When the liberal left's idiotic policies fail, it's not there fault, it yours. Recent polls show that six out ten Americans have lost all faith in the messiah. You Americans, who don't support 10% unemployment and not embracing universal health care are stupid! According to Bill Press.
Read more
Listen to Bill Press have a melt down:
And you damn Americans who may vote the bums out these midterms are paranoid schizophrenics. According to Ezra Klein, Klein America has a “schizophrenic voter population” who supposedly trust Democrats more on issues but are going to vote for the GOP in the fall. Really? Has he thought that the inmates are running the asylum right now?
Read more
And then there's that bastion of truth and tolerance, Ed Schultz. According to him he would "Shove those (GOP) bastards in a dirthole". No mindless rants spews forth from his suckhole, no, no. His rhetoric is awe inspiring and leaves one thinking.
Look folks. What you're witnessing is a liberal progressive media that's scared as Hell. Don't give them any quarter.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Why Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill
This article from the Mail Online in the UK, seems to show why President Obama has a contemptuous relationship with our strongest ally in Europe.
Below is a brief excerpt from the article:
'I narrated the whole story to Barack one evening to help him understand our family's past. He wasn't amused at all. He expressed quite a lot of concern about why the British had to punish his grandfather "on his own soil".
'He said the whole act sounded barbaric. He wondered why the British never respected African culture. The arrest, he said, was outrageous.' Shockingly, she adds: 'Generally, my grandson has never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests.'
Did British soldiers really torture President Obama's grandfather? As we will see, some elements of this highly emotive story have been twisted through the passage of time.
Below is a brief excerpt from the article:
'I narrated the whole story to Barack one evening to help him understand our family's past. He wasn't amused at all. He expressed quite a lot of concern about why the British had to punish his grandfather "on his own soil".
'He said the whole act sounded barbaric. He wondered why the British never respected African culture. The arrest, he said, was outrageous.' Shockingly, she adds: 'Generally, my grandson has never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests.'
Did British soldiers really torture President Obama's grandfather? As we will see, some elements of this highly emotive story have been twisted through the passage of time.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Conservation and Eugenics - The environmental movement's dirty secret
Excerpt reproduced with permission
by Charles Wohlforth
THE RAIN HAD JUST STOPPED in the little eastern Kansas town of Osawatomie when thirty thousand people, gathered in an atmosphere not unlike that of a country fair, fell quiet. Their hero, former president Teddy Roosevelt, climbed atop a kitchen table and began to speak in a high, almost falsetto voice, orating amid cheering for ninety minutes. When finished, he had delivered the most controversial and influential address of his career, in which he described a radical new program that was both denounced and celebrated in newspapers across the country. The date was August 31, 1910.
The New Nationalism Speech, as it came to be known, emphasized conservation, as did most of Roosevelt’s speeches written by his friend Gifford Pinchot, who had been his conservation chief for the two terms of his presidency. But it also newly placed the “moral issue” and “patriotic duty” of conservation into the context of a racial conversation, as well as a much broadened concept of progressivism.
Read the rest at Orion
by Charles Wohlforth
THE RAIN HAD JUST STOPPED in the little eastern Kansas town of Osawatomie when thirty thousand people, gathered in an atmosphere not unlike that of a country fair, fell quiet. Their hero, former president Teddy Roosevelt, climbed atop a kitchen table and began to speak in a high, almost falsetto voice, orating amid cheering for ninety minutes. When finished, he had delivered the most controversial and influential address of his career, in which he described a radical new program that was both denounced and celebrated in newspapers across the country. The date was August 31, 1910.
The New Nationalism Speech, as it came to be known, emphasized conservation, as did most of Roosevelt’s speeches written by his friend Gifford Pinchot, who had been his conservation chief for the two terms of his presidency. But it also newly placed the “moral issue” and “patriotic duty” of conservation into the context of a racial conversation, as well as a much broadened concept of progressivism.
Read the rest at Orion
Gloria Steinem - About as unenlightened as they get
It is often said that you never learn anything new from someone who always agrees with you. I would like to amend that with, "you also never learn anything new from someone that's uneducated."
Responding to Sarah Palin on Katie Couric's panel of the unenlightened, Gloria Steinem says:
"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't have an abortion."
Really? Says who? Well, Gloria Steinem says and she further states in regards to Carly Fiorina:
"I defend their right to be wrong."
So let me make sure I understand this. If a woman is pro choice and chooses life, then she is wrong and not a feminist?
This ranks right up there with the ten most stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. What I seen from the "interview" with Couric's "enlightened" panel was fear.
Watch these imbeciles cackle. The only thing missing from this "enlightened" panel is a cauldron:
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Responding to Sarah Palin on Katie Couric's panel of the unenlightened, Gloria Steinem says:
"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't have an abortion."
Really? Says who? Well, Gloria Steinem says and she further states in regards to Carly Fiorina:
"I defend their right to be wrong."
So let me make sure I understand this. If a woman is pro choice and chooses life, then she is wrong and not a feminist?
This ranks right up there with the ten most stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. What I seen from the "interview" with Couric's "enlightened" panel was fear.
Watch these imbeciles cackle. The only thing missing from this "enlightened" panel is a cauldron:
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Dial 911 and you may die
Let me ask you a question:
If a criminal targets you, would you rather have a telephone or a gun?
