Al Sharpton Ready To March Again
Apr 25, 2010 Political
Al Sharpton, a guy they call reverend but who I have never seen leading a congregation in a church, is ready to go to Arizona to stand hand in hand with the Hispanic population that is upset by the new law that allows the police to verify that people are here legally. Al Sharpton will be out there rabble rousing and stirring up trouble. You know how it is, these left wing nut jobs go out and use hateful speech (inspired by the hateful speech of Obama) which causes the unstable people on the left to commit violence.
We have seen this with Sharpton before and people have died. He starts yelling about something and the nuts on the fringe left start killing. Bill Clinton described this last week when he was trying to paint the peaceful TEA Party group as potentially violent but Bill was wrong about the group. It is the left that commits the violence.
Sharpton is liable to go to Arizona and whip the illegals into a frenzy and they will commit acts of violence. We might get another Tim McVeigh in Arizona if the left is not careful.
I can understand why some folks are upset because they are rightly worried about how the law will impact those who are here legally and they claim racial profiling will take place. Of course this is wrong because Hispanic is not a race it is an ethnicity.
Be that as it may, the groups who are opposed to this have as much blame as anyone else in this matter. For years these advocacy groups have been working to hide illegals and to make it easier for them to get here and to stay here. These groups have been helping illegals break the law and they oppose any effort to get illegal immigration under control. If they had worked to keep illegals out and to help people come here legally we would not have a problem but since they assisted the illegals things have gotten steadily worse and the citizens of Arizona have said “enough”.
Arizona has decided to take matters in its own hands to fix a problem that has been ignored by the federal government and that has been exacerbated by the intrusion of advocacy groups who are as eager and willing to break the law as those who sneak across the borders. They are as much to blame and whining about what is taking place now will not garner them any sympathy.
People can see these groups for what they really are and what they really do.
But Sharpton will be happy to show up and rally for the illegals. Sharpton is not a stranger to breaking the law and he is not a stranger to inciting violence so this might be real interesting.
Be kind of funny if Sharpton showed up and huge crowds gathered and they engaged in civil disobedience. Things would get out of hand and stuff would get broken. Then the police would have to show up and make arrests.
The beauty of it is now that the law has been passed the cops will be able to check and see if the people Sharpton is there to stir up are here legally.
Sharpton might actually help rid the country of a large number of illegals.
But the folks in Arizona should be particularly vigilant because those left wing nut jobs get stirred into a violent frenzy really easy and Al Shapton will be there to whip them up.
Where is Bill Clinton to discuss this?
Is there a fat intern missing?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arizona, Clinton, illegal aliens, law, Obama, sharpton
McVeigh The New Slam Against TEA Party
Apr 20, 2010 Political
The progressive forces have tried a number of tactics to demonize the TEA Party movement. The protesters, who have been peaceful and polite, have been called racists and homophobes, anti-American, unpatriotic and any number of other names that have not stuck because the facts do not match the claims. Now it looks like Timothy McVeigh will be the new slam against the TEA Party as progressive operatives equate what is going on as similar to what happened prior to McVeigh’s act of terror in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh have been going back and forth on this issue. The former president (it sounds great to say it that way) said that it is OK to have disagreements but that we had to watch what we say because it could ignite the fringe elements.
“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.” Sweetness and Light
The reality is that McVeigh was not stirred to action because of what people said. McVeigh became disenchanted by the actions of the government. The Clinton massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas was the catalyst that caused McVeigh to act. There is no excuse for what he did but what he did was an act of revenge against the government for its actions at Waco. It was not because of what people said on talk radio or anywhere else.
But that has not stopped the progressives from equating the peaceful TEA Party protesters as homegrown terrorists ala McVeigh.
This is the latest attempt to demonize those who are exercising their First Amendment rights and who oppose the actions of government. Call them racists, call them unpatriotic and equate them to a domestic terrorist.
Be wary because the MSM is in the tank for the Obama regime and goes out of its way to make those who are opposed look like terrorists or guilty of treason or sedition. Every act of violence is made to look like a bunch of right wing kooks when this is often not the case. Recent militia raid, one Democrat and the rest unaffiliated. Turned in by one of the militia’s own members. Guy who flew plane into IRS offices, called right wing, undetermined but writings suggest progressive. Kook regardless.
Acts of violence will be assigned to the TEA Party and stories will be fabricated to demonize them. Keep in mind, it was union thugs and progressives who committed the violence against those who oppose Obama’s agenda. The violence stopped when people started carrying firearms (which were all carried legally).
Clinton is now the mouthpiece for Obama and he is equating hard working peaceful citizens to a domestic terrorist and rewriting the history of the massacre he caused and the monster he inspired.
Sources:
My Way News (Darrel, better call Clinton. He used slippery slope)
Rush Limbaugh
ABC News
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Clinton, demonize, lies, tea party, timothy mcveigh
They Will Say And Do Anything To Takeover Health Care
Mar 7, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and the Democrats are so entrenched in their desire to takeover our health care they will do anything to pass something, anything, and get it signed before the November elections. The Democrats believe that they know what is best for us and that once anything is passed we will learn to like it. They have gone so far as to consider parliamentary maneuvers in order to pass legislation that will takeover one-sixth of the US economy.
