The Party of NO
May 3, 2014 Obamacare, Opinion, Political, Religion of Peace, Second Amendment, Terrorism
Democrats often call Republicans the Party of NO – because we oppose Barack Obama and the Liberals (sounds like a good name for a Death Metal Band) where they want to Give everything to their constituents. Even noted Republican RINO Chris Christy has called us the party of no, saying that’s not good enough – that we have to offer something to the voters.
I will admit, it makes us look bad. People call Barack Obama Santa Claus, but he’s not – he’s Monty Hall. All flash and bright colors and big gifts behind unknown laws – I mean curtains. The problem is that the current Republican leaders in Washington want to be Monty Hall too – be all flashy and glittery with gifts – to BRIBE their way into office – because that’s how they get good ratings and stay on TV – I mean, in Congress.
It’s DAMNED hard to beat someone who can give piles of MONEY and TREASURE to their minions.
But – unlike Christie – I believe Republicans should BE the Party of NO. After all, the Republican Party was formed to say NO to the Democrat Slaveowners. The current festering pile of Republican Party leaders want to give out shiny gifts – they have no MESSAGE, no RIGHTEOUSNESS to inspire people as to WHY they should vote for NO.
I EMBRACE NO:
NO to RAISING TAXES – WE DO NOT WORK JUST TO SUPPORT CONGRESS!!!
NO to FUNDING ISLAMOFASHISTS!
NO to FUNDING SYRIAN MUSLIMS WHO ARE EATING DEAD CHRISTIANS!!!
NO to TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES BY OWNING A FIREARM!!!
NO to LIMITING FREE SPEECH!
NO to OBAMACARE!
NO to LETTING OUR VETERANS DIE!!!
NO to ABANDONING ISRAEL!!!
NO to ALLOWING IRAN TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!
NO to ALLOWING AMERICANS TO DIE IN BENGHAZI SO DEMOCRATS CAN LOOK GOOD!
NO to MOCKING THE LORD OUR G✡D BY BOOING HIM ON NATIONWIDE TV!!!
I AM A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN! I AM THE PARTY OF NO!!!
Tags: conservative, party of no, Republicans
Are Minorities Brainwashed Into Inferiority Complex?
Apr 23, 2014 Commentary, Terrorism
The Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that banned affirmative action. The Michigan law basically states that race will not be used as a factor in determining who gets into college. In fact, the Michigan law does not allow colleges to ask the race of the applicant.
The race baiting poverty pimp, and government informant, Al Sharpton is rallying the black folks to do whatever it takes (you know, like riot and protest) to reverse this huge injustice. But what huge injustice is there? We are told that we need equality and a long hard fight was waged for that equality. The Republican Party led the way in ensuring that civil rights were made into law. While one can debate if it was necessary or Constitutional, the fact is we passed a lot of civil rights laws.
So if we want equality why do people of color have to be “more equal” based on their race? Should not one get into college (or anything else like the White House) based on merit and not skin color?
Not according to Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters who think that affirmative action is the only way to solve past injustices. In other words, there needs to be a continual advantage for people of color because of inequalities that existed before many of them were born.
One does not solve racial inequality by reversing the racism by giving a leg up based solely on skin color.
Then again, how would Al Sharpton make any money?
It is bad enough that Al uses the issue to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist but what is worse is that many people of color have been told for so long that they are inferior to white people that they seem to believe it. Why are there threats of riots and other civil unrest over the Court’s decision? Why are people fighting for an act that basically says people of color can’t make it on their merits so they need extra help?
It would seem to me that if people believed in equality they would jump at the chance to prove they are on equal footing and worthy of consideration based solely on their abilities. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., they should be judged not on the color of their skin but on their merits and abilities.
The problem is that many of these folks have been told for so long that they are not as good (and that is the message of affirmative action) so they need a little extra help.
When a state like Michigan says that race will not be asked and will not be used to determine admission folks who have been brainwashed into believing they are inferior get riled up by the race baiters, whose sole job is to keep people down by making them think they are inferior, and act on emotion.
If your scores are not good enough to get you in then your color had nothing to do with it. Perhaps if people (of all colors) spent more time learning and less time listening to people like Sharpton or skipping school to get involved in drug and gang activities they would achieve the scores necessary for admission.
