Saturday, March 8, 2014

While Russia invades Ukraine, our gay military dances in drag in Okinawa

Where Are They Now Australia - Jamie Farr (Klinger of MASH)

Just *SMH* I sure am glad I served in the Military when it was normal...had it been like todays Obama Gay way would I have dropped out of college to serve...
I remember when Dudes would try to get out of the draft or be released from military service by dressing in drag and claiming a Section being a section 8 qualifies for promotion awards and special treatment akin to Hitlers Pink Swastika Military The SA & SS boys! By the way if these so called soldiers are so proud  so brave how about trying to pull this stunt on a Middle East Base?

Anyone remember Mash...Cpl Klinger? It was a funny character in  the Mash series...but in real life not so FUNNY!

The Pink Swastika Party: SEE: 

With Numbers Like These, No Wonder Harry Reid's Lying

by: John Ransom 
Unemployment claims came out, and WOW!
So even though our economy is down, it's still up. Or we’re up, but still down. Whatever… it’s all good, because your neighbor pays.
And it’s another example of the stupid math liberals use to mask reality.
The unexciting nature of the newest unemployment claims is papering over all of the downward revisions that we are seeing in other areas of the economy.
For new readers the sentence above is an example of a device I employ now and again called “sarcasm.”

“Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 323,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday,” reports Reuters. “That was the lowest level since the end of November and the drop more than unwound the prior week's rise.”
I’m surprised they didn’t blame the unusually low number of new claims on the weather.
After all, I’m thinking slackers are more likely to find themselves in the unemployment line, thus they’d be less likely to go out in the cold first and then wait in the unemployment line.
Click here to listen to Ransom Notes Radio live or for archives of previous shows. 

Whatever the number “unwound,” the number doesn’t make up for the huge downward revision to private sector job creation estimates that came out this week.
Previously January job creation, estimated at 175,000 jobs, was subsequently revised downward to 127,000, an overestimation of about 38 percent.
And February’s reports look positively balmy now in comparison.

Wake the hell up GOP and @FoxNews...!

Who should run against Obama in 2012? Cain? Or ABLE?
Y'all pushed your choices 2008 and 2012 and both your choices lost big time... John McCain and Mitt Romney...the only reason John McCain received so many votes was because of Sarah Palin as the VP Candidate *Just a fact Jack*...I for one being a veteran cannot stomach John 'Hanoi Hilton' McCain the Manchurian candidate...and as for 'Mittens'...sorry he was a very weak choice! That was a given and proven!

Once again you are at odds with 'We the People' on who we would like to see win in 2016. Get a clue already Palin/West or West/Palin 2016...they could tap Sen Ted Cruz for Homeland Security, Trey Gowdy for Attorney General,Gov Rick Perry for Secretary of the Interior,Sen Rand Paul for Surgeon General,Gov Bobby Jindal for Secretary of State and find a Veteran for DOD with actual experience and one who is proven to be a True Patriot #OathKeeper Hello all bases would be covered and the looney left Progressives would surely #Implode
either way a win win!

Sarah Palin: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul Top My 2016 List

On Friday, Sarah Palin, whose endorsement may have the most impact in the 2016 GOP presidential contest if she does not run, said that though she did not have a 2016 favorite yet, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) were at the top of her list.

Former South Carolina Senator and Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint has said that Palin's endorsement has the most impact in GOP primaries, and a recent national survey found that Palin had the highest favorability rating among Republican presidential primary voters.
Appearing on Fox News's On The Record with Greta Van Susteren the night before she closes out CPAC for the second time in three years, Palin was asked if a potential candidate was emerging as her favorite.

"No, not yet," she answered without hesitation.
Van Susteren then asked if there were candidates who were at the top of her list.
"I appreciate those who have fought for America like Ted Cruz, like Rand Paul," Palin answered before saying that, perhaps, the best candidate may not even be a politician.
"It doesn't have to be someone who has a title today, someone who's in office today," Palin said. "In fact, some would say we need to stay clear of those who have followed a conventional political path. Maybe they are a part of the problem."
"There are businessmen and women and strong family men and women who understand what it is that makes America exceptional, and they want to protect that, they want to get back to that; maybe someone like that will rise and be the 2016 candidate, maybe that's what we need," she explained.
When asked if she would run in 2016, Palin gave the same answer she always gives: "You never say never."

She said she does not have a team "doing the poll-tested, whatever they do" to figure out what messages work and test the waters in early presidential primary states. Palin said that she'll "never say never" and run if there aren't fighters that appreciate and want to fight to preserve American exceptionalism and the promise of America. Palin said there are so many Americans who "feel like I feel" and "serve this country" and mentioned that "it doesn't have to be me" running for president.
As Breitbart News has reported and documented, Palin's influence was proven during the 2012 cycle – as candidates Palin praised before Iowa and South Carolina voted won:
She praised Rick Santorum in December in 2011 when Iowans seemed lukewarm about the field of Republican primary candidates. After Palin made her remarks on December 2 on Fox News's Hannity, Santorum, who was at four percent in the polls in Iowa – barely above Jon Huntsman, who was not even competing in the state – started getting momentum and eventually won the caucus a month later. Though Santorum had gone "all-in" in Iowa and planted his campaign exclusively in the state, voters were persuaded to consider his candidacy more seriously after Palin spoke kindly of him.
Palin has influence in South Carolina as well, of course – her support of Nikki Haley in the 2010 primary ensured she won the Palmetto State's gubernatorial election – and her positive comments about Newt Gingrich enabled him to win South Carolina's presidential primary in 2012.

While the 2012 GOP presidential primary had a clear establishment frontrunner in Mitt Romney and a bevy of weaker candidates who battled to be the anti-Romney, the 2016 primary has strong candidates across the board without a clear frontrunner. If they all run, potential candidates like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum would each have a significant group of supporters that may get them around 8-15% of the vote.
That may make Palin, if she chooses not to run, the 2016 kingmaker.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Theodore Roosevelt’s Advice for 21st-Century Republicans

25 May, 2013 in Funny , Pictures | Comment
“No one matter is of such vital moment to our whole people as the welfare of the wage-workers. If the farmer and the wage-worker are well off, it is absolutely certain that all others will be well off too.”—Theodore Roosevelt, First Annual Message to Congress, 1901
With these words, Theodore Roosevelt projected a vision that shaped America throughout most of the new century. Affirming that “on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together” and that “a period of good times means that all share more or less in them,” his 19,600-word treatise revealed a new president eager to strike a Square Deal to safeguard “the rights of wage-worker and capitalist, of investor and private citizen, so as to secure equity as between man and man in this Republic.”
In balancing labor and capital, the 26th president leaned on Abraham Lincoln, who had observed in his first annual message to Congress exactly 40 years earlier: “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
27 January, 2013 in Funny , Pictures | Comment
Consequently, TR concerned himself more with the welfare of average Americans — tradesmen, small-business owners, and factory workers — than with the welfare of “capital.” In fact, his “One Nation” conservatism posited that an expanding middle class would ensure that “all others will be well off too.” Although noting with pride that wages in the United States were then the world’s highest, the Rough Rider still admonished Congress: “Every effort of legislator and administrator should be bent to secure the permanency of this condition of things and its improvement wherever possible.”
Were he alive today, Roosevelt would surely advise his fellow Republicans to wake up to the social and economic turmoil of the past 25 years, end their libertarian obsession with cutting income-tax rates for investors, rentiers, and the upper-income set, and focus on lifting Middle America. Indeed, TR would express alarm over the boom of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate) at the expense of domestic manufacturing, defense-related industries, transportation infrastructure, and energy production — the true pillars of American strength.
Most important, the Bull Moose would seek to reverse the downward mobility that demographer Joel Kotkin calls the “gradual descent of the middle class into proletarian status,” a devolution that, coupled with mass immigration, has turned California into a land of income extremes that resembles a Third World country.

