Let me start off by saying I agree with bombing ISIS and any other terror group and I think the US should keep it up. I would say to bomb them back to the Stone Age but since they already live in that era I say bomb them back to before they existed. I have no problem with attacking them where they live rather than waiting for them to come here. I have no problem with preemptive strikes.
But I am not the problem here because I never held the view that we should not attack them.
Barack Obama and ALL the Democrats who opposed George Bush did though. They derided Bush for waging war in Iraq when they claimed Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never attacked us. Afghanistan was the good war, they said.
So during Bush’s terms we had Code Pink and the rest of the anti war crowd along with the Democrats screaming about Bush’s War and George Bush attacking a nation that never attacked us, blah, blah.
Barack Obama arrived on the scene fresh from his community organizing state and US Senate gigs to claim the mantle of anti war hero and to stop George Bush’s illegal wars.
The US, along with coalition partners, has begun bombing ISIS and other terror groups in Syria. Syria has never attacked us and ISIS has never attacked out country. Yes, they murdered some Americans but they did not come to our home nation and attack us. Do I think we should avenge their deaths? Certainly but then again, I am not the problem.
The problem lies with those who were so vocal in their opposition to George Bush who now remain silent as their messiah attacks an enemy in a sovereign nation, one that did not attack us. The problem lies with those very groups who said we should not be at war and who told us to try and understand the other guy’s side of things.
Where are these groups now? Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is Harry Reid? Where are the protest groups that were so up in arms about the Iraq war? Where are these people when Barack Obama is basically doing the same thing they attacked Bush for?
They are curiously silent on the matter.
George Bush got Congressional approval before he waged war and Barack Obama did not. George Bush told us exactly what would happen if we announced the date we were leaving and pulled completely out of the region and what he said would happen, did.
Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq and he campaigned on ending it. Barack Obama campaigned on what he perceived to be the lawless and unconstitutional acts of Bush and now he is doing the very things he campaigned against.
These people are hypocrites and it would do the nation well for them to lose their jobs in November (for those up for reelection). Barack Obama is a disgrace to this nation. Is he doing the right thing now? I think it is right to attack the enemy but I always did.
He did not. This is what happens when you have a progressive Alinskyite with no work experience, no military experience (and who actually loathes the military) and no real life experience running things.
Community organizers are rabble rousers, not leaders.
The left remains silent because it is their messiah who is doing the things they previously opposed.
We need to rally as a nation while we are at war but that does not mean we can’t question the integrity of the leader who took us to war.
If the nation had questioned that integrity during the campaign we might not have a hypocrite and first class amateur running things now.
And in all likeliness there would be no need for more war because the enemies would fear us.
No one fears Obama because he lacks anything resembling manhood and he is certainly not a warrior.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 15, 2011 Political
The Occupy crowd around the country is full of filthy people who are disrupting life for those who work and pay taxes to support this country. They have had a number of crimes including rape occur at their camps and there are outbreaks of communicable diseases including sexually transmitted diseases and drug resistant Tuberculosis.
We have already seen pictures of people who have defecated on police cars and we know these “people” are using public places to relieve themselves. Breitbart has posted a video of a protester who squats and defecates on the sidewalk.
This is the movement that Obama and the Democrats support.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and a slew of other liberals (many of them wealthy and who have made money off Wall Street or through capitalism) have publicly expressed their support for these people.
The occupy protests have been going on for about two months and police around the country are starting to clear these people out.
Unfortunately, they are about two months too late.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 2, 2011 Political
Looks like the Occupy Wall Street folks are getting their (in the words of the NYP) “freak on” in the style of their 1960s ancestors and their free love protests. The nasty OWS law breakers have been having a lot of sex and there has been a run on the STD clinic. The OWS love machines have been getting handouts of money so they can clog up the local clinic that is in place to help the poor (or underserved, as they are called).
Imagine that. A bunch of poor people have to stand outside and wait forever to be seen for their illnesses because the OWS mob is clogging up the clinic to be seen for the STDs they contracted through lifestyle choices.