Here is a wake up call. You do not need special treatment to get into school. You have the ability to achieve as well as anyone else regardless of color. There are many highly successful people of color who chose to study and do well in life and you can do that too.
First though, you need to tune out the likes of Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters. They will continue to drag you down while they get rich exploiting you (and Al might rat you out for something).
Affirmative Action is a bad program that needs to go away. It causes all kinds of problems.
Look at what happened when we got the Affirmative Action president…
I wonder if Harry Reid will call Al and those he incites domestic terrorists?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: affirmative action, Al Sharpton, civil rights, justice, lies, michigan, supreme court
Mandela: Paying Respect To A Tyrant
Dec 11, 2013 Commentary, Terrorism
Nelson Mandela of South Africa died last week and leaders from around the world journeyed to that country to pay respect to the man. There were plenty of nice things said about him. Barack Obama took the time to pay respect and then tell us that we should follow Mandela’s example:
We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. ~Obama speech
I guess we should follow this because everyone knows that South Africa has no poor people and that poverty has been eradicated there and we know that everyone is treated equally.
No, the reality is that nation is poor, is always involved in some kind of internal conflict and the only people who get rich are leaders like Mandela.
There is an excellent article Crisis Magazine that lays out the history of Mandela and his tyranny. It also discusses how he was not just some political prisoner. He was tried for crimes including terrorism and sent to prison. The article discusses the entire man and not just the saintly image presented by the media and those who praise him. Here is an excerpt:
Within South Africa, on direct orders from Winnie and Nelson Mandela, the ANC targeted not only whites, but also all black civil servants, teachers, lawyers, and businessmen—essentially anyone who imagined a post-Apartheid South Africa that differed from the one mandated by the Marxist ANC. Even simple black peasants who refused to carry out terror attacks were treated as enemies, and they were killed in large numbers. Thus, just as the terroristic FLN killed far more Algerians than did the French during the Algerian war for independence, the ANC was the leading cause of death, by far, for black South Africans throughout the period of Apartheid.
He was no saint for sure. He was a brutal murderer and he used violence to push his political agenda. He went to jail for that.
It is no surprise Barack Obama would love the guy. He is a lot like Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: child murderer, nelson mandela, terror, tyranny
The Terrorists Have Won In The NFL
Aug 14, 2013 Commentary, Terrorism
Before I begin and someone decides to tell me that private organizations can decide their own policies let me point out that taxpayers paid for most (if not all) of the stadiums used in the National Football League.
The terrorists have won. It is that simple. You can no longer take a diaper bag into an NFL stadium. Nor can you take camera bags, purses larger than a clutch bag, fanny packs or any other kind of bag except for a clear 12″ x 6″ plastic bag (with or without a team logo) or a zip lock bag no larger than the above limit (a 1 gallon bag). And you can only carry one of those.
No backpacks, no briefcases (who takes one of those), no anything except the plastic bag OR a bag with medically necessary equipment.
Hell, you can’t even carry a seat cushion.
By the way, the teams will be more than happy to sell you a plastic bag (with logo) to carry your stuff.
This is partly in response to the Boston Marathon Bombing which involved a pressure cooker inside a backpack. None of these rules would have stopped it because people could have easily used explosives another way.
But, this will make us feel better.
Look, I get it. The world is dangerous but will this stop some deranged terrorist wannabe from causing chaos and killing people? No because there are plenty of ways to sneak explosives into the stadium. A determined terrorist could fly a plane load of explosives in or use a radio controlled device. I imagine they could get a small drone if they wanted to.
The world is a dangerous place. How many sports events have been blown up in the US compared to the number that has taken place? One marathon. Hundreds of baseball games take place each week and people carry bags in. For years since 9/11 people have taken bags into the NFL stadiums and nothing bad has happened.
Should these bags be subject to inspection? Absolutely but banning them, while it might make it a little safer, is an overreaction and really only makes it easier for the teams to get people in. They won’t have to spend time screening bags.
If they allowed most types of bags and screened them as they had in the past then those folks could go through tighter security and everyone else the standard screening.
But the NFL has imposed tough restrictions in the name of security in order to spend less time screening bags.
And of course to make money selling plastic team logo bags which the Baltimore Ravens have for $9.95 to $19.95. Interestingly, the Ravens also sell several types of team logo seat cushions.