Noting that the middle 60 percent of earners’ share of national income has declined from 53 percent in 1970 to 45 percent today (whereas the percentage of U.S. families earning middle incomes doubled in the postwar decades), Kotkin warns: “The current downgrading of the middle class undermines the appeal of the ‘democratic capitalism’ that so many conservative intellectuals espouse.”
Central to TR’s efforts would be calling Corporate America back to the nation-building role that it played so well in the past, building factories in the United States, developing our workforce, and securing what would become known as the Arsenal of Democracy. In a dangerous world, safeguarding America takes priority over allowing Big Business to ship its operations overseas, hand over its best technology to China, move increasingly into financial services, and slash millions of Americans from its payrolls — all in the name of short-term profits.
It’s no coincidence that the United States has weakened economically, politically, militarily, strategically, and socially at the same time that Corporate America — while cozying up to the globalists and transnationalists — enjoys record profits (about 14 percent of national income, an all-time high) and sits on unprecedented cash reserves of nearly $1.5 trillion.

Conservatives should have no reservations about demanding that U.S. companies advance American ends. As TR understood, joint-stock corporations are “artificial bodies” with special legal privileges and, therefore, do not share the rights of citizens. “Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions,” TR reminded Congress, “and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.”
Restoring harmony with American ideals demands leadership and vision. We could encourage the Fortune 500 to bring their operations back home by declaring the entire United States a Jack Kemp–style enterprise zone: a pro-growth and pro-business haven boasting a competitive 10 percent corporate tax rate, tort reform protecting industry from trial-lawyer plundering of profits, relief from the diversity police, iron-clad protections of U.S. intellectual property from foreign assaults, and a moratorium on environmental-impact statements and the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
Moreover, we could build a new generation of safe nuclear-power plants offering cheap and plentiful electricity to factories and startups in the Heartland. And we could ensure a robust market for made-in-the-USA goods by instituting a 100 percent domestic-content requirement for all Pentagon procurement contracts and mandating that all public-transportation construction and renovation projects use American-made supplies and materials.

In exchange for these incentives, corporations would agree to rapidly expand the U.S. job market while taking seriously their responsibilities to the American workforce by upholding the TR-style social contract and dramatically curtailing the rampant abuse of 1099 contracting and third-party staffing agencies.
Since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve never been a nation of self-employed peddlers. In chartering nationwide corporations, it’s not too much to ask these enterprises to fortify the U.S. economy by creating productive, well-paying, and secure jobs for their fellow Americans who consume the goods and services they create.
This was the essence of TR’s Square Deal and the “American Way” that emerged during World War II and lasted into the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Their renewal offers the only hope that a hollowed-out America can regain her strength — and survive the 21st century.
This piece was first published by the National Review. 

funny pictures, teddy roosevelt riding a moose

The intolerant same-sex lobby

... liberal-should-understan-political-poster-1298758352.jpg#liberal

Remember when “liberal” meant “tolerant” or “open-minded”?
Nowadays, the perpetually offended have decided they don’t have to debate, and they’re so convinced that their own intellectual flatulence doesn’t stink, they don’t even bother with critical thinking anymore.
Those who most sanctimoniously cry “tolerance” in the public square appear to have a zero-tolerance policy for anything other than their own propaganda.
This inconvenient truth has been on display during the NFL’s annual scouting combine, which invites top college prospects to show off their skills in front of every pro football scout on the planet.
Careers are made and broken at this event every year, and given the underwhelming performance of a certain prospect from the University of Missouri, his draft status could be in jeopardy.
Except this isn’t just any pro prospect. This is Michael Sam. The leftist media’s latest contrived attempt to distract the American people from the daily failures of the president who they cover for daily. Mr. Sam generated headlines from shills and wannabes who just couldn’t get enough of the first “openly gay football player.”

More polls by tncdel
Of course, these are the same people that have been trying to kill football the past two years because it’s too dangerous. Now they can’t wait to rally around the rainbow flag. And they wonder why their credibility is about as low as that of Congress.
Not to be outdone, a flailing president who seemingly has no time to give answers to the families of four dead Americans at Benghazi, or the millions he broke a promise to that they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it, couldn’t wait to jump on Mr. Sam’s bandwagon.
This is the same president who said if he had a son he wouldn’t let him play a dangerous sport such as football. Mr. Obama cares about Mr. Sam so much he wants him to risk life and limb playing football. With friends like that, who needs fundamentalist Christians?

As the media fawned and genuflected to Mr. Sam simply because he’s another star homosexual athlete, there was no time for serious questions about what this paradigm change means for the NFL or American culture at large. No time for debate. No time for a difference of opinion.
The left’s favorite tactic when it can’t win a debate is just to say the debate is over. However, if a debate is over, should there still be so many unanswered questions?
Questions such as: Presumably, we segregate men’s and women’s restrooms and shower facilities in most walks of life because it’s uncomfortable doing the activities necessary in each venue with a member of the opposite sex present.
liberal-logic-obama-dumbcrat-political-poster-1291604426.jpg#liberal ...
When someone says they are same-sex-attracted, why doesn’t the same principle apply? If you don’t mind your son showering after practice or a game with a same-sex-attracted male, then shouldn’t it also be OK if your daughter showers afterward with males attracted to her?
If the answer is that other players should feel comfortable with Mr. Sam because he’s still naturally a man, and I agree that he is, because gender comes from the Creator or natural selection and not by the outward expression of our desires, how does that not contradict all the left’s LGBTQ propaganda here?
The propaganda says desire and behavior shape gender, thus someone can be “transgendered” or suffer from a confused “gender identity” depending on how they feel.
If Mr. Sam’s gender is absolute, meaning he’s still a man no matter who or what he’s attracted to, that undermines the entire premise of this narrative. If Mr. Sam is still just another man, why is his sexual behavior with consenting adults any more news than the out-of-wedlock conquests of so many other players?
Are media personalities with a Christian worldview going to be allowed to speak about this subject with the same freedom as those that don’t have one?
Is the NFL Network telling Kurt Warner what he can and cannot say? What does NBC plan on doing with Tony Dungy, who has always been a staunch supporter of traditional marriage? One sports blog dogged Mr. Dungy on Twitter last year to see if his views on this issue had evolved (translation: has he stopped being a Christian?), and was disappointed when they didn’t get the answer they were hoping for. Will the left now argue the first black coach to win a Super Bowl is a bigot?
Doesn’t the very liberal first lady of New York City prove this entire argument is a scam? The New York Daily News ran the headline “Bill de Blasio proud of his marriage with a former lesbian” in a profile of Chirlane McCray in December 2012.
How is someone a “former lesbian?” Isn’t it once gay, always gay? Mrs. de Blasio also refuses to identify herself as bisexual. If she can suppress her same-sex desires in order to have a natural family, doesn’t that undermine the argument we should alter public policy and shred the First Amendment to recognize people based solely on their behaviors?
Or does the leftist media and LGBTQ activists now want to call the first lady of New York City a liar and say she was never really gay?
If you’re making the case we should undo the moral foundations of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution to make way for your beliefs, shouldn’t you have to answer these sorts of questions first?