The OWS crowd that has been complaining about the homeless and other poor people infiltrating them and eating their food should remember this the next time they want to complain. Their life choices are not only hurting them but others as well.
Wait a minute…
Can’t we apply this on a larger scale? These folks are protesting because there are wealthy people and they are not part of that group. They want to take what others have. They want free education and debt forgiven. They want others to be responsible for them. They want the property of other people and they want to live off the government (the people who pay taxes). They claim that they want those who allegedly broke the law leading to the economic collapse to be prosecuted and they will demonstrate their distaste for the lawbreakers by…wait for it…breaking the law themselves.
They basically are unhappy with their lives and want to be taken care of no matter who else it bothers.
Kind of like engaging in casual, unprotected sex with strangers and getting a disease and then inconveniencing others because of it. I wonder if taxpayer dollars support that clinic and if so, how much is wasted because of this.
Personally, I don’t care if consenting adults want to engage in sex. That is their business. So long as they are not out raping people (as has been reported quite a bit) and so long as they are not doing it in public then they can do what they want.
But I would expect that these folks who are so smart mind you, that they have all the answers to our problems, would have the sense to use a condom. I mean, if you want to be where the rubber meets the road….
Here is a capitalist idea for someone in the OWS crowd. I know you won’t want to do it because it involves working and making money (and capitalism), but I will throw it out there.
You can order a box of 1000 condoms for anywhere between $70 and $200. If you order a few boxes and sell the condoms for 50 cents each you will make a very good profit.
If you OWS folks intend to stay there until things go your way (and you really mean it) then you are going to be there a very long time. A lot of bored hippies taking drugs leads to a lot of hippies having sex.
An enterprising OWS person can make a fortune if he tries.
You will make money and the poor will not be forced out of their clinic so OWS folks can be seen for STDs.
The rest of us will benefit because you will be preventing these people from reproducing…
UPDATE: The Daily Caller has a slideshow of homes. The addresses of the homes were obtained from some of the records of OWS protesters who were arrested. Look at these very expensive and beautiful homes and decide if these people are really part of the 99%. Are they really poor people who have nothing or are they posers who actually have it pretty good. The only other thing we could ask is if they are people who bought homes they could not afford under the CRA and are unable to pay for them. If this is the case, then why are WE supposed to be concerned with their bad decisions? You signed the contract and if you can’t pay, too bad. Blame your Democrat supporters for their social justice schemes. In either case, these people are not really what they claim to be.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 19, 2011 Political
When the TEA Party arrived on the scene a few years ago the progressives and their media wing made the claim that the Party was all white, a bunch of redneck racists. Chris Matthews of MSNBC made the false accusation that “All of them, every single one of them is white.” when referring to the TEA Party. This, of course, is demonstrably false but Matthews had his marching orders from the Democrats and he had to paint the TEA Party as a non diverse group of racists. Matthews has no obligation to report the truth because he told us that it is his job to make sure Obama succeeds. Keep in mind that he will approach every task with that as his goal. What he says or does is designed to fulfill his job of ensuring Obama succeeds.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported on a question being asked about the Tea Party and an upcoming rally (from September 2010) being another event distinguished by a sea of white faces. This prompted groups to go to efforts to highlight those who attended who were not part of the white sea. I have been to a number of TEA Party events and there is diversity. It does not look like a rainbow and the math suggests that it never could.
The American population is overwhelmingly white. About 70% of the population is white and 12% is black. The rest are other ethnicities. 95% of all blacks are aligned with the Democrat party. The TEA Party is not a political party but it is based on conservative principles. While many blacks are conservative in their lives they are unlikely to attend an event reported to them by the media wing as being a Republican event. They are unlikely to attend something that they perceive as being against the black man they voted for. They are unlikely to attend something their Democrat leaders have told them is bad.
So mathematically, there are not going to be a lot of faces that are not white in any random crowd, much less a TEA Party crowd.
