Big Dogs House

Democrats Continue With The Race Card

May 19, 2011 Political

To Democrats, Republicans are racists. There is no getting around it because the left will invent racism where it does not exist or redefine it in order to make the claim. Oppose Barack Obama’s policies, racist. Oppose illegal aliens entering our country, racist (despite the fact that a person’s nationality is NOT a race). Note to liberals, Hispanic is not a race and neither is Islamic or Muslim (though some are listed as “race” on forms, they are not races).

The Democrats make these claims despite the fact that it has been Republicans who have been on the side of equal and civil rights. Republicans ended slavery, introduced civil rights legislation, and were the driving force in passing the Civil Rights Act. All Democrats have done is treat minorities as second class citizens by using affirmative action and welfare as tools to control people. The very nature of affirmative action is that the minority is not capable of achieving on his own and requires his betters to help him. It is racism and it comes from the left.

Democrats have to invent the boogeyman of racism in order to fire up the base, a base so use to hearing about racism that it too sees race in every issue. Donna Brazile, a Democrat, has an article out in USA Today discussing the GOP 2012 Game Plan as one of disenfranchisement. She goes on to explain that voter fraud laws and laws requiring ID to vote are discriminatory to minorities, cost lots of money, and are implemented in battleground states, like Ohio, where there is no history of voter fraud. Funny, when Democrats lose in Ohio, they scream voter fraud.

Another funny thing is that Democrats will work extra hard to disenfranchise the votes coming in from the military. I do not recall Brazile writing a column about the continuous disenfranchisement of military members by politicians on the left. The left has, year after year, found ways to discount tens of thousands of votes from the people serving in our military. And guess what, all those folks have a valid ID card.

There are many stories about voter fraud in places like Ohio despite the claims to the contrary.

There are heavily Democrat areas where 125% of the population voted in the last election. There are recounts where hundreds of votes for Democrats miraculously appear in order to change the vote and guarantee the win. Democrats know how to cheat and they do it very well. ACORN was set up to help them with that endeavor. The fraud there should be enough to demonstrate the need for ID and other measures.

But no, to Brazile it is a matter of racism. The poor people will not be able to vote because they can’t get an ID card. So tell me, how do these people get welfare? You need to prove who you are in order to get welfare so how do they do that?

While one could argue if voting is an individual right (the Constitution does not list it as an explicit right, only reasons you can’t be denied the “right to vote”). In other words, a state could change the way people are elected and eliminate a vote. The federal government could do that. However, assuming we have a “right” to vote why is it that an ID is not required to exercise that right?

We have an absolute right to keep and bear arms and yet many states infringe on that right. There is no state where one can buy a gun without showing an ID. So tell me, if I have to show an ID to buy a gun why does a person not have to show an ID to vote?

We have to show identification to open a bank account, sign our kids up for sports or school, get a driver’s license, enter a federal or state government building, get on an airplane, buy alcohol or tobacco and when requested by a police officer.

So tell me, why is voting any different? What makes it so special that people should not have to show an ID to do it?

And don’t bother telling me how people can’t afford an ID. I am tired of that argument. If you want to vote then you can get an ID (in the unlikely event you do not have one). You can give up smokes for a few days and pay for an ID. And NO, the government should not provide one to you for free. If I want to buy a gun but do not have an ID you can bet the government will NOT provide one for me and buying a gun, unlike voting, is a clearly enumerated right in our Constitution.

To put it another way, if you are unable to get an ID you should not be allowed to vote.

Yes, Brazile is worried about the 21 million Americans of voting age who do not have an ID and therefore will not be able to vote. Since one is required to show an ID to get a job it would appear that there are bigger concerns than voting here. Perhaps these disenfranchised Democrats should get a photo ID so they can GET A JOB.

Brazile might be right about this affecting Democrats more than Republicans. Getting an ID is a matter of personal responsibility and Democrats lack that attribute.

However, for those still concerned that folks won’t get an ID just tell them they need it for their gubmint check and they will jump right up and get it.

One last thing, Brazile is concerned that the laws reducing the number of days of early voting and removing the ability to change one’s address on Election Day will affect people. What kind of drugs does she take? A change of address does not sneak up on people and neither does Election Day. People are able to address this prior to Election Day. Anyone who waits until Election Day to deal with this is demonstrating a lack of personal responsibility. As for early voting, the longer the polls are open the more opportunity there is for fraud.

I will offer this to Ms. Brazile. Our game plan is not to keep voters home. It is to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote do so and that they only do it once (and in the correct polling place). PERIOD. My game plan would be to require a birth certificate to register to vote and an ID to actually vote. I needed that to join the Army so there should be no complaints.

I also add that the penalty for fraudulent voting (and voter intimidation, hear that Eric Holder) should be mandatory 10 years in jail with no parole and no probation. If you vote in Florida and also in New York and get caught then you should go to jail for 10 years with no exception. PERIOD.

We need to stop pussy footing around with people and hold them responsible.

And we need people like Donna Brazile to crawl back under her rock and quit with the cries of racism and claims of disenfranchisement. Her party is the guilty party and the story could very easily have been written, DEMs game plan for 2012. Disenfranchise the military like they do every election.

But what would America be without the race baiters to stir up phony claims of racism?

