Saturday, January 29, 2011

Let me get this straight….

President Obama feels that the Egyptian protests in the streets of Egypt justify a change in government, and thus the government should heed to the voice of the people? That the government should not silence the voice of the mobs, and thus mob rule should reign?
I wonder how President Obama would feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Let’s say perhaps if we went to the streets to oppose the socialization of America? If we went to the streets to overturn the Obamacare socialized medicine scheme?
President Obama also has publicly renounced Egypt’s alleged violence against its citizens when the total death toll from the protests at last check was 38. Incidentally they were responding to violence. Did you hear President Obama tell that to the Chinese? Or perhaps did you hear President Obama tell that to Cuba? No, an odd coincidence is that those who are working to overturn the Egyptian government are Muslims. Also, I do not hear the outcry from the left that we are not to be the policeman of the world, nor that we should not try to control other sovereign nations, yet that is what President Obama is doing.
We are now seeing the fruits of the famed “apology” tour of President Obama. Iran now has nuclear capability which threatens Mid-East peace, and primarily the security of the people of Israel. Egypt, if indeed becomes Muslim governed through the Islamic Brotherhood, would then no longer be the safety check against rogue Islamic extremist countries.
But does any of that affect us?
Here is the long answer to a very short question. First off let me state that I am only giving political and national security repercussions, as morally it is quite obvious that we cannot allow the planned annihilation of Israel or any other people that do not succumb to Islam. Without Israel there is no safety check in the Middle East. If Egypt is lost to Muslim extremists, then there is a little something called the Suez Canal that may affect things. Not only do prices go up at the pump, and any item you buy that contains petroleum increase, but a major worldwide economic collapse would eventually occur. Not to mention that our own military relies on fuel. If that were not enough, with a worldwide economic collapse would come uprisings due to that collapse, which would topple governments, as well as order across the globe. The result would be total anarchy.
And what of the defense of our own country? For one, we would see uprisings as well. Enemies of America would be further emboldened, as we see Muslim extremists already crossing through the sieve known as our Southern Border. Sadly some have already forgotten 9/11 as well as the multiple past attacks against America. President Obama is undoing decades of work that was done to keep a volatile region from infecting the rest of the globe through his actions as well as inactions. It would seem that the “yes we can” slogan was adopted by the Muslim extremists due to President Obama’s leadership or lack of. More of the Hope and Change that we all feared is coming true. May God help America from its leader. Perhaps we should take to the streets before it is too late. After all, President Obama says he supports that. Or maybe he just believes that this applies to the other guys.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Those zany peace loving Muslims......

In Egypt the "Muslim Brotherhood" has called for protests in order to take over the Egyptian government. While this is basically anarchy,the Obama Administration is calling for the Egyptian Government to "show restraint" and allow the protests.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Egyptian government to exercise restraint in dealing with protests and to respect citizens' human rights. She also cautioned demonstrators to refrain from violence. Clinton asked the government "to allow peaceful protests and reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications."

Respect citizen human rights? You mean allow the protestors to continue rioting? "Cautioned protestors"? Excuse me Mrs. Clinton, but your comments to the government go to the government, and your comments to the protestors go nowhere. The de-stabilization of Egypt is one of the biggest threats to Middle East peace, and our bungling apologizer Obama has shown the world that we are now too weak to respond. Thus, the Muslims feel that they have their chance and are taking it. I wonder how the Obama administration would react if it were happening here? They want to limit free speech with such things as the "Fairness Doctrine", and they dare criticize Egypt for quelling anarchy? Should Obama not back the current Egyptian government we may well be seeing the seeds of WWIII.
Now thats change we can believe in!