But this does not stop the media wing of the Democrat party from calling the TEA Party racists and suggesting that there is no diversity or that only white people are allowed. Those talking heads in the Democrat media have no clue about the math or what any given crowd would look like.
One only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement to see the math play out. Those groups, all across the country, are awash in a sea of white, to borrow from Milbank’s piece. There are no black faces to be found. The white light failed to hit the prism. If Chris Matthews’ job was not to ensure Obama succeeded he might say; All of them, every single one of them is white.
The left is no more diverse than the right.
The OWS movement has been orchestrated by the left. It is supported by the left and its backers in labor. One would think that with all the diversity the left allegedly has the protests it has organized would contain more colors than white.
You won’t hear about this in the news and you won’t read about it in any of the print papers. You will not hear the very people who bashed the TEA Party say anything about the lack of diversity on the left.
It does not fit the narrative. It does not fit with what they preach. It does not support their claims.
So they have to ignore it. Just like the OWS protesters ignore reality while they demand the rich pay more in taxes and that debt be forgiven. They ignore the truth about taxes while demanding the wealthy give their money away (to the OWS folks, of course).
Dick Morris recently reported:
Here are the facts according to the IRS:
- Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
- Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
- Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
- Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
- Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%
What level of income do you think the OWS (those poor WHITE) folks are in? Many, by their own admission, are not working so they pay no taxes (and will undoubtedly get money back in the IRS redistribution scheme) and they are protesting for the 1% (the wealthy) to pay their fair share.
The numbers do not lie. The wealthy are paying most of the taxes in this country and certainly more than their fair share.
Big Dog salute to:
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 19, 2011 Political
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, said that if Obama was a white guy the CBC would likely be marching on the White House. Cleaver couched his racism by claiming that the CBC reaction is less volatile because they don’t want to do anything to empower people who hate Obama.
Unhappy members of the Congressional Black Caucus “probably would be marching on the White House” if Obama were not president, according to CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).
“If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House,” Cleaver told “The Miami Herald” in comments published Sunday. “There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.” The Hill
Cleaver gives the impression that he and his CBC are not doing anything because there are people who hate Obama and his underlying message (let’s call it black code) is that racists want to hurt Obama and the CBC does not want to help with that.
The violence comes from the deranged (and racist) left. They are the ones out biting off fingers and shooting members of Congress. They are the ones who have assassinated or attempted to assassinate US presidents so Cleaver, while playing the veiled (black code) race card is actually worried about a deranged liberal doing something bad.
He openly admits that he would not be worried about people who hated Bill Clinton. If Clinton were president then Cleaver would be marching on the White House and would not care about people who hated ole Bill (this gives credence to the claim it is a veiled message about racism).
The left never worried about what it did and how it would affect George Bush. The left was happy when Bush was threatened or there was a chance he would be hurt. The left openly carried signs calling for his assassination and the left made a movie that depicted Bush being assassinated.
And yet, it is the right who is called violent…
The CBC has a bunch of racists as members. If, given similar circumstances, they would march on a white president but not on a black one then they are racists.
Keep in mind, this group (along with its race baiting liberal followers) tells us that the TEA Party is a racist organization because it sprung up during a black man’s tenure and not a white man’s. These people will claim that opposition to big government and out of control spending is racist because Obama is black and Bush received no such criticism (a blatant lie).
Yes, it is racist to criticize Obama because he is black but it is not racist to state that you would be marching on a white president if he had the same record as the black one.
What should we expect from an organization that is racist in its own formation? It is the black caucus (white people are not allowed to join it) and there is no Congressional White Caucus (if there was the blacks, especially those in the CBC, would call it racist).
Let us recap. Emanuel Cleaver, the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, has stated that if a white guy was president the CBC would likely be marching on the White House because of the current conditions but since a black guy is there they won’t do it. The idea of marching on the White House is an admission that the current occupant is doing a poor job but since he is black he should not be held to the same standard as any white guy who holds the office. When conditions are bad march on the white guy but not the black guy.
Different standards for the same job.
Yep, Obama is the affirmative action president.
Never surrender, never submit.