It would be a better place where minorities were not held captive on the left’s plantation…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: brazile, Democrats, election, fraud, racism, voter id

Bring It On Farrakhan

Feb 28, 2011 Political

Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, has predicted that America will have uprisings like those happening in the Middle East. Farrakhan said that we had better prepare because it is coming to our door. Then the racist leader went on to spew racial hatred toward white people:

… L. Ron Hubbard himself was and is trying to civilize white people and make them better human beings and take away from them their reactive minds … Mr. Hubbard recognized that his people have to be civilized,” Farrakhan said to a cheering crowd. Chicago Breaking News

The statement followed his admiration for L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the so called religion of Scientology.

Imagine if a white guy claimed that some person in the black community was doing whatever in order to civilize black people.

I think that white people are civilized and given the crime statistics involving blacks perhaps Farrakhan should be looking for someone to call on them to be more civil. As for civility, how civil are those who participate in the kind of uprising that Farrakhan predicts will come to our door?

As for those uprisings, Farrakhan had better hope he is wrong. We are very different than the Middle Eastern countries and a lot of armed citizens will put an end to a violent uprising.

And there will be a lot fewer people to stage an “uprising” in the future.

That will be the civil thing to do.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: cicility, louis farrakhan, moron, nation of islam, racism, scientology, uprising

Get In The Back Of The Bus

Oct 26, 2010 Political

Barack Obama is racing to the wire to minimize the losses his party is expected to suffer on election day. He is running around the country spewing his same old crap about Republicans driving the economy in the ditch. He is oblivious to the fact that the economy did not falter until Democrats took over. All appropriations start in Congress (the House) and therefore are the responsibility of Congress. Certainly George Bush should have never signed on to spend the money but the fact remains that Democrats are JUST as responsible for the mess as anyone else.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are two major players in what brought the economy down.

Obama, out on the stump, used a phrase that is a bit disturbing.

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” [emphasis mine]Yahoo News

Once again, it was not Republicans alone who drove the economy into the ditch. They might have driven it to the edge but Democrats drove it in when they took charge.

The disturbing part of this is where Obama said “they gotta sit in the back.”

Imagine how this would have played out if, say, Sarah Palin had said “Republicans are going to win big and take over and Obama will have to sit in the back.”

The comparisons to racism would have been rampant. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race baiters would be screaming about racism and TEA Party activists wanting to lynch blacks or some such stuff.

The phrasing of Obama’s sentence is deliberate. He is looking to make up for the past injustices and he is using this kind of wording to show who is in charge and that things have changed.

Like his buddies in the New Black Panther Party who intimidated people at the Philadelphia Poll, Barack wants you to know you are being ruled by a black man.

But Obama is confused. Republicans freed the slaves so his allegiance to the left is part of the plantation mentality.

We will never go back to forcing certain groups to sit in the back of the bus no matter how much Obama wants to stoke the fires of racial tension.

Don’t know why he would worry anyway. He is half black and half white.

He can sit in the middle…

cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: bus, election massacre, Obama, racism, Republicans

Hey White Boy, Homey Don’t Play Dat

Oct 7, 2010 Political

A white man was arrested for fighting with police after a traffic stop. Jeffery McGowan had a plea deal with the prosecutor to plead to a lesser charge and serve three months probation. The police officer involved was not injured in the scuffle and had no problem with the agreement especialy since the defendant had no criminal record.

The one person who opposed the deal was the judge, Joseph Williams, who took exception to a deal that “only goes to white boys.” Then Williams let his racist views show:

In court, Williams told Assistant District Attorney Brian Catanzarite that he “for some reason comes up with I think ridiculous pleas whenever it’s a young white guy,” according to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “I’m just telling you what my observation is. If this had been a black kid who did the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about three months’ probation.” MSNBC

Yes, this is his observation but he is wrong. Our judicial system is based on the merits of the case. If a black man had been involved in this incident and had no criminal record, and that is the key, he would have been offered the same deal. The reality is that many of the black men who pass through the judicial system have criminal records and it hurts their chances of getting a better deal. However, the judge also seems to ignore the revolving door that the justice system has become. All too often young black men are out of jail on one or more charges when they commit another crime. Does this racist judge expect us to give that kind of person the same chance at redemption as a man, white OR black, who has no criminal record?

Judge Williams recused himself and the plea was accepted by a white judge who did not call anyone a boy and had no claims about one race getting a better deal than another. In other words, he did his job as a judge.

I can just imagine how the left would go bonkers if the defendant was black man and a white judge said the plea deal was something only black boys got. Imagine how much more deranged the left would be if a white judge made similar comments. There would be calls for his resignation or impeachment. There would be screams of racism and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be marching in the streets “No justice, no peace.”

This judge’s racist remarks will likely not be addressed. He is just speaking truth to power and trying to convince us that blacks are thrown in jail for being black instead of committing crime.

So can someone ask Judge Williams if he thinks the New Black Panthers who were let off the hook after intimidating white voters received a deal that only black boys get? Because we all know if white guys had done that Eric Holder would have screwed them to a wall.

Just like Homey the Clown, Williams don’t play dat…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: black judge, court, joseph williams, plea deal, racism, white defendant

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