Does the left have any answers to these sorts of questions other than name-calling? I assume the answer will be “no” once they start responding in the comments section to this column.
If the answer is no, then liberty-loving Americans should just say no to the left. 

Thread: Funny in a sad sort of way (Liberal mindset)

Remembering The Alamo

Yesterday, March 6, marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo outside of San Antonio, Texas, back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.
It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally-known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 26 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. However, there was something different about them. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.
Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom involves much more than financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable: destroy one and all will die.

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: “Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna…The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword… I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat… VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side…”
As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the National Education Association (NEA) telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. They didn’t have the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) telling them they were a hate group. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks. The TSA didn’t have them on a terrorist watch list. Neither did they have pastors constantly filling their hearts and minds with this imbecilic “Obey-the-government-no-matter-what” misinterpretation of Romans chapter 13.
The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” They believed God was on their side and the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today’s standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning–none. Yet, the call for pragmatism and compromise was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, “Victory or death!”
Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political, corporate, and religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, socialism, and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.
One thing is certain: those courageous champions at the Alamo did not fight and die for a political party or for some lesser of two evils mantra. They fought and died for a principle–and that principle was liberty and independence.

On this day in 1836, those 186 defenders of the Alamo joined the ranks of the world’s greatest freedom fighters. Patriots such as the 70 Christian men from the Church of Lexington who stood against 800 British troops on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green and the hundreds more who joined them at the Concord Bridge; men such as the great Scottish freedom fighter, William Wallace, and his band of 2,000 men who stood against an English force of over 13,000 men at the Battle of Stirling Bridge on September 11, 1297, and again on July 22, 1298, when Wallace and 5,000 Scots went up against an English force of over 15,000 men at the Battle of Falkirk; and let’s not forget the single greatest example of men who chose to fight for liberty against the greatest of odds: the 300 Spartans who squared off against more than 100,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae in August or September of 480 B.C. These stories–and hundreds like them–are the heritage of free men everywhere. And the willingness to stand against overwhelming odds for the cause of liberty is certainly America’s heritage.
Today, however, our national leaders are in the process of turning the greatest free nation to ever exist, the United States of America, over to the very forces that the Alamo defenders–and America’s Founding Fathers–gave their lives resisting. And, for the most part, the vast majority of Americans seem completely apathetic to the fetters being fastened around their necks.
On second thought, do Travis, Bowie, and Crockett look foolish, or do we?

Thursday, March 6, 2014

ALERT: Nominal congressional action will NOT stop Obama's lawbreaking.

Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'
American Conservative,

If Congress passed a resolution telling Obama to do his job, do you believe he would listen?

Seeing that the President has a strong disdain for any kind of restraint -- from the Constitution itself, or from the U.S. Congress -- we sincerely doubt it.

This is why the ENFORCE Act, introduced in the U.S. House yesterday, is bound to fail.

While the Act rightfully calls on Obama to start enforcing laws as they are written -- rather than the way he would like them to be written -- and honor his Oath of Office to "faithfully execute" his duties, it can't be expected to actually work.

With Obama, we are dealing with a man who ignores and rewrites laws with which he disagrees. So, let's ask: Will passing another piece of legislation -- one he likely wouldn't even sign -- stop him?

As Obama has openly committed to act in a dictatorial manor -- saying he "can do whatever he wants" and that he will work "with or without Congress" to further his agenda -- this type of ineffective wrist-slapping from Congress will have zero effect.

While the ENFORCE Act recognizes a very real problem -- Obama's unconstitutional executive action -- it falls well short of being the remedy we need. 

Time is running out and it's time we demand Congress to get serious in their efforts to combat Obama and his king-like actions; lawmakers have got to stand up and start showing their teeth if we want to preserve the rule of law.

We've got to tell U.S. lawmakers to quit wasting their time (and ours) on nominal actions against the President, and, instead, file articles of impeachment against him!

It's Congress' job to check the Executive, not cower beneath him.

Take Action! Tell members of the U.S. House and Senate to IMPEACH, CONVICT, and REMOVE Barack Obama from office for working against the Constitution and violating his Oath of office!

** Also, sign and send your no-cost letters to your U.S. Senators and Representative here. 

 Walking With Socialists

In the presence of the socialist president of France, last month Obama claimed he can "do whatever he wants"...

According to the media, Obama's comment was simply a joke. But was it?

In his tenure as president, Barack Obama has consistently ignored the Constitution and, in his latest State of the Union address, has boldly pledged to continue to flat-out ignore the Supreme Law of the Land!

These things stated, we ought to believe that Obama meant exactly what he said to François Hollande on February 10... his actions are proof!

We've got to call on Congress to stop Obama's lawlessness behavior now!

We're asking you to fax, call, and petition lawmakers against Obama's lawbreaking today and demand that they file articles of impeachment against the president, convict him, and remove him from the White House!

Obama is not above the law! 

Obama Illegally 'Adjusting' Law

The Obama Administration recently announced another delay in the enforcement of Obamacare as it is written.

By modifying the "Employer Shared Responsibility" provision of Obamacare, Obama has now effectively rewritten the Healthcare Law more than a dozen times.

This is illegal.

Under the Constitution, the Executive has no power to author or change law at any time. Thus, Obama has once again violated his Oath of office and reaffirmed himself as an enemy of the Constitution.

Congress must not let him get away with this.

Seeing that Obama is committed to act "with or without Congress" to further his radical agenda, the Administration's latest Obamacare-rewrites stand to confirm that the president's "Year of Action" has officially commenced.

Friend, it's crucial that you take action now and call on Congress to impeach, convict, and remove the Usurper-In-Chief from office.

U.S. House and Senate members need to hear from you -- make your voice heard!   

Lawmakers Welcome Impeachment

More lawmakers are supporting the idea of throwing Barack Obama out of office.