My View of the SOTU by Gayle Mahon

After having a day to digest the SOTU, I am surprised that more have not commented on the slap in our face by Obama referencing all of his glowing statements about China. It is unreal to me, that we have a President who, instead of talking about America's greatness, worships at the feet of a brutal, Communist dictatorship. I wonder what the children trapped in child labor in China or the people in Chinese prisons, whose only crime is to want freedom, would say if they could have heard Obama's speech? His praise of the Chinese educational system is unbelievable!! Children are forced to go to government controlled schools that brain wash them for 12 hours a day. Oh, wait a minute, part of that describes some of OUR public schools in this country. Women are forced to have abortions if they have more than one child - some are forceably sterilized. The comment he made, longingly, about if the Chinese government doesn't want a story in the media, it's not in the media, was a fruedian slip on his goal for our country. WAKE UP AMERICA! You can believe the Communist Chinese are laughing very loudly behind our backs. A great summary of the SOTU posted in the "IUSB Vision Weblog" follows:

Translation of Obama’s SOTU ‘Five’ Pillars Posted by iusbvisionon January 26, 2011 As a follow up to our live bloggingto President Obama’s State of the Union address a translation of the five pillars seems in order.
“Making sure we are competitive and creating jobs” sounds great, but we have heard that before. We have also heard it after every bill that turns out to be a power grab that fails the economy he says “OK now we will focus on jobs.”
So far he is doing a great job of shutting down energy production and sending “green jobs” funds to China.
Forbid drilling, closing more coal mines, forbid nuclear plant licencing, no new natural gas, more solar panel factories chased out of the country, more low cost loans to foreign countries so THEY can drill more, more Mexican, Cuban and Chinese oil wells just off our shores, more EPA caps on our refineries. More expensive energy.
The solution? The joke that is now called the Chevy Volt. Poisonous
and expensive twisty light bulbs, expensive solar and wind power that
can’t do the industrial heavy lifting we need.
More government programs and bureaucrats, more tax dollars thrown at teachers unions. More sabotaging of voucher programs. More outrageous reporting requirements. More failed schools. More students left behind.
More online databases of your information such as medical records. Privacy (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)?
Make work programs for unions in cities, like the high speed raid Obama mentioned. Corruption: Stimulus Funds Spent in Democrat Districts… Deficit Reduction:
Keep repeating the lie that ObamaCare lowers the deficit. Raise taxes.
Government Reform:
Rule by executive order. Bypass Congress and put the czar’s to work. Abuse the regulatory and permit process for social engineering

Thursday, January 27, 2011

WOW! He says it like it is!

Are Libs throwing Obama under the bus?

Obama's lust for power and re-election even has some prominent "progressives" upset....

CNN Article

(CNN) – "Freshly reelected to another six-year term, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t holding back fire when it comes to his disagreements with President Obama over a ban on earmarks.
“This is an applause line,” the Nevada Democrat told NBC News Wednesday regarding Obama’s pledge not to sign a bill with earmark spending in it. “It’s an effort by the White House to get more power. They have enough power as it is.”
.............. "Added a visibly frustrated Reid, "I have a constitutional obligation to do congressionally-directed spending. I know much more what's needed in Elko, Nevada . . . than some bureaucrat does back here."
Reid, himself a former boxer who has always been quick with fighting words, added the president needs to “back off” this argument.
“The American public should understand, and I am sure they will as time goes by, that the president has enough power. He should just back off. He’s get enough to do without messing in what we do.”

I love cat fights. Especially when its the progressives unravelling.

Sneak Preview - Yes They Can, and Will

Based on the class envy that the left is feeding their followers, the story below may be a sneak preview for whats to come in America.

