Aug 12, 2013 Political
My friend Zo has an interesting video on white people and the curse of racism:
Zo always has thought provoking commentary and this is no different.
Big Dog salute to BK…
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 27, 2012 Political
Filmmaker Michael Moore is stirring up the ashes of racism and saying that this is the reason we have so many guns in our society. His claim is that most guns are bought by white people who fantasize about shooting an invader and that our image of those invaders is black folks.
Moore further states that the US has never been invaded so we really do not need 300 million guns in our homes. He further states:
“I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse?” Moore said. “Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?” CNS News
As an aside, I could not help but laugh at the donut shop comment since it looks like Moore has been a victim of excessive donut consumption for some time…
First things first. If Moore contends that we have never been invaded so we don’t need guns in our homes I will counter with, the reason we have never been invaded is BECAUSE we have guns in our homes. I think the quote attributed to Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto puts it best; “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
So Michael, perhaps the reason we have never been invaded is because any potential enemy knows he would have to deal with millions of armed citizens.
But the meat of this issue is Moore’s misunderstanding of the reason we own guns and the reason we have a Second Amendment. While we are armed to protect our homeland the reason behind the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the means to fight our own government should it become tyrannical. We used our firearms to fight England when the King became oppressive and did things to us we did not like, one of which was the attempt to take our arms.
We are armed so as to keep our government in check. We are armed so we have the means to resist a government that ignores the Constitution and tries to impose its will on us contrary to the tenets of our founding.
Michael, we have a Second Amendment to protect all the other Amendments and to protect ourselves against our own government.
That is why we need to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the security of the free state.
Our Founders felt it was necessary to acknowledge the God given right to keep and bear arms for protection (a right that predated the Constitution as evidenced by the words, “the right”) against our government. Since they were much wiser than Michael Moore will ever be I think I will go with their plan.
This has nothing to do with racism. The mass murder in Newtown involved a white guy and white students. If Moore wants racism then perhaps he should look at the inner cities where blacks are killing blacks each and every day. The racist government has enslaved them in an inner city prison and then taken their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, the innocent become victims of the criminals who don’t obey the law.
Moore admits that laws banning guns will not stop the violence but he wants to take our guns nonetheless. To him it is the right thing to do. Only a liberal idiot would espouse doing something that will not work and say it is the right thing to do. Like Obama and his idea of taxing the rich. It won’t fix anything but it makes him feel good because that is the “right thing to do.”
Obama is protected by people with guns. Moore uses an armed guard (who was arrested for illegally carrying his firearm in New York) and people like Dianne Feinstein have or had carry permits all the while working to disarm the rest of us.
We put armed people at banks to guard our money but we make our schools gun free zones and do not allow people there to be armed for the protection of our kids.
Unless, of course, your child has the last name Obama.
The government in charge of us tried to take our firearms once before. We all know how that worked out. Does this government really want to ignore the Constitution and try to disarm us? Is it ready for a backlash that it cannot possibly control?
Time will tell but my money is on the people.
From our cold dead hands…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 24, 2012 Political
In the last decade or so since the “Bush Tax Cuts” were enacted the Democrats and their media wing have portrayed those cuts as tax cuts for the rich. During the campaigns and throughout the years whenever there was a debate about the budget and the deficit the Democrats would say that George Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and that those tax cuts for the rich were hurting the economy.
I, as well as many others, tried to explain that the Bush Cuts helped the middle class and the poor much more than the rich. The rich ended up with more of the burden as the middle class and poor had their taxes lowered by much greater percentages and that the cuts ended up increasing revenue to the Treasury. This is not a matter for debate here and anyone who is willing to invest time can look at the government’s own numbers to see that it is true.
The bottom line is that Democrats always rejected the idea that the Tax Cuts helped those who are not rich. No, they were ALWAYS Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Listen to any debate and read any transcript and you will see how these tax cuts were defined by the left. For the rich, period…
So if these tax cuts were only for the rich and since Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, why not just let the tax cuts expire and the net effect will be a tax increase on the rich?