U.S. Representative Paul Broun signaled that would support impeaching the President at a candidates forum held by Georgia's Gilmer County Tea Party in February. Broun later confirmed his stance with the Daily Caller, saying:

"If House leadership brought an impeachment vote before the floor, then there would certainly be good reason for doing so, with substantive information and evidence to impeach the President. With the President repeatedly bypassing Congress through executive order, lying to the American people on Obamacare, and failing to address what really happened in Benghazi, I can understand why this would be an important issue to many Georgians right now."

Texas' U.S. Representative Steve Stockman -- the bold Congressman who walked out of Obama's State of the Union address -- told supporters in a letter that he's considering filing articles of impeachment himself!  

"I'm considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama ... Obama defiantly vowed not only to radically expand the reach of government from cradle to grave, but to smash the Constitution's restrictions on government power while doing it. His goal is to eliminate our constitutional republic. Last year I said I would consider impeachment as a last resort to stop Obama's abuse of power. And, quite frankly, we're running out of options."

Immediately after Obama's SOTU address, Rep. Stockman said the President "has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree" adding that such executive action is "a wholesale violation of Obama's oath of office and a disqualifying offense."

Stockman is right. And seeing that he is a House member, he has the Constitutional authority - as does Rep. Broun - to file articles of impeachment against Obama!

Right now, we've got to urge the House to file articles of impeachment against Obama, so the Senate may convict him of his crimes, and remove him from office!  

A 'Year of Action' ... against the Constitution

Members of the United States House and Senate need no more evidence for removing Obama from office after hearing his appalling -- indeed, treasonous -- State of the Union speech.

In addition to calling Congress to rubber-stamp his radical agenda, Barack Obama openly committed himself to work against the Constitution... in direct violation of the Oath he swore before God and in front of America.

Obama made it clear that he's prepared to act "with or without Congress" on a number of issues - from gun-control to minimum wage to immigration.

Since bypassing Congress and "legislating" by executive fiat is flatly unconstitutional, the President's pledge to do such is an impeachable offense and must not be ignored!

The Constitution is clear in Article I, Section 1 when it states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." 

Note the word "all" ...

Obama simply has no power to legislate - or "make law" - whatsoever. Yet, Obama's January 28 address made clear that he intends to do so despite the Constitution's plain language!

Right now, we need you to sign and send your faxes U.S. lawmakers demanding that Obama be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.  

 While Obama calls himself a so-called "Constitutional scholar" we know that he is not at all interested in living within its confines.

In Obama's opinion, the Constitution is nothing more than a sheet full of archaic ideas held by several old men at the end of the 18th century.

Mr. Obama does not consider the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land, but only a "set of ideals." He said so himself during his State of the Union back in January.

Obama's lawlessness has got to be stopped. Again, we are urging you to call your elected servants and fax lawmakers commanding them to impeach and remove Obama from office this year.

Take Action! Tell members of the U.S. House and Senate to IMPEACH, CONVICT, and REMOVE Barack Obama from office for working against the Constitution and violating his Oath of office!


Vladimir Putin Does Not Show Weakness by Beating Everyone (Including Us)

[Oh Oh Vlad is a slippin' toward Barry Obama's Pink Swastika Party]
Thomas Crown
As Vladimir Putin engages in his latest round of Remind Former Soviet Socialist Republics Who’s The Stud And Who’s The Soap Dropper in Ukraine, the Obama administration is engaged in the relentless honesty, transparency, and self-examination we’ve come to expect from this crowd whenever their policy instincts have departed reality and headed for Planet Zoobily Zooble.
Thus, after castigating Vladimir Putin for living in the nineteenth century (when the Russian Empire Putin so loves reached its greatest size and power) and accusing him of attempting to restart the Soviet Union (the same tyranny the death of which Putin publicly laments as a catastrophe), the Obama administration and its group of lickspittles in the media and elsewhere are trying out a new reason why they’ve been outmatched by a man who rules over a broken petrostate with a life expectancy of 69 years:

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is proof of his weakness.
Now, facially, this is the most absurd thing we’ve heard since the last Obamacare commercial, but the thinking appears to be thus: Putin is so weak, so unable to sway Ukraine and his near abroad through gay pride marches, televised movie award shows, and the strategic use of “um,” that he had no choice but to invade Ukraine to force them to bend to his will.
This only makes sense if you think the outside world only exists when Obama gives a speech there.
But first, let’s give this idiotic spin its due. Russia’s GDP, as of 2012, was about $2.015 trillion, according to the World Bank. US GDP in the same year: $16.24 trillion. While Putin has launched a military revitalization program since taking and holding office, his military was only able to break Georgia’s in 2008 because Georgia’s was so awful; projecting power into his near abroad was so dicey that the Russian army outran its supply lines on the way to Tbilisi.

The Soviet Union, this is not.
Further, lest I be accused of engaging in the sort of nauseating Putin-worship of which a small portion of the Right is guilty (and of which the Left would be guilty if he actually did recreate the Soviet Union), let me add a disclaimer. Vladimir Putin is a moral catastrophe. He is an evil man. That we only gave a damn once he banned gay pride marches and didn’t care about the spontaneous execution and arrest of dissidents and protesters, that we gave more thought to letting men wear peacock feathers in Moscow than to the fact that opposition journalists and activists are routinely murdered, says far more about us than about him. The day he goes to his Maker will be a great day for the world and a pretty awful one for him.
But in a world of midgets in foreign affairs, he’s a dude of at least average height.

Vladimir Putin has set the terms for the world’s conversation in Ukraine because he intrinsically understands something that the group of nimrods running Western foreign policy do not: In real life, away from conferences and meetings and important lunches, foreign affairs is a series of matches of relative strength brought to bear in each conflict.
If you have fifty legions and so fear losing a single centurion that you won’t commit one, you have nothing. If you are the wealthiest nation in the world but run from any conflict in which you might lose a penny, you are the poorest nation of all. Putin picks contests where he is strong and his opponent is weak, and where we cannot or will not bring our much greater power into conflict with his. He works to divide his foreign opponents domestically so that he has a freer hand.
Ukraine is a case in point, and gives the lie to “he’s so weak he had to beat Kiev within an inch of its life.”

About a year ago, Ukraine was hoping to sign agreements with the European Union for visa reform and for a free trade area. (Ukraine’s political class — the entire thing — was behind this, in no small part because its oligarchs wanted European markets and free travel for their family and kids.) This would have brought Ukraine one (small) step closer to Europe, and one (bigger) step away from Russia. Thus, Ukraine was passing laws in parliament that were designed to meet a lengthy list of demands from Brussels before Ukraine could be allowed to do so. (Whether they met those demands is a point for another day.)
Russia’s culture was first made in Kiev. Although the Moscow Patriarchate commands the loyalty of the Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ukraine, it was in the Kievan Rus’ in which that church was born. Russia has controlled Ukraine to some extent for centuries. Suddenly, the West was gaining a real foothold there. So Vladimir Putin pulled out the stops.