You may say that the government promises to protect you, but, is it an empty one? The short answer is yes. The only guarantee of who will be at the crime scene is the criminal and you, with the forensic team coming later to photograph your body then make a chalk outline.
Let me ask you another question:
If a criminal is looking to target a victim, what's the likelihood that he or she would target someone they think may be armed?
If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answer. This is not to say that a criminal high on drugs, or desperate wouldn't make an attempt, but, what's the likely outcome? People that have a criminal intent don't waste time and will choose the time and place to do their deed and someone bent on committing mass murder will most likely pick a place that is a gun free area, such as a school or mall. So, "gun free" zones are in reality "crime spree" zones.
So here's the rub. Do we allow government to "carefully" control guns, or do we allow law abiding citizens to own them? Or, as the pinhead elitists at the New York Times sees it, "Americans are better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth." Far be it from little ol' me to make an observation, but, NOBODY has the right to deprive the means of someone defending themselves.
I would ask the rhetorical question as to how many school or mall shootings it will take to convince gun control advocates that criminals are not deterred by gun laws. But, it wouldn't do any good. However, I will ask these self appointed intellectuals how we would be better off in a gunless country. Criminals would like nothing better than to live in a society where they have the upper hand.
Since these "erudite" intellectuals seem to have all the answers, they conveniently ignore dozens of studies reviewed by the National Academy of Science and couldn't find one single instance where gun regulations reduced violent crime or murder. As a matter of fact, when Washington D.C. enacted their handgun law, violent crime sharply increased.
So, the next time you hear that another house was broken into in your neighborhood, look at a photograph of a handgun and look at your phone. Then ask yourself, "Which of these poses a better chance of surviving a criminal threat?"
If a criminal targets you, would you rather have a telephone or a gun?
You may say that the government promises to protect you, but, is it an empty one? The short answer is yes. The only guarantee of who will be at the crime scene is the criminal and you, with the forensic team coming later to photograph your body then make a chalk outline.
Let me ask you another question:
If a criminal is looking to target a victim, what's the likelihood that he or she would target someone they think may be armed?
If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answer. This is not to say that a criminal high on drugs, or desperate wouldn't make an attempt, but, what's the likely outcome? People that have a criminal intent don't waste time and will choose the time and place to do their deed and someone bent on committing mass murder will most likely pick a place that is a gun free area, such as a school or mall. So, "gun free" zones are in reality "crime spree" zones.
So here's the rub. Do we allow government to "carefully" control guns, or do we allow law abiding citizens to own them? Or, as the pinhead elitists at the New York Times sees it, "Americans are better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth." Far be it from little ol' me to make an observation, but, NOBODY has the right to deprive the means of someone defending themselves.
I would ask the rhetorical question as to how many school or mall shootings it will take to convince gun control advocates that criminals are not deterred by gun laws. But, it wouldn't do any good. However, I will ask these self appointed intellectuals how we would be better off in a gunless country. Criminals would like nothing better than to live in a society where they have the upper hand.
Since these "erudite" intellectuals seem to have all the answers, they conveniently ignore dozens of studies reviewed by the National Academy of Science and couldn't find one single instance where gun regulations reduced violent crime or murder. As a matter of fact, when Washington D.C. enacted their handgun law, violent crime sharply increased.
So, the next time you hear that another house was broken into in your neighborhood, look at a photograph of a handgun and look at your phone. Then ask yourself, "Which of these poses a better chance of surviving a criminal threat?"
Monday, June 21, 2010
Follow the paper and money trail
Potential explosive evidence uncovered by JoAnn Moretti at Blogster indicates that there may be possible criminal activity involving BP and Obama.Maybe it's possible that the Congressional version of the Inquisition may reveal the connections between BP and the Democrat Party, at least according to JoAnn Moretti at Blogster. She has apparently uncovered a paper trail that purportedly connects BP, Haliburton, Deepwater Horizon, Citigroup, Goldman-Sachs, and the US. Government to a company called NALCO.
Looking at her evidence, we see some well known names in finance, Warren Buffet, Tony Rezko, George Soros and Barack Hussein Obama...mmm.mmmm.mmm.
According to Moretti, there is a concerted effort by these people and corporations to delay fixing the spewing oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Though, why she makes such an assertion doesn't seem to be forthcoming. According to Obama, he was on top of the disaster on day one when SWAT teams were deployed to "secure" the area the very day it happened, yet, his regime later claimed that they didn't know the extent of the leak.
Although, Obama did say that he was pulling back to let BP handle the leak, because they were better equipped, may explain why the government seems to be taking a lackadaisical attitude towards fixing the problem. However, BP's stance seems to be just as suspect. According to JoAnn Moretti:
NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.
If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.
Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).
The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water's surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.
NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)
There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise.
The Dolphins, Whales, Manatees, Sea Turtles and fish suffocate and die. The coastal regions, salt marshes, tourist attractions and the shore front properties are being destroyed, possibly permanently.The air quality is diminished. The Gulf of Mexico fishing industry is decimated.
All to create a need for their expensive and extremely profitable poison.
Moreover, there seems to be evidence that the corporate fatcats intended to maximize their financial gains by using Rahm Emmanuel's mantra, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Whatever the accuracy of JoAnn Moretti's assertions, if any of this turns out be fractionally true, this would be the death knell of President Obama's reign.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ten Question Constitution Quiz
How well do you know the Constitution? Take this 10 question quiz to see.
[QUIZZIN 1]
[QUIZZIN 1]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)