I would expect that the team should no longer sell any item at the stadium that you could not bring in (excluding things like food and alcohol). That would include those seat cushions and the nice backpacks and other (banned) bags they sell.
I rarely go to a game and when I do I don’t carry much. But I also know that at some point we have to realize that there are risks in life. We also have to realize that this policy will do little to stop a determined person.
It will however, inconvenience a lot of people.
We are at the point where the terrorists have won, at least in the NFL.
Unless you stay home and watch the game on TV.
That is better anyway. No lines at the bathroom.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: clear bags, diaper bags, nfl, safety, screening, seat cushens
Will Obama Push To Ban Muslims?
Apr 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment, Terrorism
After every act of terror that involves radical Islamists we are reminded by the left not to rush to judgment and that we cannot condemn an entire religion or its followers for the acts of a few. I agree that people should be judged individually. I also know that when a large group of those people or their individual governments support their acts then it is OK to paint them with a broad brush.
Unfortunately, the very people who tell us not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few are the same people who condemn all gun owners for the acts of a few people with guns who do bad things. The reality is that most people who do bad things with guns have already broken countless laws to do so and usually do not own the guns legally. This fact escapes the gun grabbers as they paint all gun owners, law abiding citizens who exercise a constitutionally protected right, with a broad brush.
After the Newtown shooting, where a gunman who used guns he stole to murder a number of people (mostly children,) Barack Obama wasted no time condemning the act and then vowing to pass tougher gun laws. These laws would only affect law abiding gun owners as they are the only ones who would follow them. The guns that would be banned and the hoops people would have to jump through would only infringe on the people who obey the law. The people who do bad things will still get guns, won’t worry about the gun being on some approved list, and would not go through a background check.
That did not stop Obama and his anti gun zealots from vowing to pass tough gun laws. Some states did just that and ended up only harming those who did no wrong. In fact, some people were then targeted to have their guns confiscated. This all happened to people who did no wrong.
Now we have a terrorist attack that happened in Boston during the Boston Marathon. While we were cautioned not to rush to judgment Obama’s stenographers in the media wasted no time blaming the right wing, gun owners, rednecks, people who hate taxes, white people, and any other group they could paint as a right wing entity. I did not hear Obama asking them not to rush to judgment.
It turns out the bombers are followers of Islam. That should come as no shock as most of the acts of terror are committed by followers of that religion (notice I said most – added for liberals who have trouble with comprehension). The Muslims involved in 9/11 murdered more people than the gunman in Newtown. Hell, they murdered more than the recent mass shootings combined. George Bush did not say we should ban Muslims; he just went after those who intended to do us harm.
Since Barack Obama sees fit to go after all gun owners for the acts of a few deranged people I want to know if he will now ban Muslims.
You see, he was quick on the trigger after Newtown but slow and cautious in his response to the Boston bombing. Unlike his call to action on tougher gun control after Newtown, he was vague and asked us not to rush to judgment. He did not even use the word terror in his first address.
It is now abundantly clear that those who did this are Muslims. Will B. Hussein Obama now apply the same standard he did with regard to Newtown and ask Congress to ban Muslims from the United States?
In this country when a person drives drunk we go after that person not alcohol or cars. When a person stabs a bunch of people we go after the person using the knife, not the knife. When a gun is involved things get murky because the liberals go after the guns of all citizens.
Well Muslims have murdered more Americans than gun wielding morons in mass shootings.
If Obama is to apply the same standard then he must go after Muslims and work with Congress to get them banned.
The mantra from the left is; if we only save one child…
Well, banning Muslims would do just that (so would outlawing abortion).
This might not be a popular position but neither is gun control and the fact that it is not popular has not stopped Obama and the rest of the anti gun crowd from working to disarm us. Hell, they even lie about support.
I can’t say for sure but I bet more Americans support a Muslim ban than a gun ban.
I don’t support either (I believe in going after those involved in bad stuff) but if I had to choose I know America would be a lot safer with armed citizens than it would with Muslims (especially if it was disarmed).
Obama will probably not ban Muslims. What the they do is from the same textbook his buddy Bill Ayers uses.
John Jay has an interesting post up
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, disarmed, Muslims, newtown, Obama, Second Amendment, Terrorism