First, he came at the head of a gaggle of Eastern Orthodox bishops to celebrate the 1,025th anniversary of the baptism of the Kievan Rus’, the seminal moment in Slavic Christianity, as an unsubtle reminder of ties of culture and faith. (The 1,000th anniversary was of course a more subdued affair as Ukraine was still part of the atheistic Soviet Union.) Then, he interdicted all Ukrainian imports at the Russian border because of “health and safety concerns.” (Those imports ranged from chocolates to steel to raw materials to factory goods.) Ukraine’s economy ground to a halt. Putin then pointedly noted that if Ukraine entered a free trade agreement with Europe, those inspections would have to be permanent.
He also casually noted that Ukraine was overdue on its natural gas bills (Russia supplies virtually all of Ukraine’s natural gas), and so maybe he would have to cut their gas supplies too.
The world yawned. Ukraine — and Ukraine’s industrial oligarchs — noticed.

In three simple moves, without once weakly moving in armored divisions, Putin managed to disrupt Ukraine’s policymaking and alter the dynamics of what had been a years-long effort to join Europe; to remind Ukraine’s business and ruling classes (same thing) that he owned them at will; and to draw Eastern Ukraine closer to him by reminding them of those ties of faith and blood.
Faced with economic destruction, Ukraine asked the EU, the IMF, anyone, for $15 billion to offset the damage to their economy that years of corruption reaching back to the Nineties, a Russian trade embargo, and the effects of free trade with Europe would deal. The IMF’s response, in brief, was an extended middle finger. (One of its core demands for a loan package was to make natural gas so expensive that Ukrainian industry would shutter and its people would freeze; another was to pay back a prior IMF loan.) The EU’s response was to offer $1 billion. The US response was to pass.

Russia’s response was to offer $15 billion, to lower the cost of natural gas, and to forgive the extensive backlog of Ukrainian natural gas debt. The only string required was that Ukraine had to agree not to sign the agreements on offer from Europe.
Now, let’s stop here and look at what happened. Ukraine’s economy is and has been awful for half a decade and more. Ukraine’s then-president Viktor Yanukovich had continued what his predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko, had started, and moved Ukraine’s policy into alignment with Europe, despite resistance in the Russian-speaking and often ethnically Russian East. A dying population, a political class noted for ineptitude and corruption no matter the party, a sclerotic business environment (ironically significantly reformed as one of the unalloyed goods of the 2013 reforms), crippling civil service and pension issues, basically all of the classic basket case symptoms had conspired to make Ukraine dependent on some greater power.

Yet Ukraine has 46 million people, a significant industrial base, the gas pipelines on which Europe relies for its natural gas, farmland, and a population at least partly inclined to think of itself as European. Ukraine was there for the taking and in the great power conflicts of the past would have been well worth it. Europe easily has the resources to float Ukraine indefinitely, to bring Kiev into its foreign policy fold, to integrate it by law and norm and policy. Yanukovich and his opposition both practically begged for it.
Europe is wealthier and more dynamic (yes, it’s true) and more populous than Russia. In a straight contest, economically, it wouldn’t be close.
But Europe, tired of bailouts of dysfunctional states, not really committed to the Ukraine project (except for Poland, but they are one voice of many), demurred. It was this that gave Putin his opening, and he saw it and seized it. He offered what Ukraine needed and couldn’t reject. Putin and Yanukovich intensely dislike each other, but Yanukovich and Ukraine were weak, and Europe and the US were not putting their strength in play in Ukraine, so Putin gambled and won.

Putin brought his lesser power fully to bear time and again where Europe would not, and so he won.
But! Yanukovich was overthrown! The protesters and the suddenly ascendant opposition declared that it was Europe or bust (and could they have $35 billion please?)! Moscow lost, right?
Wrong. Kiev’s independence is and always has been illusory. Yushchenko realized it even when Bush was in the White House and the world knew America would shoot people, and Yanukovich realized it when Obama was in the White House and the world knew that Obama would talk people to death. Russia’s military is not first rate. Ukraine’s aspires to fourth-rate. Ukraine relies on Russia for its natural gas, despite clever efforts by Europe to reimport gas to Ukraine on the cheap. Russia is Ukraine’s largest trading partner (unless you count the eurozone as a whole, which is kinda silly), and if you add in the Russian-controlled Customs Union states (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and now Armenia), it’s not even close. Some variation of this has been true since the time of the Czars. 

Vladimir Putin saw that all the West would do during the protests in Ukraine was to talk, and threaten sanctions, and encourage the opposition protesters. (In fairness to the spin coming out of both sides, the protesters represented a cross-section of Western Ukrainian society, including blood-and-soil nationalists who openly boasted of their small arms caches, fascists worse than that, Ukrainian Catholics, Western Orthodox, academics, civil servants, small businessmen, and so on — but Russia played up the presence of the very real fascists to great effect.) His first move was to announce that the aid package he’d promised before was off the table. This meant that Ukraine’s economy was rocketing to collapse and the gas deal Yanukovich struck is off the table. Winter 2014-2015 is gonna suck and industrial capacity will break.

Then he invaded Crimea.
Now, again, let’s pause and look at the situation. Putin had lost the man that he had distastefully backed in Kiev. The West was jubilant over something in which they had only perfunctorily taken part. Kiev was outlawing membership in the political parties of the East, because they could and the West didn’t notice. The few billions Putin had put into Ukraine by bond-buying were now apparently wasted. The geniuses in Kiev were begging the West for money and announcing proudly that they were free of Moscow’s influence forever. Poland and the EU-crats who had longed for an easy chit to steal from Russia were openly gloating.
This would suggest to a Great Game player a few important points. First, what was left of the political class in Ukraine had either gone completely mad, was encouraging the fascists and non-fascists in dangerous ways, or both. (Again, the fascists while not a majority are very real, and Russia remains averse to fascists other than Putin.) Second, the soft power on which Moscow had relied to this point was no longer effective in the near term. Third, the West was clearly trying to take what Moscow believes to be the very definition of its backyard.

Fourth, the West still would not commit to sending Ukraine $35 billion or $100 billion or anything more than generic promises of aid.
Russia hates instability in its near abroad almost as much as it hates a loss of influence, which it in turn hates almost as much as a loss of influence to the West. It has naval bases in Crimea. So Putin used the next facet of his relatively greater power and activated his military.
The screaming, like unto a group of scalded cats in heat, from the West did not and does not deter him, because it shows that he has won. He put boots on the ground and the West has resorted to lecturing him and threatening mostly bloodless sanctions it won’t or can’t sustain. He put his military, which is strong relative to Ukraine’s and weak relative to America’s, into play, and because the greater power and weaker power both fear to engage him, he won.

Russia is now playing another great power game, where it makes all sorts of excuses for what it’s done and makes unmeetable demands in return for ending it. Bring back Yanukovich and all is well, We are protecting ethnic Russians, The government in Kiev is criminal, all of these things are not intended to defuse the crisis, they are not designed to prolong it, they have exactly as much weight as The purple gigosaur people have taken over the bodies of most Ukrainians and on behalf of the Motherland we must stop them. They are intended to remind Ukraine (and the West) that Russia’s occupation of Crimea is a fait accompli, and that other than the Poles, no Western power is going to stop Putin if he feels like an armored cav stroll to Kiev.