Read entire Guardian U.K. Article

Chávez tackles housing crisis by urging poor to squat wealthy parts of Caracas

Move to exploit 'unused' land in capital rattles Venezuela's middle class, as troops also take over 'unproductive' farms
Venezuelans left homeless after December's torrential rains gather in the wealthy Caracas neighbourhood of La Castellana. Photograph: Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters
Hugo Chávez has sent out troops to take over farms and urged the poor to occupy "unused" land in wealthy areas of Caracas, prompting a wave of squats that is rattling Venezuela's middle class.
The move by Venezuela's president to step up the campaign to "recover" land and other property follows a housing crisis that has left millions of people in shabby conditions and affected his popularity in the run-up to next year's election.
Squatters wearing red T-shirts from Chávez's socialist party seized 20 spaces in a co-ordinated strike in the well-off Caracas municipality of Chacao last weekend, a move which shocked even some government supporters. Additional groups have targeted other cities.
......"The fundamental goal of socialism is to satisfy human needs … the needs of all, equally, without privilege," Chávez said in a television broadcast yesterday.
Opponents claim the government has failed to build enough houses over the past decade and has been offering "empty promises". Previous house-building deals with foreign allies reportedly produced just 10% of the promised number.
Emilio Grateron, mayor of Chacao, described Chávez's exhortation to seize supposedly unoccupied land as demagogic, and a move that would kill what little private investment remained. "There is irresponsible rhetoric without heed of the consequences. This is a very dangerous game."
The government has stepped up rural expropriations by deploying 1,600 troops at 47 farms in the western states of Merida and Zulia, claiming the farms were unproductive. The state has taken control of 2.5m hectares since Chávez gained power in 1999.
........Under Chávez the government has built fewer than 40,000 units a year – some say only 24,000 – in contrast to previous governments, which averaged 70,000. The president admits to problems but rejects accusations of incompetence and corruption. He has said that the rich keep all the best land, especially in the capital, but often leave it idle. The government has closed six golf courses and recently had its eye on the Caracas Country Club, saying thousands of poor families could be settled on its greens.
........"the middle-class cannot be an enemy of this democratic revolution". However, the government made clear the squatting would continue, saying the correct term was "occupation".
Even hotels have become skittish since being asked to host those displaced by the floods. They have obliged, but some proprietors now worry they will be the next industry to be nationalised.
Chacao's five-star Marriott hotel is hosting about 60 displaced families on its third and fourth floors. It has replaced doors with curtains and removed TVs, lamps and other fittings, but Maria Patino, 52, and her sister Blanca, 55, had no complaints. "We're supposed to use the service entrance and not go near the lobby, but we get treated well. Three meals a day, everything free," said Maria. .
"It [was] like being in the desert, and then you get to an oasis."

At the pace we are going it will be ironic to see the Country Club Obots who supported Obama have people camping out in their front yards. I wonder if they will put their "Yes We Can" signs up at that time?
Its just a matter of time..............................

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Barack Antony - The Neutering of an Election

As I type, we are a few hours away from President Obama’s pep rally, a/k/a State of the Union. It has also been nicknamed the “Prom”, due to the touchy-feely Kumbaya atmosphere being created in order to neuter the new Republican Congress. If what the media is reporting is true regarding his speech, then indeed they will have backed themselves into a corner. Based on CNN’s claim of having the early version of the speech Obama will say:
With their votes, the American people determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.”
If the Republicans keep playing the docile lamb they will miss an opportunity to turn the tables on Obama. Is Obama suggesting that before this election the American people did not want governing to be a shared responsibility? Or how does he come to his conclusion that it should be shared when the election overwhelmingly went against Liberal politics? By using the cliché “We will move forward together, or not at all” did that apply to his ramming the Socialized Medicine Bill down American’s throats without even allowing Republicans in the debate?
Now suddenly, after having created the biggest deficit for any president in the country’s history, the challenges are now bigger? As expected he will make his campaign speech disguised as an attempt to unify different policies, and if they are not careful, the Republicans will play into his hands. By sitting together due to the Arizona shooting, the Republicans have docilely surrendered to the lie that it was politically motivated. Through deceit, Obama is successfully muzzling the mandate that the American people set forth last November. Obama resembles the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez with his propaganda. He reminds me of Mark Antony supposedly burying Caesar when in fact he has other motives.
Perhaps Obama should begin his speech with….
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;”
It would be most appropriate.