Sounds perfectly logical since the tax cuts were ONLY (according to the left of years gone by) for the rich, letting them expire will only affect the rich.
Except it won’t. You see, the Democrats are now forced to admit that the Bush Tax Cuts were not tax cuts solely for the rich and that they were for everyone across the board. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to remove the wealthy from any extension of the cuts thereby preserving the part that applies to those who are not rich.
You see, if they had been honest back then they might have credibility now but they were not. They played their second favorite game of class warfare (first favorite is using the race card) in order to demonize George Bush and the rest of the Republicans as the party of rich people.
By now recognizing and fighting for the tax cuts that apply to those who are not rich the left has admitted that they were wrong. It has admitted that the Republicans cut taxes for everyone and it has admitted that they were lying in order to win.
If what they said in the past was actually true they would just let the taxes expire but they can’t.
They are caught up in their web of lies regarding taxes and tax cuts.
The Democrats have shown us that they are lairs and that they cannot be trusted with regard to this issue (or any other for that matter) so why should we even listen to what they have to say on the matter?
They lied then and because they did those who are not wealthy are about to see a huge increase in their taxes.
And please, don’t let some liberal tell you that they always meant the part that applied to the rich. They never acknowledged any tax cuts for those who were not rich and always portrayed the cuts as cuts for the rich. They don’t get to change that now just because they got caught up in their lies.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 16, 2012 Political
No, he picked a fight…
Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) gave a Royal Proclamation yesterday in announcing that his monarchy would no longer follow the law and instead would do what it wanted. He proclaimed that illegal children who were brought here by their parents would not be deported but would instead be given a legal status, be allowed to attend college, and be given a work permit. It must be a Royal Proclamation because he has now done what he once said he did not have the power to do, thus he has become a dictator…
Obama violated the US Constitution with his decree because Article II Section 3 clearly states:
“…he [president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
The law says if an illegal is captured he is to be processed and deported. Obama changed that with his Royal Proclamation and that is a violation of the Constitution, period…
The big uproar happened when a reporter interrupted Obama to ask a question. Obama got testy, wagged his finger and acted like a petulant child. I would agree that it was rude to interrupt with the question but the reporter later explained that he thought Obama had finished or was wrapping up and wanted to get his question in before he turned and went back into the White House. As it turns out, Obama addressed the question as he wrapped up but did not take any other questions.
No matter what the cause or who was wrong the typical liberal morons were out in full force decrying the interruption and they all blamed it on one thing, wait for it, yup, racism. Obama was interrupted and a question yelled at him while he was speaking because he is black and the right is full of racists.
The left is playing a game with this one. The liberal media are saying that the leaders of the right have not denounced the reporter and therefore are saying it was OK. This is nothing more than them trying to get one of the leaders to capitulate like McCain would and say it was wrong. By doing so they can continue to press their narrative and take the light away from Obama’s unconstitutional move. They can also push their narrative that it is based on race.
Tucker Carlson pointed out that Sam Donaldson was not admonished for his “heckling” Ronald Reagan. Yes, heckling is the word that the left has given to describe a reporter asking a question so Carlson had to describe it that way. Donaldson took issue with the description and pushed the narrative that it was because Obama is black.
Once again, I do not know if what took place was proper but I know the guy who did it said he mistimed his question thinking Obama was wrapping up (similar to what Donaldson said he used to do), so I will reserve judgement other than to say if he did it on purpose it was rude and if not he made a mistake so move on.
My purpose is twofold. One it is to point out that Obama is usurping the Constitution with his illegal amnesty (and face it, that is what it is).
The second is to point out that the left can’t help but play the race card whenever anything happens to poor little Barry Obama. It never occurred to them to look into the unconstitutional act that Obama is engaging in because they are too blinded by race to do their jobs objectively.
Let me help them. Obama’s race has nothing to do with the fact that he sucks.
