Imagine If It Was About Hillary Or Bernie?
Feb 25, 2016 2016 Election, Political
An allegedly conservative writer at the NY Times sent out a tweet that he had figured how Donald Trump’s run for the presidency would end. The tweet had a video that showed an assassination attempt from a movie.
I realize the guy is reported to be a conservative so imagine if he had tweeted this about Hillary or Bernie.
I can understand if some liberal had sent it because they always get a pass from the media when advocating violence against others. But how would the left act if this alleged conservative had tweeted this about the sainted liberals running for the presidency?
The reality is no one pays attention to these kinds of things unless they are directed at liberals. Libs can talk about murdering people all day (they support murder in the womb) and no one bats an eye. Let someone discuss harming a liberal and they go bat crap crazy.
Imagine how this would have played out if it were about Obama 8 years ago?
Do you think it would go unnoticed or would there be an uproar?
And you know there would be a visit from the Secret Service…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: assassination, Conservatives, liberals, lies
About jumping To Conclusions
Nov 24, 2009 Political
Barack Obama warned against jumping to conclusions when terrorist Nidal Hasan shot and killed members of the US Army. This from the guy who jumped to conclusions when a police officer arrested his buddy for being disorderly. The warning signs were there and Army officers report that they were afraid to report the issue because of political correctness. One claimed his concerns were ignored for that very reason.
The communications with an al-Qaeda cleric, the rantings about Islam, the threats to infidels, the poor performance are all out there now and we are warned not to jump to conclusions.
Hasan might claim insanity and he might be on to something. One would have to be insane to follow the teachings of the radical faction of Islam.
But where were the liberals warning about jumping to conclusions when a part time census worker was found hanging from a tree in Kentucky, allegedly with the words FED scrawled on his chest? The left immediately jumped all over the case and indicted the right wing in America. The blame was placed squarely on so called hate speech from the right. Michelle Malkin detailed, at the time, all of the liberals who were blaming conservatives. Here is a sample from the Democratic Underground (as reported by her):
We need to absolutely expose Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and the legion of others parroting right-wing lies for trumping up this nonsense and getting people to now commit murder in a hideous fashion.
HuffPo, Radio Equalizer and New York Magazine all put the blame on conservatives. There was even a picture of a hanging body with the words FED on the chest and the names of conservatives printed behind it.
It would seem that this was a bit premature because the official finding in the case is that the worker, Bill Sparkman, committed suicide.
It would seem that all of the conclusions as to whom was responsible were quite a bit off the mark. None of the liberals espousing restraint with regard to Nidal Hasan opened their mouths to caution restraint. There is plenty of evidence in the case against Hasan but there was not one shred of evidence in Sparkman’s death that pointed to conservatives talk being the cause of his death. The left jumped all over it nonetheless. Where were the trusty liberal mouthpieces when this was taking place? They were agreeing with the accusations of their echo chamber roommates. While they might not have publicly expressed the same sentiments, they were thinking it because they all believe that conservatives are violent.
Who can blame them for thinking this? The botox bimbo, San Fran Nan, told them that conservatives were violent. She teared up at a meeting to discuss the anger from the tea party protesters and stated she had seen this before in her home state and it led to violence. She was referring to Harvey Milk who, by the way, was murdered by another state employee over a job dispute. His murder had nothing to do with “angry mobs.” But Nancy had to make people believe that the tea party people are violent. The left looks at the tea parties as conservatives but the movement has people from all political ideologies and all walks of life. But the left has to focus on conservatives and isolate them in order to carry out Alinsky’s rules.
It is quite evident that this whole idea of violence is a fabrication because there has been no violence perpetrated by tea party members during all of the heated town hall meetings. The only violence came at the hands of union thugs who were acting as the enforcement arm of liberals. Those jackasses beat the hell out of a man. Those jackasses threatened the elderly. Those jackasses were the ones there to demonstrate a show of force. The tea party people know how to demonstrate peacefully. Another bit of evidence of the desire to pin violence on the conservatives appeared when the media reported that a number of people were arrested in DC at the rally Congresswoman Michele Bachman called for prior to the House vote on health care. The media neglected to indicate that those arrested were from the left. Those arrested were Code Pinko members who were protesting Lieberman’s decision to block health care. The media referred to them as tea partiers and failed to make any distinction when reporting the story.
This is a desire to pin it all on conservatives. Those who admonish against jumping to conclusions when there is mounting evidence are all too happy to sit around doing the first digit rectal interface when their side is indicting people who do not advocate violence and who do not incite violence.