Kumbaya Kool-Aid

Kumbaya Anyone?
I am sickened by the new found calls for “bi-partisanship”. Isn’t the reason there are two parties because we do not want to do things the same way? When I hear of this talk it makes me think of liberal religions that claim that all roads lead to God, and that they just believe in different roads. Well nothing can be further from the truth. Only one road leads to God, and that is through salvation through Jesus Christ. All other roads lead to hell. As for politics the roads of the several parties lead to different destinations as well. A Democrat road will not get you to Conservative goals, and a Republican road will not, or rather should not, get you to Liberal goals.
The new call for the Kumbaya seating arrangement is hypocritical to the highest degree. Just last session, less than a month ago, Democrats locked Republicans out of any bill debates. Obama said that Republicans could come along as long as they were in the back seat. That sure is an odd Kumbaya date, when one is sitting in the front, while the other is in the back.  The excuse being used is the call for civility after the Arizona shooting, when in effect it should be a call for civility after the vitriolic Liberal accusations after the Arizona shooting. We now know that the only thing that the Arizona shooting had to do with politics was a pathetic use of that tragedy for the use of the Liberals.
But now the Left wants to sit down and play nice together. Anything that remotely resembles any opposition to their goals, is now called vitriolic. Just days after Obama’s Love-In Speech, Democrats were at it again calling Republicans Nazis over Republican opposition to socialized medicine. But of course that never gets the media play that it deserves. Compromise in the eyes of the Left is means to agree with them. It reminds me of the Co-Exist bumper stickers. The only way to Co-Exist with a Muslim is to become one. Much like the only way to co-exist with a liberal is to become one. Tonight I will refrain from watching the President’s Pep Rally as Republicans play into the hands of the Liberals. The Kumbaya seating plan as well as the calls for less cheering and jeering comes at a very opportune time as the nation would see just how outnumbered the liberals are, and would represent to America just how insignificant Liberals really are.
So tonight they will attempt to dilute the seating, the speaking, and even the legislation which most of America voted in this past November. Mr. Congeniality Obama may once again berate the Supreme Court members. Fortunately some court members may opt to excuse themselves from the pep-rally. Obama will once again break out the Arizona shooting wild card in order to garner compromise towards his agenda, and many will believe the lie.  As for me I would rather watch a movie, perhaps one regarding the fall of ancient civilization, such as Rome or Greece, or perhaps something more recent like Cuba’s collapse under socialism, and hyper-propaganda. That way I can be better prepared for what is coming down the road. Kumbaya everyone! Maybe I should open a Kool-Aid stand for the speech. I could create a new flavor. Kumbaya Kool-Aid!

Monday, January 24, 2011

Is Obama getting rich off of oil prices?

The obvious answer is no, but wasn't that the media outcry when President Bush was in office? I remember the cries of "Bush is getting rich off of high gas prices". The screams that we are in Afghanistan and Iraq because of oil and Halliburton. How bad the economy will now struggle because gas is so high. But did you hear that? If not its because there is nothing being said. Where are the protesters, Code Pink, and the other leftists groups that could not stop complaining about the very things that exist today.
OOPS! I forgot, its okay because its Obama. Have you seen any pictures of Gitmo lately? How about any casket photos of fallen soldiers? Remember the court orders to make them public?
During this hypocritic phase of the DNC and the MSM, lets remember all that before we belly up as they wish.
I recently found the liberal definition of civility: Don't use the control you were elected to use and do whatever we want.
I for one do not want my Conservative leadership buying that. How about you?

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

So What's The Big Deal?