I hesitate to make any predictions here because I don’t want to feel like Blake Hounshell in a few days, but I don’t think Putin is going to press into Eastern Ukraine because he doesn’t need to. The regional governors in the Eastern oblasts understand fully what’s in play here and so they’re going to make Kiev’s life miserable for a while. The government in Kiev understands what’s going on here, so any moves toward Europe will be tentative and after sounding out Russia first. Ukrainians in the East see an escape from the madness of the West, so the upcoming parliamentary elections and presidential elections are going to be even more intense and more likely to sap popular will for a European alignment from Kiev. The West is largely irrelevant in what they think because they keep showing they don’t really care.
If the power of destruction is the power of absolute control*, then after less than a year of intelligent soft power and hard power applications, Vladimir Putin has vividly shown the world that he controls Ukraine. If this is weakness, it is weakness that will recreate the Russian Empire before Putin at last punches his ticket for Hell.

*As my dear friend Moe Lane would say, classical reference.

Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan Call It Quits

Today the Senate voted down a particularly noxious Obama nomination. Debo Adegbile, whose only claim to fame was agitating on behalf of a convicted, unrepentant, and vicious cop killer, was voted down 47-52. Pressing this nomination was a stupid act by the White House, though it has become boring to write that phrase over the course of the past six years. The nomination was toxic with no greater purpose than for Obama to demonstrate that he has stump broke Harry Reid and thereby further cow Mitch McConnell. It forced Red State Democrat senators to make a difficult vote. Some took the easy way out:
Other Democrats who voted against the Obama nominee were Chris Coons (Del.),Bob Casey (Pa.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Joe Donnolly (Ind.) and John Walsh (Mont.).

Manchin, Pryor, and Walsh are all on the endangered species list, voting against Adegbile was mandatory for them even if it meant embarrassing the Man-God at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. More curious is who is on the list voting yes: Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan. Even though both are floundering and all indications are that Kay Hagan is circling the drain a vote against Adegbile would have helped, or worst casing it been neutral, while a vote in favor would hurt.
The conclusion is obvious. Both Landrieu and Hagan have avoided Obama when he visited their states. This indicates that they are not members of the Obama fan club. Why make this counter-intuitive vote? Because they want jobs in the Obama Administration after they are defeated in November. Rather than making a vote for the benefit of the voters back home, they made their vote to curry favor with Obama.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

‘Russia Today’ Anchor Voices Her Support of America & Resigns

oped: Now here is a young lady who has Cajones' puts beliefs over a pay check....unlike MSM and Fox News talking heads et al...Get a clue y'all fakes! 

Russia Today anchor Liz Wahl did something rather courageous in calling out the propaganda pushed by the state-owned media outlet she worked for, and quit live on air.
“I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government which whitewashes the actions of Putin.”
This comes after the controversy over a fellow anchor who criticized the actions of the Russian government on the same network:

Martin said, “Just because I work here for RT doesn’t mean I don’t have editorial independence, and I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any military intervention in sovereign nations’ affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

…Martin continued, saying she will not “sit here and apologize or defend military aggression.” Martin then criticized the news media in general, expressing disappointment with the Ukraine news coverage “from all sides of the media spectrum,” and said it was “ripe with disinformation.”
Russia Today responded by shipping her into the Crimean, ostensibly to let her learn firsthand the facts on the ground, but most saw it as a punishment. Martin declined the offer.
Will This Military Version Of Ellen’s Oscar Selfie Break The Retweet Record? 


Sorry LGBT /GLAAD I'm Just a Good Ol' Boy..unlike y'all Weirdo's

Just the Cold  hard truth...what part don't ya get?...never mind...y'all be so strange ! Live and Let live thats what I say...but hell NO y'all wanna make us all Gay...Sorry no Way Jose... et Ellen et al!

What more can I say?  #Idiots

Get a clue already:

Uggggh...I ain't as good as I once was...!

No politics Everybody just take the Fifth!

Michele Bachmann: Jan Brewer wrong to veto Arizona's 'anti-gay' bill


The Fine Print
Rep. Michele Bachmann is “sorry” that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill in Arizona that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to same-sex couples because of religious objections.
“I believe that tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to respect everyone's rights, including the rights of people who have sincerely held religious beliefs,” Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican told “The Fine Print.”
Many prominent Republicans, including former Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain of Arizona have backed Brewer’s decision to veto the bill, but the tea party leader said they are wrong on this issue.
“Religious liberties and the protection of our religious liberties is right,” she said. “Right now, there's a terrible intolerance afoot in the United States, and it's against people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs.” 

Bachmann was recently quoted as saying that she doesn’t believe there’s a “pent-up desire” for a female president. When asked about the remark, Bachmann said her position comes from her own experience as a presidential candidate in the Republican 2012 presidential primary.
“Obviously, I believe that a woman can be president; I believe that a woman will be president,” she said. “I just don't think that it will be Hillary Clinton for obvious reasons. She's proved that she would be incapable of being commander-in-chief. She's the godmother of Obamacare, and she represents the third term of a Barack Obama presidency.”
On the topic of 2016, Bachmann said there are many Republicans presidential hopefuls who, “without a shadow of a doubt,” could go head-to-head with the former secretary of state in a presidential contest.
“There's a lot of them out there … but I think it would be a real mistake to focus on 2016,” she said. “We've got the 2014 election in front of us, just months away. We need to focus on that because that will change the table, rearrange the table here in Washington.” 

Though she is not personally seeking reelection this year, Bachmann forecasts that Republicans will have a strong showing in the midterm elections and gain a majority in the Senate -- a prediction that she credits in part to President Obama, who she says has “fundamentally transformed” the country in a way that’s unrecognizable.
“We didn't' want a third world nation; we don't want a so-called banana republic,” she said. “We want to be the economic powerhouse of the world. We want to be the military powerhouse of the world and President Obama is gutting us on both of those fronts … that's why I think President Obama and his party are going to do very poorly at the polls this fall.”
The congresswoman, who is credited with helping to start the tea party in Congress five years ago, rejected the notion that the Republican establishment and tea party are at war with one another, and said the party should work toward unity as it progresses into the election year.
“What we're trying to do is embrace each other as much as we can because the greatest politician of modern times was Ronald Reagan, and his advice was find someone who you can agree with 80 percent of the time and agree with them,” Bachmann said. “And we've got that between the tea party and the so-called establishment.” 