Every time there is a death or violence the left is quick to point fingers at Malkin, Beck, Limbaugh and other conservatives and they point reflexively with no evidence whatsoever. Obama is an extension of that and demonstrated it with the Cambridge cop.
Let the conservatives point when there is a mountain of evidence and we are jumping to conclusions.
This liberal double standard is why they have no credibility (well one reason among many).
[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: beck, census, Conservatives, hasan, liberals, Limbaugh, malkin, political correctness, sparkman, tea party
Obama Pushes People To The Right
Jul 7, 2009 Political
Obama enjoys amazing popularity and despite all the wrong turns he enjoys a high approval rating. He is a personable man and can be quite engaging particularly for the mind numbed people who listen to the words but don’t understand what they mean. In other words, typical Obama followers.
Though I might add that some people give him high marks even as they are beginning to worry more about him each day. The NYT released an article about his radical Columbia days and the White House press corps has begun to zap him with stinging questions while Press Secretary Gibbs is beaten to death on a daily basis. The natives are getting restless.
Yes, they are restless because Obama promised them change and everything he has done has not lived up to the promises he and VP Biden made. It now seems that they are admitting, on a weekly basis, that they were wrong about one thing or another. Obama likes to say things over and over so that they become believed but now it looks like fewer folks are relating to his philosophy even as they give him high approval ratings. My friend Don Surber reports on a recent Gallup Poll and more people are moving to the right since the election.
Gallup: 39% say they have grown more conservative since Election Day.
Another 18% say they are more liberal.
But wait. There’s more.
Among independents, 37% said they are more conservative now that President Obama is actually president, while 19% say more liberal.
Among Democrats, 34% say they are growing more conservative under President Obama, while 23% say they are more liberal.
Among other findings, 52% now say the government has too much power, versus 42% just 5 years ago.
It would appear as if people are seeing through the magic of Hope and Change and realizing the radical path Obama has set for the country and they do not like it. More than half say the government has too much power (and Obama is reaching for more with health care and cap and trade) and 34% of Democrats claim to be more conservative since Obama took office.
These are amazing numbers and if this trend continues 2010 will be a good year for Republicans, provided we can field good, conservative candidates. If this keeps up we might be able to gain some seats in the House (regaining it would be tough) and we might have a shot at the Senate. I would like to get back enough seats to keep the filibuster but I also want to see John McCain and and a few other RINOs sent packing. We need new young talent (and I am not opposed to new young Democrats so long as they come with new ideas) so that we can get rid of the establishment politicians.
Obama might be helping with that and if he keeps it up he will do for us what Jimmy Carter did. Carter gave us Reagan. If we can field a true conservative Obama will be a one term wonder and give us a great replacement.
The trends are going our way but it is still early. Looks good for Fox though. Their viewership is up 33% since the election. People are wising up and looking for fair and balanced, not moronic one sided rants by the likes of Olberman.
Reality is setting in and though Obama still has the luster and there are people who just want to give him a little longer (give him a chance) he is pushing people to the right. He is out of his league and it shows.
Or as Surber puts it:
“Last year, he was change and hope. This year, he is reality.”
[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: Conservatives, don surber, gallup, hope and change, Obama, polls
Zo’s New Post; I Pledge
Jan 30, 2009 Political
My friend Zo has a new post up and it is called I Pledge. It is a response to the I Pledge video some of Hollywood’s liberals put out.
It is worth watching because, as usual, Zo hits the nail on the head…
This video has been added to my favorite videos at the bottom of the sidebar.
Big Dog Salute to Big Hollywood
[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: Conservatives, I pledge, liberals, zo
Democrats Have Always Enjoyed Owning Blacks
Feb 18, 2008 Political
I recently wrote a piece where I stated that I could not understand why the black population votes for Democrats when that party does nothing but keep them down. I mentioned that the Republican Party got rid of slavery (and lost hundreds of thousands doing so) and that I could not understand why blacks would stick with the Democrats. I had someone write to me and basically say, wow, the Republicans got rid of slavery 150 years ago. What about now? Why is it so many Jews vote Democrat. Basically, the idea was that the Republican Party was a bunch of white elitists.