So what’s the big deal? It depends who is wanting to make it a big deal
Let me post the first four sections for starters.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned Tuesday whether he can be fair to non-Christians.
"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother," Bentley said Monday, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News.”
Is what he said wrong? Let’s check with the Bible:
Matthew 12: 46 “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?  And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
It seems that he is spot on. So what is the issue ? Is it what he said? Is it where he said it? If so then perhaps you should reread the where. It was a “church crowd” at a Martin Luther King Day Memorial Service. Or is the issue that some have an agenda? Such as the so-call “Anti-Defamation” League?
“The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called Bentley's remarks shocking."
"His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor," said Bill Nigut, the ADL's regional director.”
So then does this not raise the question whether a non-Christian will represent Christians properly? Will Christians receive “equal treatment” during the tenure of let’s say, an Atheist or a Muslim?
It looks like the media as usual is trying to make a story. It took five paragraphs/sections into the story before the context of his comments were made clear.
But as usual the hypocrisy of the left, as well as their strange bedfellows, comes shining through:
Ashfaq Taufique, president of the Birmingham Islamic Society, told The Birmingham News he wasn't sure how Bentley's remarks were intended.”
If he is not sure how the remarks were intended, how is it that he makes the following assumptions?
"Does it mean that those who according to him are not saved are less important than those who are saved?" Taufique said. "Does he want those of us who do not belong to the Christian faith to adopt his faith? That should be toned down. That's not what we need. If he means that, I hope he changes it. We don't want evangelical politicians. They can be whatever in their private life."
This coming from the religion of hate? Islam, which in the majority of countries that it controls, politically forbids by law proselytizing a Muslim to Christianity. The irony of his comments would almost be funny if they were not so real. Islam, the most repressive religion today, and he dares try to subtly dictate what a Christian is allowed to speak in a private Church meeting? He needs to be reminded that this isn’t the Mid-east!
……."If he does so, he is dancing dangerously close to a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids government from promoting the establishment of any religion," Nigut said.
I dare say that Mr. Nigut did not read the rest of the Amendment that contains that phrase. Let me help out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
But I am sure that this was just an innocent oversight on the part of Mr. Nigut. Now the rest of the story…
“Speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony, Bentley told the crowd that he considered anyone who believed in Jesus to be his brothers and sisters regardless of color, but anyone who isn't a Christian doesn't have that same relationship to him.”
As we discussed this is a doctrinal truth.
"If the Holy Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too," Bentley said……
An appropriate statement in a church as well as being doctrinally correct. This is, or should be said in any Bible believing Church with regularity. Its called salvation, it is what Christianity is all about.
"The governor clearly stated that he will be the governor of all Alabamians — Democrat, Republican and Independent, young, old, black and white, rich and poor. As stated in his (inaugural) address, Gov. Bentley believes his job is to make everyone's lives better," the statement said.”
I guess the last paragraph does not help the media’s feeding frenzy. Silly Christians, if Bentley were a Muslim he would have just killed someone, and that would have been accepted by the media. We read about it all the time. It seems that the only religion that wishes to “co-exist” peacefully are the Christians. All others define “co-existing” by bashing Christian’s freedoms. On that subject, I get a kick out of the “co-exist” bumper stickers. You would get killed for having one in a Muslim country.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Just An Oversight?

Read the Fox Story Here

I am sure that this was just an oversight. After all, Christmas and Easter are so hard to notice.

EU Calendar Omits Christian Holidays, While Noting Jewish, Muslim Celebrations


Monday, January 17, 2011

But..But...But... The shooter was supposed to be a Conservative Hack!

New York Times article

"He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government. "

Well now, it seems that the vitriolic comments from the left need to be recanted. Sadly, they have achieved their goals. They made baseless accusations in order to demonize a group. It's sort of like the person who spread a vicious rumor about another person. When the victim of the rumor confronted the one spreading the rumor, he clearly debunked the rumor. The rumor-maker quickly apologized to which the victim said the apology is fine, but the damage is done. To give an example the victim tore open a feather pillow and scattered the feathers to the wind. He then asked the rumor-maker to gather all the feathers to which he responded " I can never gather them all as I have no idea where some of them went". The rumor victim responded "so it is with what you have done".
The irresponsible left is not as innocent as the rumor-maker as their intentions were malicious. More of the "hope and change" that we expected.

Friday, January 14, 2011

How low can they go? Here is another example

Theme of “Together We Thrive” T-shirt came from Obama’s Organizing for America

 By Judi McLeod  Friday, January 14, 2011
The “Together We Thrive” T-shirts that starred at Wednesday’s Arizona `Memorial’ originated from Organizing for America (here), a sad fact unearthed by The Drumbeat of Liberty and the Preservation of Freedom editor and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Robert Rohlfing.
In the controversy of the pep rally/rock concert style Memorial for those who lost their lives in Saturday’s Arizona tragedy, the mainstream media reported that the “Together We Thrive: Tucson & America” T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKate Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration.
Yet the “Together We Thrive” slogan dates back to a post to Obama’s own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described “globalist” John Berry IV.
More than passing strange that the Obama campaign message of civility was the same on Feb. 11, 2008 as it was in his Wednesday Memorial speech, and the same one, too carried by the mainstream media in coverage of the Memorial.