He sucks because he is a Socialist who is pandering for votes and he refuses to follow the Constitution while he leads the country down the path to destruction.
But the narrative has been set and the left will continue to drivel on as to how this never happened to any other president. But, since Sam Donaldson was mentioned, this exchange took place between him and George W. Bush:
On August 2, 2006, during the last White House Press conference in the briefing room before undergoing major renovations, Donaldson shouted, “Mr. President, should Mel Gibson be forgiven?”, referencing reports of the actor/producer’s alleged anti-Semitic remarks. President Bush laughed and looked up to see who had asked the question. Bush joked, “Is that Sam Donaldson? Forget it…you’re a ‘has-been’! We don’t have to answer has-beens’ questions.” Donaldson replied, “Better to have been a has-been than a never was.” Wikipedia
Was Sam Donaldson a hater because of this? Did he treat Bush this way because he is white? That same behavior toward Obama would have Donaldson labeled a racist…
We also know that a foreign reporter threw two shoes at George Bush (which Bush successfully dodged) and the left did not condemn those acts. I know they have no control over how foreign reporters act but couldn’t they at least condemn the act? Some blamed Bush and said he failed to see why it happened.
Did anyone blame Obama for the ill timed question shouted by Neil Munro of the Daily Caller? Did anyone claim that Obama was out of touch and that he did not understand the frustration of the majority that opposes what he did with illegals in this country? Did anyone blame Obama for anything?
No, because he is not Bush and because he is a liberal.
And because he is a “black”* man.
Yes, it is the left that is racist here because the left always looks at things through the prism of color. The left blames Obama’s failures on the alleged racists who can’t come to grips with his color. The left is obsessed with making race an issue where it should not be.
The right does not care what color he is. The right is concerned with his polices, policies that are destroying our country.
And his blanket amnesty that usurps the Constitution is one such policy in a long line of them.
*Barack Obama is half black and half white but to the race baiters his white half never figures in the equation. In fact, give his Communist background I think it is fair to say that Obama is black and white and red all over….
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 8, 2012 Commentary
There is a lot of buzz about what Bill Clinton (the Nation’s first black president) has been saying because what he says is the opposite of what Obama wants to do. Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts and he wants to portray Mitt Romney as a vulture who wrecked businesses.
Bill Clinton said that the tax cuts should be extended at least into next year and that Romney was a sterling business guy who passes the needed qualifications to be president (which he did according to the Constitution no matter what his record was).
Clinton was called into the Corey Booker (who is now dead to the Obama campaign) woodshed where he was reeducated by the Obama brown shirts and he readjusted what he said. He now says that the rich should pay more and that he did not realize he was going off message.
Clinton is not stupid. He might be dialing it back to look like he is on board with the program but he already did the damage he intended to do. You see, Clinton is not happy with Obama and wants him to lose. Clinton believed his wife would have been a better president (I think she would have been better than Obama as well) and should have won the nomination. He now knows that Obama is a hack who is ruining the country but Clinton can’t very well come right out and say that or the Democrats will disown him (even though a lot of them probably feel the same way). To top it off, Clinton has never forgotten that Obama played the race card on him.
There is no doubt that Clinton wants him to lose.
So Clinton goes out and says things that are damaging to Obama and then feigns ignorance and “changes” his tune. But Clinton did the damage. He gave the Romney folks great soundbites to use against the messiah. When ads play about Romney’s time at Bain then Romney can have ads using Clinton’s words about Romney having a sterling business record. They can add in Booker’s words and really kill the Obama message.
An ad with Clinton talking about how the tax cuts should be extended will play well in the fight over the next debt ceiling issue (if it hits before the election) and it will play well as a Romney ad.
Clinton is a skilled politician. He knows you cannot unring a bell and that he has provided the needed soundbites to help defeat Obama.
He is on a stealth mission to unseat the man who insulted him and who beat his wife.
And so far, he is doing a good job of it.
Never surrender, never submit.