distribution. These were done through shows of strength. The strong were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor while the weak depended on others to help them out. If you were strong it was unlikely someone was going to take your stuff or that you would produce much of your own.
Why do you think liberals always fear conservatives coming to power? Why do you think that liberals run on fear that some mean conservative will take your free gubmint stuff if elected?
They are not strong so they fear that their lifeline, the stuff gubmint has extorted from the strong, will go away.
Liberals want big government give aways because they are unable to support themselves and they fear having to try.
Liberal men equals girly men.
The study showed no difference between conservative and liberal women. My study shows conservative women are smarter and better looking…
And libs, please don’t argue. As Al Gore would say, the science is settled…
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 5, 2012 Commentary
In the world of liberals they not only want a level playing field but equality of outcomes. I think everyone agrees that people should have the same opportunities in life and in America those opportunities are there. However, just because everyone has the same opportunity does not mean that everyone takes advantage of it. The phrase about leading a horse to water comes to mind.
People have the opportunity to go to school and study to get good grades. Some do just that while others either waste their time or drop out. It is only the fault of the one who did so when his outcome is different.
This does not stop liberals from insisting that everyone not only have the vaunted level playing field (which they do) but that the outcomes for everyone be the same. In the world of the liberal everyone should have the same amount of wealth and should have houses and cars and all kinds of other stuff simply because they exist. If they fail to achieve those things then liberals look to redistributive policies to ensure equality of outcome.
Not everyone is a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerberg. Therefore, not everyone deserves the same outcomes these people had and since they are liberals they are left alone. Liberals, by and large, go after the wealthy with whom they disagree or say they disagree. The liberals excoriate Wall Street types (while praising the Occupy Wall Street mob) but take millions of dollars from Wall Street. They call them bad and insist that they and other rich folks (the definition of which changes regularly) need to have their money taken so that things will be equal for all. Obama tells us that Jesus wanted that by claiming there is a mandate in the to whom much is given, much is required passage. That passage never says that wealth is involved and it certainly does not tell us that government is supposed to make it so.
In any event, in the liberal world the Superbowl would always end in a tie. The playing field is a level one and the teams are evenly matched and in the real world that is sufficient. It is up to the teams to take it from there and work hard to win. Even teams that are not evenly matched are required to go out and work hard. They are expected to try to win the game.
Liberals would have none of that. You see, to them it would be necessary that once the playing field was level and both teams had the same opportunity to win that they both have the same outcome. Equality of outcome would require a tie because both teams cannot possibly win.
This is how they feel about life and it is how they would feel if they ran the Superbowl.
But in real life the outcomes are not the same. Some people achieve greatness and others live happy, peaceful lives that they believe are fulfilling. People have the same opportunity but they do not have the same outcome and that is OK. Without the possibility of achieving something more than someone else our society would stagnate.
Be thankful that the liberal philosophy is not in force at the Superbowl.
Regular Americans expect both teams to play their best and that the team that plays better will win. Regular Americans would be appalled at the idea of a tie because the outcome must be the same.
And yet, millions of Americans have no problem demanding an equal outcome in all other aspects of life.
The sad thing is that many so called leaders feel the same way.
Funny though. Those leaders don’t want a tie or an equal outcome when they are running for office. They want to win.
Yes, class warfare and equality of outcome is for the little people, not those in government who fail to follow our Constitution and who fail to lead. For them, life is about things being slanted in their favor from insider trading to tax breaks that others cannot get. It is about access and being treated as if they are special.
If they lived by what they preached they would soon abandon the idea that equality of outcome is a good idea.
Until the day comes when we get rid of all these people and their anti American policies we will just have to be happy that they have not injected their stupidity into the Superbowl.
Tie games suck just like equality of outcomes in all other aspects of life.
Or as Alan West said, take that stuff and get the hell out…
Never surrender, never submit.
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.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 29, 2010 Political
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?
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?
Never surrender, never submit.
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 26th 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.