“For too long Americans have been set one against the other.  It is a side affect of a free market society,” Berry IV posted.  “How can profits be maximized, how can I get the work down for the lowest possible costs.  This continually sets one group against the other, especially in the blue collar sectors of America.  It has become part of the American Business model, whether it was indentured servants, slaves picking cotton, sharecroppers, the industrious people that built the railroads or today’s migrant workers.  As long as we remain divided, fighting for the scraps that America has to offer it will be one group against the other.
What I see in Obama is a chance for revolution. (Italics CFP’s).  A chance for every group to be heard; A chance to live the American dream that has been denied to so many…
“In a previous career, I was the global leader of Diversity for a global fortune 500 corporation.  I have studied the affects of diverse groups working together and the results can not be denied.  Together we Thrive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
University of Arizona brass did not originate the “Together We Thrive” T-shirt.  They merely recycled it for Obama—and recycled it in time for what should have been a dignified Memorial for the dead.
If you were a mourner who took home a “Together We Thrive” T-shirt have a look at the bottom of your shirt.  “Rocking America and Rocking the Vote” is a common theme of the DNC,  and it’s right there on your Memorial T-shirt memento.
Welcome to the era of Obama, where cheering and standing ovations, for the first time in history, became part of the Requiem for the Dead.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

How low can they go?

Here is the easy answer. They have no limit. The they spoken of here is the "progressives". We see that they can indeed progressively go lower. Now they use blood as a fundraiser. Click the link and read the entire article and see just how low they will go.

.......recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country.  I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at  There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me.  Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Don't do wrong in order to look righteous

Updated 1/12/11
"(CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a resolution Wednesday condemning the "horrific" Arizona shooting rampage, as President Barack Obama prepares to attend a memorial for victims of the attack.
The proposed resolution lists the names of the six victims killed in the Saturday shooting and states that the House of Representatives "stands firm in its belief in a democracy in which all can participate and in which intimidation and threats of violence cannot silence the voices of any American." (emphasis mine)

By passing the proposed resolution, the U.S. House is in effect declaring that the tragic shooting in Arizona was indeed politically motivated. In an effort to look caring, the U.S. House is playing right into the hands of the Liberal Left. A resolution of sympathy would have been in order, as well as one of condemning the senseless act, but when they include the phrase "intimidation and threats of violence cannot silence the voices of any American" this declares that they believe that it was politically motivated.

Thanks to recent revelations, we are finding that this tragedy had more to do with a mentally unstable man than with anything political. The shooter had a criminal record which was scrubbed. He had made several threats against others, and had even threatened Congresswoman Giffords on other occasions. If anything this is looking more and more like the ball was dropped by Arizona Law Enforcement and the system.  But as we all know , the extremist left has been trying to paint this as the fruit of the Political Right. After having denied and disproved this fallacy are those on the Right within the U.S. Congress going to belly up for political reasons? In their desire to look compassionate and to disassociate themselves from the shooter,will they be ignorantly associating themselves with him in this resolution? The Republican congressmen need to vote aginst this resolution. What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular. They need to do what is right.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Liberals Politicizing Tragedies