They have abandoned their past beliefs in order to push this albatross through. Barack Obama, a proud proponent of the public option, has abandoned that issue in order to get any bill passed. The abortion issue is causing distress among Democrats in the House and the general distrust the House has for the Senate is causing angst in the House as members are apprehensive about voting for a Senate bill that could then be signed into law without major differences being addressed. Part of this is because the Democrats are circumventing the system. If they did it correctly, the way in which it was intended, then they would not have to worry about being screwed.
There are also concerns about the Constitutionality of the bill. The bill requires everyone to purchase insurance. This is simply unconstitutional as our government has no right to force us to purchase a product. In fact, Obama was against the mandates when he was trying to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination:
“The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine, is because of a mandate. It is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care. And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton’s plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care ….” YouTube
Mandates were not good when Hillary was in favor of them. Now Obama is in favor of them. The Democrats will do and say anything and will change their positions just to get something passed. They wrongly believe that if they do not get this passed it will be bad for them.
The truth is the November elections will be bad for them no matter what but a majority of people are opposed to this plan and are opposed to the way the Democrats are pushing it through, despite what the Democrats say about it. It would have been better for Obama and the Democrats to take Republicans up on the offer to start over with a blank piece of paper and write a bill on which both sides could agree. This would have shown a true willingness to have bipartisan input and would have given Democrats a leg to stand on with the public.
Instead, they are pushing through something that most do not like and have added a few sprinklings of Republican ideas in order to give the appearance of bipartisanship.
Democrats could save seats that might otherwise be lost by cooperating with the minority party. Instead, they continue to give Republicans ammunition to use during the campaign season. Whether this passes or not, Republicans have ammo. If it passes they can claim that the Democrats rammed through unpopular legislation in order to push an agenda. If it does not pass, Republicans can claim they stopped the unpopular legislation from being rammed through.
If the Democrats had started over and Republicans continued to block the legislation then the Democrats could claim the moral high ground and say it does not matter how hard they try, the Republicans obstruct. If the negotiations went through the next election Democrats could claim they are making progress and need their majority to keep the process from being derailed.
Instead, they have painted themselves into a corner and will pay dearly in November.
Voters can see that Democrats are willing to do and say anything to ram through legislation that is opposed by a majority of people, albeit for different reasons.
November will be a bloodbath for Democrats and many from districts and states that are not blue will pay a heavy price for supporting legislation pushed by leaders in safe seats who have no worries about losing their jobs.
The leaders do not care because they will do anything to get this passed. They must in order to continue with their takeover of our lives.
Remember, America will only remain the land of the free so long as it remains the home of the brave.
And it will take a few brave Democrats to push back against this monstrosity.
Big Dog Salute to William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Clinton, flip flop, health care, Obama, Pelosi, takeover
Evan Bayh Throws In The Towel
Feb 15, 2010 Political
This is shaping up to be a very bad year for Democrats. Despite requests from Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel to reconsider, moderate Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana will not seek reelection stating that he still has a desire to serve the people, just not in Congress.
Evidently, the hostile environment in Congress is becoming too much for the moderates. Bayh only voted with his party 71% of the time and I am willing to bet he got beat up over votes against the agenda or that he felt pressured to vote in a manner that he did not want.
Bayh’s decision comes as a surprise to many as it looked like he would probably win reelection. I doubt that the possibility of a tough race had anything to do with his decision. He probably is genuinely fed up with the atmosphere in Congress.
Bayh probably did not agree with the Obama agenda, or at least major protions of it. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Plus, he is a family man and likes to spend time with his children and attend their activities. No one can fault him for that.
Bayh’s decision caps off a trifecta that began when Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan announced last month that they will not seek reelection.
A commenter at the source site had a great point:
“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” – Obama
Oh well.
Indiana is a conservative state and usually pretty red. Bayh is a well liked moderate but the state trends Republican. Obama won the state last year becoming the first Democrat to win it since Lyndon Johnson.
I bet the folks of Indiana have buyer’s remorse and will not go Democrat again for a long time. They are probably still asking what they have done…
Or maybe they are asking themselves the question Sarah Palin posed; “How’s that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Clinton, Congress, emanuel, evan bayh, Obama, reelection, resign
Hillary Then And Now
Jan 22, 2010 Political
In 1998 when Bill Clinton’s sex scandal was the big news, news that broke because Matt Drudge posted it after it was quashed in the MSM, Hilary had an opinion about the Internet. Hillary said she did not know what she was in favor of but it sounded like she favored some kind of regulation.
…I don’t know what — that’s why I said I don’t know what I’m in favor of. And I don’t know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it’s one of those new issues we’ve got to address. We’ve got to see whether our existing laws protect people’s right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can’t take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Drudge Report
Hillary said that without some kind of gatekeeping function it was difficult to defend a reputation. It probably did not occur to her that Bill’s reputation was hurt when he had the affair and then lied about it. If he had been telling the truth then it would have been Drudge’s reputation that needed to be defended.
Thirteen years later and with news of China continuing to censor the Internet, Ms. Clinton still has an opinion though it is different than it was back then.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for an unfettered worldwide Internet and urged global condemnation of those who conduct cyber attacks, as China sought to contain tension with the United States over the hacking and censorship of Google.
“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” she said, calling growing Internet curbs the modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall.
“We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas,” said Clinton in a major address that cited China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among countries that censored the Internet or harassed bloggers. Yahoo News
Well things have certainly changed with regard to her position on this.
Did it change because the scandal left Bill relatively unscathed and now China is the focus?
What do you think prompted her position reversal? I would be interested to read your opinions in the comment section.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: china, Clinton, Hillary, internet, monica, restrictions, scandal, sex