I read an article today that, in honor of President’s Day, discussed the three worst Presidents of all time. Her is an outline of history under Lyndon Johnson:
Not remembered much in current history textbooks or the media of today, was that in the 1920s Republicans proposed anti-lynching legislation, reflecting back to Civil War times when Democrats, including founders of the KKK, had been involved in this horrific act. The legislation passed the House , an opposition speech was given by a Democrat Congressman from Texas named Lyndon B. Johnson, but was killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Finally in 1939 it passed the Senate.
LBJ and the Southern wing of the Democratic Party persisted in supporting anti-black positions. Consider, as LBJ’s term neared:
– In 1956, Democrats expressed their opposition to the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education in the “Southern Manifesto.” One hundred members of Congress, all Democrats, signed the manifesto.
– In 1957, REPUBLICAN President Eisenhower authored a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats for nearly a century. Passage of the bill was blocked by Senate Democrats.
– In 1959, Eisenhower authored a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats.
But then, following the JFK assasination[sic]:
– In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), filibustered the bill. Once the filibuster was overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for passage than did Democrats.
– In 1965, Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster was prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoyed support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Johnson, of course, is now president and gets “credit” for this legislation — authored by Republicans, designed by Republicans to undo a century of damage done by Democrats, and voted for by a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.
– This was followed by the Great Socety[sic] programs designed to eliminate poverty and racism.
At this point, the media and academic elite began using a powerful combination of information control and revisionist history to engineer a massive electoral shift. Falling for the blandishments of the Democrats and their media allies, blacks, once exclusively Republican, began voting Democrat in numbers greater than 90 percent,
The actual consequences of Johnson’s Great Society were disastrous for blacks, discouraging initiative, encouraging a sense of entitlement and victimhood, and creating a permanent dependency class. Until 1965, 82% of black households had both a mother and a father in the home — a statistic on par with or even slightly higher than white families. After 1965 (the year the Democrats and President Johnson decided it was time to stop oppressing blacks and start “helping” them), the presence of black fathers in the home began a precipitous decline; today, the American black out-of-wedlock birthrate is at 69%.
Notice that it was the Republican Party fighting for civil rights throughout history while Democrats fought against them every step of the way. Blacks were once strong supporters of the Republican Party but were misled into the Democratic Party where they have been in despair ever since. Sure, life was not great for blacks in the late 1800s though the mid 1900s but it was getting better and had the Democrats not blocked advancement, the blacks might have reached parity a long time ago living lives today that are not dependent upon the benevolence of government.
Rev. Wayne Perryman, a black man, believed in the Democratic Party until he researched it and the way it treated blacks throughout history. He wrote a book entitled Unfounded Loyalty and he claims that after reading the book the reader will understand:
— For 150 years blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynchings, beatings, rapes, and mutilations.
— On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
— Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House.
Perryman supported Democrats in the past but in a letter to Terry McAuliffe [2004] he wrote:
I’m not saying that all people who choose to be Democrats are mindless. I’m saying that people who choose a party because it’s the “black thing to do”, instead of actually examining the issues are making a mindless choice. We have brains for a reason.
I believe the Republican party offers more for blacks, in particular poor blacks, many of whom would benefit from the Republican’s
philosophy of personal responsibility. The Democrats have convinced most of them that racism is responsible for their plight. In
some instances that may be true, but for the most part it involves poor choices that some people make – dropping out of school, teen pregnancy, etc.
The democrats may toss them a fish or two, but the Republicans will show them how to fish. Black Conservative
I have said more than once that blacks are taken for granted by the Democrats and that they would be better off if they changed parties and espoused the things the Republican Party does. They would not be beholden to government and they would be more self reliant. It is unfortunate that they blindly follow Democrats and have done so to their own detriment.
One day when schools and the Democrats stop embracing revisionist history the blacks in this country will see what party has embraced them and has fought for their civil rights. Perhaps it will take an action by the Democrats that is so egregious the black community can no longer give blind support to their task masters and will embrace the freedom of the Republican Party. Then you will see more qualified candidates running for office and holding positions of prominence.
Perhaps that terrible act is only months away. If the Democrats steal victory from Obama and give the nomination to Hillary Clinton there will be a mass exodus of blacks from the party. We on the right will be glad to welcome you home.
Think the Democrats are not worried about this? Why do you think they want the nomination settled before the convention? They were not worried about ticking anyone off when the Super Delegates decided on Mondale because he was white and the blacks would not be feel betrayed by the decision. The party leaders are not worried about ticking off the black vote. They are worried about ticking it off enough that they lose it.
To Democrats, that would be the only injustice in the process.
Tags: black vote, Conservatives, Democrats, slavery