Leave it to the left to not miss an opening when they can find one, or rather make one. Fortunately, polls show that the majority of Americans reject the notion that any political party, group, radio, or print media was to blame for the senseless crime committed this past week. It seems the left keeps doing us a favor by showing America to what extent their desperation and lust for power will take them. As a matter of fact, we recently learned that the shooter was a registered Independent, into the occult, and volunteered at an animal shelter. If anything, he more resembles the Liberal left more than anything else. But that is neither here nor there. Once again the “Progressives” are trailblazing to new lows, I guess that’s why they consider themselves “progressive”. A little girl as well as 5 others is dead and all they can do is build hatred through their mindless rhetoric.
Based on their latest fallacy of blaming the “political climate”, they may be opening a Pandora’s Box that could end up backfiring on them.  Michelle Malkin wrote a tremendous piece documenting the vicious and cruel “political climate” created and fed by the “Progressives”. Democrat Pima County Sherriff Dupnik decided to politicize the tragedy, and hopefully enough Arizonans will now see fit to remove him from office. Yesterday I watched as Katie Couric began her backpedalling from directly connecting the tragedy to a single group, but began playing the new card that we must use the opportunity to step back and rethink the political climate. I find it odd that the many people that Michelle Malkin called out have not been called out by the “progressives” nor did they think the “political climate” was bad when they were in power.
Where was the outcry when people wished death on President Bush? Where was the outcry when two homosexuals hung an effigy of Sarah Palin in San Francisco? Where was the outcry when Kathy Griffins said that the youngest Palin was her new “target”? How many times did the “progressives” say that they wished certain Conservatives would go hunting with Dick Cheney after the hunting mishap? I guess that political climate is different from the present one, or is it that they feel that taking advantage of this tragedy is politically expedient?
This brings us to dealing with the present fallacy that the “progressives” have set forth. Their claim, as we said, is that the “political climate” has created this. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and countless others have supplied me with some ample responses to these “progressives”. Rush aptly commented if perhaps it was a Muslim if we would be using the same rhetoric. So based on the rhetoric of the “progressives” I have a fictitious response.
If indeed the “political climate” has caused this then the “progressives” are in a pickle as we can establish that life will imitate what it sees. If indeed certain radio personalities and groups can influence these actions, and the solution that the “progressives” set forth is to silence and remove them, then we must do the following.
·         Close down Hollywood due to their violent and mean spirited movies that glorify violence
·         Not allow any more Rap music to be produced due to its violent nature
·         Outlaw Islam based on the many similar crimes that are committed in the name of their group
·         Deport all Mexicans due to the violence in Mexico
·         Take Chris Matthews and his ilk off the air due to their divisive comments
·         Remove the liberal media from the air as they constantly criticize the Right and we all know how criticism incites violence
·         Remove spoons from America as people keep getting fat from using them (Hat Tip to Kim)
·         Remove any overweight entertainers and athletes as they glorify obesity
·         Prosecute the DNC for the assassination attempts of Presidents Reagan and Ford as we all know that it must have been politically motivated
·         Pardon Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy as he is not to blame as he was made to do it due to the political environment
·         Prosecute any Hollywood actors who have ever depicted violence in their roles
·         Restitution from Hollywood to all victims of violent crime due to Hollywood’s glorification of violence
·         Punish the African American community for having such divisive things as Negro Leagues Museum, Miss Black America, Congressional Black Caucus, Historically Black Colleges, and other organizations that divide rather than unite
·         Profile any African American due to the number of African Americans in street gangs
·         Profile all Hollywood actors due to the known drug use by some
·         Outlaw any and all drinking of alcoholic beverages due to drunk drivers
So “progressives” is this what you really want? Perhaps it really is. They now feel that using such bad words as “socialism” and “communism” is divisive as well. So will we rewrite the history books much like Tom Sawyer is being rewritten? What will be called the former “communist” Soviet Union or “communist” China, redistributors of wealth? Why do progressives that embrace socialism reject being called socialists? Is it really the fact that we are calling a shoe a shoe that bothers them, or is it the fact that the shoe fits?
This strategy on the part of the “progressives” of using tragedies to advance their cause is not a new one. It has been used for centuries by other repressive parties and governments. Their strategy is to try to silence any opposition in the name of peace, when in fact they are the ones generating the greatest violence. It was President Obama that said that he (as the left) will bring a gun to a knife fight. Is this the Hope and Change that he promised? Now is not the time to shrivel up and play the “progressive’s” game. Sadly even some on the right are buying into their fallacy. Freedom of Speech requires two key ingredients. Those ingredients are freedom and speech. It is funny how the “progressives” hate the combination of the two. The only thing the left sees now is that we on the right are in a position to undo much of the bad which they have done and that bothers them. It bothers them to the extent that they are playing games with a tragedy that took the life of an innocent child who is now nothing more than a toy in the game of politics to the “progressives”.
The reality is that the greatest danger of violence is from the “progressives”. It is they who are threatening to take to the streets. So perhaps the greatest solution would be to outlaw “progressives”.