Some tea party groups have called for a primary challenge to Speaker John Boehner, even holding a contest to find a candidate. She said she did not support such a move and said it’s time for the conservative activists to be more pragmatic in picking their battles.
“I really think that the bigger issue that we'll be focused on by Republicans, by conservatives, and by tea partiers will be the challenge to Harry Reid in the senate as opposed to John Boehner,” Bachmann said. “Right now, the House of Representatives is in conservative hands. That's really the goal. And we have to keep our eye on the prize.”
For more of the interview with Bachmann, including what she points to as the tea party’s major accomplishment over the last five years, check out this episode of “The Fine Print.”
ABC News’ Betsy Klein, Alexandra Dukakis, Tom Thornton, Chris Carlson, and Mary Quinn contributed to this episode.
Rep. Michele Bachmann is “sorry” that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill in Arizona that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to same-sex couples because of religious objections.
“I believe that tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to respect everyone’s rights, including the rights of people who have sincerely held religious beliefs,” Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican told “The Fine Print.”
Many prominent Republicans, including former Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain of Arizona have backed Brewer’s decision to veto the bill, but the tea party leader said they are wrong on this issue.
“Religious liberties and the protection of our religious liberties is right,” she said. “Right now, there’s a terrible intolerance afoot in the United States, and it’s against people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Read More:


America’s Black Leaders Are Race-Baiting, Guilt-Mongering, Lying Liberals

America’s Black Leaders Are Race-Baiting, Guilt-Mongering, Lying Liberals
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel your brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? — Genesis 4:9
“I’m not my brother’s keeper,” my mother used to say. She and my father survived the Great Depression. Through decades of hard work, they made themselves a comfortable life. But a higher authority than my late mother, President Barack Obama, believes we are our brother’s keeper.
Last week, Obama launched his initiative that will create opportunities for young black and Hispanic men. His explanation is that this is a way he is going to help those two minorities in an economy racked by civil discord. And his program is being hailed as the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative. The Obama Administration will partner with foundations, nonprofit groups and businesses to equal the playing field for blacks and Hispanics.
The program should be called Big Brother because it focuses on a single leader, who happens to be black, who has decided by himself that young black and Hispanic youths are going to be given special advantages. If you are white, Native American or Asian, tough luck. In true Muslim tradition, Obama is not giving a hand up to young women of any race.

According to the President, groups have already invested $150 million into the program and will invest another $200 million over the next five years. And there is no stopping it; Obama has already signed an order to establish the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, which will determine how to help black kids help themselves. It sounds discriminatory and self-aggrandizing for the President, who was shameless while presenting it.
“Fifty years after Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] talked about his dream for America’s children, the stubborn fact is that the life chances for the average black or brown child in this country lags behind by almost every measure and is worse for boys and young men,” said the President.
This is just the latest publicity stunt by Obama so that he can, with a wave of a wand and a few hundred million dollars, change black fortunes. Until now, he has been remiss in doing so, unless it added to his legacy.

Obama’s Sermon On The Mount

TIME reported:
"Last February, Obama met with a group of young men at Hyde Park Academy on Chicago’s South Side, who were a part of the Becoming a Man program within the school. He spoke candidly with the group about his experiences, acknowledging the fact that as a man of color who was raised by a single mother, their lives were inherently similar. The only difference, he said, was the fact that he grew up in an environment that was more forgiving."
When I went to high school, I must have missed Becoming a Man Day. I got those lessons from my father when I was young enough that discipline still mattered, before age 12 and not 17. During his long business trips for his magazine, my mother was his XO, always at the ready with the big, old, sterling-silver brush. I must have gotten 30 spankings growing up, but I earned them all. More importantly, they stopped when I was 11 after I had begun to associate my bratty behavior with a sore butt.
Every good parent knows that how his kids turn out depends on how they are raised as little children — not because of some feel-good Presidential plan set up for young men who are way too old to now learn values such as hard work, respect and personal integrity.

Furthermore, is Obama omnipotent? How does he know which environment is the most forgiving? I think black kids are taking hardly any of the blame these days, and it’s being pushed on to the whites. Lately, everything is Whitey’s fault. If some white man killed some poor, innocent black kid, it will be plastered all over the TV media for months, maybe years. And on it goes the direct and indirect message that the laws are written and the police are there to protect Whitey. Therefore, Whitey is at the root of every social injustice. America’s black leaders bang that war drum louder each day.
America could have better race relations without black leaders like Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey forever mucking in the past and making white people feel guilty, while black people feel victimized.

Are We There Yet?

If you have children, you must have heard a thousand times on any trip, “Are we there yet?!” One of my first memories dates back to when I was 3 and I was sitting in the middle seat between my older brother and sister flying two hours from Calgary to Vancouver, Canada, to meet our parents. The last hour I wanted a minute by minute update: “Are we there yet?!”
What I want to know is when we are there yet with the collective white guilt over the treatment of African-Americans for the past 300 years? When can we stop harping about it in everything from the NFL to the Academy Awards, to the policies cooked up by the Oval Office? Can just somebody give us a date that we can put this in our past? After all, the whites who committed those crimes are either dead or soon will be. And if we cannot ever put it into our past, how were we so able to forget the genocide we did to Native Americans?
The truth is I don’t hold out much hope for a deadline, especially when the sins of the father seem to stretch to perpetuity and when the non-solutions provided by some of the influential voices in black America sound a lot more like Joseph Goebbels than Mahatma Gandhi.
Just read what Winfrey had to say regarding the racism “problem” when interviewed by the BBC in November shorty before she received the Medal of Freedom from Obama:
"Of course, problem is not solved. You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still — and there’s a whole generation; I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for Apartheid South Africa; I said this for my own, you know, community in the South — there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die."

Sins Of The Father, You Know?

Oprah, who do you want to see die? Just old people? What about younger people whose parents may have had them “bred and marinated in it (racism).” Do they have to die, too? And who gets to decide who is a racist and who is not? What if we find out, Oprah, that you are a racist? Is it possible you hate the Swiss because they treated you shabbily in that Zurich shop when you just had to have that $38,000 handbag last summer? If so, do we have to wait for you to die before racism is gone?
And then there is the question of blacks who are racists. Is it OK for them to hate whites, given decades of discrimination and centuries of slavery, which, by the way, ended 148 years ago?
It doesn’t seem productive when black leaders like the President and Winfrey make excuses about male black youths and do not hold them to the same accountability as white youths. Yet there are other black leaders just as bad as Obama and Winfrey.
Blacks are still being treated so poorly, said Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to a crowd of 18,000 in Detroit last month, that African-Americans should have their own court system.
“Our people can’t take much more. We have to have our own courts. You failed us,” Farrakhan said.

“How long must we let people stand their ground, shooting us and getting away with it while we don’t get justice?” added Farrakhan. “We want justice. Equal justice under the law. We want the federal government to intercede to see that black people get justice in accordance with the law. Otherwise, I’m going on record with this today… we have to have our own courts.”
What’s next? Separate courts for Hispanics? How about for Asians? I am a Canadian-American. Do I get to go trot off to my own courthouse if I get in trouble?
These are all race-baiting, muck-raking, money-making ways in which blacks have been let down by their self-appointed leaders and have not had to face up to their own responsibilities. The result is that race relations are worse now than when Obama was first elected. He bears responsibility in this, but he has had plenty of help from the likes of Winfrey, Farrakhan and many others — all of them spreading the message of irreversible shame against white America as a weapon to press their liberal agenda.
Meanwhile, white resentment grows along with black anger. That sets the stage for race tensions and even race riots. Maybe that was the intention from the start.
Yours in good times and bad,

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies....!