Sunday, January 9, 2011


Updated 1/10/2011

Michelle Malkin says it like no other. There are a few off color examples used so forgive me for that. But her examples show the sheer hypocrisy of the proaganda producing left.

“In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose.”
From Wikipedia

The tragic shooting in Arizona has brought out the worst in many liberals. While the taking of any life should be considered horrible, some have chosen to attempt to make political hay out of the tragedy. In their unbridled zeal,they have overlooked facts in order to set forth their fallacies. They have focused on the congresswoman’s political affiliation in order to attempt to create a false association between this criminal and their political enemies.
While the wounded congresswoman is indeed a Democrat, she is anything but far left. She is pro-gun and against illegal immigration. I guess that doesn’t sit well in their propaganda. But what of the judge, the judge who was murdered was a Republican appointee, yet that is not making the headlines. Tragically overlooked as well, is the murder of a little girl, as well as several others murdered, and many others wounded. But I suppose that is all just insignificant in the tin foil leftist’s agenda. Their focus is in creating the hatred of which they attempt to claim is the cause of this tragedy.
But let us focus on their fallacy. They claim that because she was a Democrat she was targeted by “right wing extremists”. I thought about this and came up with an interesting fallacy of my own. Based on the left’s logic, we now need to revisit the attempted assassination of President Reagan. Being that President Reagan was a Conservative Republican we must assume that Mr. Hinckley was an agent of the DNC. After all, if someone attacks someone from a certain party then based on tin foil liberal logic the opposing party is responsible. His infatuation with Jodie Foster was just a cover-up. We can also blame the liberal media elite of the day much like the leftists are blaming Rush Limbaugh. Therefore we must blame Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, and the many others who openly criticized President Reagan.
Obviously I have being facetious about my theory, but am using it to show how ridiculous the left is. Sadly, this smells of typical leftist propaganda that has been used in so many other countries. The definition at the top of the page speaks volumes of their motives. Their motive is to trigger emotional rather than rational responses. In reality if there is anyone to blame outside of the deranged individual who performed this crime it may well be the liberal media and politicians which have chosen to stir up bitterness through class envy and lies.
Sadly the real tragedy will be overshadowed. A little girl and others are dead and all the left can do is play games with a tragedy. This is what the left has to offer?

Thursday, January 6, 2011

This is what Muslims really believe and do not want you to know

This is what the Left is all about

If you still think violence and socialism is a mere paranoia I suggest you go to the article and read. Class envy and warfare is what being "progressive" is all about. Sadly those on the right are too preoccupied with politics as usual. Its time to wake up before you are caught in the line of fire of the "progressives".

Posted on December 31, 2010 at 4:33pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
She’s considered by many as the grandmother of using the
American welfare state to implement revolution. Make people
dependent on the government, overload the government rolls, and
once government services become unsustainable, the people will
rise up, overthrow the oppressive capitalist system, and finally
create income equality. Collapse the system and create a new one.
That‘s the simplified version of Frances Fox Piven’s philosophy
originally put forth in the pages of The Nation in the 60s.
Now, as the new year ball drops, Piven is at it again, ringing in 2011 with renewed calls for revolution.
In a chilling and almost unbelievable editorial again in The Nation (”Mobilizing the Jobless,” January 10/17,
2011 edition), she calls on the jobless to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force. As before, those
calls are dripping with language of class struggle. Language she and her late husband Richard Cloward
made popular in the 60s.
“So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?” she writes. “After all, the
injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs
report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they
demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?” [Emphasis added]
Those are the questions that frame what can best be called a roadmap for revolution. And it’s not long
before those questions give way to directions. The first instruction: get angry.