IRS' Lois Lerner Re-Subpoenaed After Accidentally Waiving Her Right To ...
[Hmmm so she be scared that Dead Fish Rahm Emanuel will have her hit?]
Lois Lerner
Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies openly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, according to her attorney.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa announced Sunday that Lerner will testify at Wednesday’s hearing, but Lerner’s attorney Bill Taylor said that Lerner will seek to continue invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and will also seek a one-week delay of her testimony. Oversight members are reportedly open to granting Lerner a one-week delay if she petitions for one in person at Wednesday’s hearing. The delay would allow Lerner’s lawyers to continue negotiating for immunity, which they have been doing since at least September.

Continue Reading on

When This Veteran Saw A Mexican Flag Over A U.S. Flag All Hell Breaks Loose

In today’s society there is a constant push from Liberals to make you, the American citizen, feel bad about being patriotic.
You can’t be proud to see a flag flying. You can’t wear a shirt with an American flag on it. You have to give preference to immigrants from other countries when they want to celebrate their old countries holidays. Sometimes it gets taken way too far.
When this Army vet saw a shop flying the Mexican flag ABOVE the American flag he finally had enough.

US Veteran Jim Brossard responded to a Mexican business disrespecting the American flag by cutting the flags down and taking the American flag home with him.

CPAC Organizers Make Statement With Boehner Snub

Childhood surely wasn't easy for young John Boehner, who one images faced a tornado of teasing from kids who willfully mispronounced his name. His
We expect to encounter any number of conservatives, libertarians, Tea Partiers and, yes, a few token RINOs invited to speak at this year’s CPAC conference, which we’ll be covering from the floor of the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
But one person we know we won’t be running into is House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Nobody bothered asking him to come.
Evidently nonplussed by the Speaker’s ongoing offensive against grassroots conservatives, the event’s organizers didn’t think it appropriate to invite him.
The Washington Times, a presenting sponsor at this year’s CPAC, called the non-invite a “major snub.”

"House Speaker John A. Boehner, who has tangled repeatedly with the right wing of the Republican Party, has not been invited to this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, a major snub at the annual gathering and a sign of the top Republican officeholder’s struggle to find common ground with grass-roots activists.
People familiar with CPAC’s planning, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the American Conservative Union, which hosts the event, never sent an invitation to Mr. Boehner, in part because it wanted the focus this year to be on leading conservative thinkers at the grass-roots level and not at the congressional or party leadership level."
While attendees and conservatives reading along at home may applaud the conference’s statement dis on Boehner, the message is a mixed one. Embattled moderate New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is slated for a key speech, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a particular target of conservatives’ disgust, is also expected to contribute. Then there’s always a Trump troll or two.
Look for our on-the-scene coverage of CPAC 2014 starting Thursday – including tweets, photos from the floor, Facebook updates and, of course, regularly-updated blurbs and features at

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Obama and the Liberal Media...Revolving Door!

Ronan Farrow
Joy-Ann Reid and Ronan Farrow

Just recently, two more Barack Obama activists were awarded with high-profile jobs in the media.
Ronan Farrow, a former “special adviser” to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Joy-Ann Reid, a former press aide for Obama’s presidential campaign, have both earned themselves jobs on MSNBC, where they can parrot White House talking points directly to the American people.
There are now more than 30 Obama activists who’ve made the transition between the campaign trail and the media megaphone. And it’s not just MSNBC. They’re masquerading at ABC, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post and more!
The revolving door turns the other way, too. High-ranking officials from the White House to the Departments of Education, Homeland Security and State got their cushy administration jobs as a reward for their faithful service to Obama as reporters, editors and producers.
The revolving door between the Obama administration and the media is no accident. Barack Obama knows the leftist media will be his most important mouthpiece in the critical 2014 midterm elections. If he and his media pawns can effectively control the flow of information, they can replace the truth with left-wing lies!
Millions of our fellow Americans rely on the establishment press for their news, and it’s time they got the TRUTH, not left-wing spin and distortions!

It’s up to us to make that happen. 

Go To:

Only Democrats Can Be Prophets...Sarah Palin vs John Kerry

Ukraine Crisis: 'I Saw It Coming' Says Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin
vs John Kerry Secretary of Fate the French Fried Clown Prophet 

Source: Registered
Erick Erickson
Back in 2008, the foreign policy press corp of America ridiculed Sarah Palin for predicting that Barack Obama’s displays of weakness and softness would set the stage for a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Blake Hounshell, then the left leaning editor of Foreign Policy and now Deputy Editor of Politico’s magazine, labeled the claim “strange.” After Hounshell’s 2008 article started circulating on twitter the other day, he tweeted sarcastically, “Yes, Twitter, Sarah Palin totally called this exact Ukraine scenario 6 years ago….”
Hounshell was not alone. The foreign policy press in D.C. leans to the left and is happy to ridicule Republican foreign policy pronouncements. In 2012, when Mitt Romney claimed Russia would be a strategic threat to the United States, the foreign policy press did fist pumps in the air with Barack Obama’s counter that the eighties wanted their foreign policy back.

Republican realism about the world and Barack Obama’s enabling of our enemies through his foreign policy naiveté, lack of seriousness, and kissy faces with our adversaries was just too much for the foreign and political press in Washington. Barack Obama, their precious, must be protected like Gollum holding onto his ring. Republicans must be ridiculed. They cannot predict or prophesy anything. After all, Mikhail Gorbachev won us the Cold War; Ronald Reagan just happened to accidentally be on the world stage at the time.
In case you thought I’m exaggerating, consider today the White House is claiming via their errand boy Mark Halperin, “President [Ronald] Reagan never faced a Soviet leader like this. This guy is ruthless.”

But the Democrats can predict everything and take credit for anything. We know that from 2007. That’s the year Charlie Wilson’s War came out. The Tom Hanks movie was a must see for the foreign policy press in D.C. They hailed Charlie Wilson as a hero and prophet. For the first few weeks the movie came out, the press corp in D.C. used Charlie Wilson to kick Ronald Reagan around, raise the specter of a resurgent terrorist regime once we got out of Afghanistan, and attacked George W. Bush.
The movie showed Charlie Wilson, not Ronald Reagan, coming up with the idea of arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The movie concluded with Wilson concerned about what would happen when we left Afghanistan to its own devices and the evil that could grow within. Because Reagan and George H. W. Bush had abandoned Afghanistan, the Taliban came to power, and the World Trade Center collapsed. It was all their fault and Charlie Wilson had predicted it all.

That is how the Washington press corp portrayed the film and Charlie Wilson. The World Trade Center collapsing was imminently foreseeable because of Republican foreign policy bungling and a refusal to listen to the great prophet Charlie Wilson.
But Sarah Palin? She’s no Charlie Wilson. She has an “R” next to her name.