Barack Obama Is A Sexist
Nov 3, 2016 2016 Election, Political
In a speech while campaigning for Hillary Clinton (instead of doing his actual job), Barack Obama presented a thinly veiled message that men who do not vote for Hillary are sexists. He did not come right out and say that. No, instead he said we have not had a woman president and I think you guys know why.
If Obama thinks men who do not vote for Hillary are sexist then he is a sexist.
Remember, Obama ran against her in 2008 so he did not vote for her. He blocked her from getting into office. Let’s face it, if she had been the nominee then she probably would have beaten McCain. At least she would have had a good chance since this was BES (Before Email Scandal).
Funny though, Obama challenged her and beat her thus denying her the chance to become president. He must be, by his own definition, a sexist. He is already, by his own definition, unpatriotic.
Obama also did not mind beating McCain and his running mate, a woman, so he is a double sexist because we have never had a female VP either.
It is also important to note that all the things Obama is saying about Hillary and why she is so great are the exact opposite of the things he said about her when she was his opponent. He told us she was not qualified to be president. Now he says she is more qualified than he or Bill Clinton ever were.
In other words folks, not only is Obama unpatriotic and a sexist, he is also a lying sack of feces.
I also pose this question. When Obama ran any opposition to him was considered racist because he is black. He is out there opposing Trump and insulting him. Since Trump is white does that make Obama the racist?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Bernie Says Hill Breaking Law
Apr 18, 2016 Political
With all the attention focused on the infighting in the Republican party the fighting among the two old white Democrat candidates has not received as much press, at least until recently. Sanders and Clinton have been steadily increasing their attacks on each other. They claim not to run negative campaigns but they are really going after each other.
The debate last Thursday was a demonstration of how far south things have gone between the two Democrats.
The New York primary is tomorrow and the polls indicate that Clinton is leading but the race has tightened. With that tightening race comes new accusations by Sanders that Clinton is violating campaign finance laws. The full details are in the linked article and if the allegations are true then it would appear she is breaking the law.
Is that a shock? Hillary has been breaking the law for decades so why would anyone think she would follow it now?
Ever since the Clintons started their public lives they have been involved in scandal after scandal. If the history of the Clintons involved an accusation or two one might dismiss them as politics but with these two everything they are involved in results in accusations of criminal activity. Hillary is the focus at the present because she is running for the presidency.
So did she do it? Probably but if her history is any indication then she has put several layers between her and the activity so that she has plausible deniability.
Sanders is probably right on this one but Hillary will never face the music because she is not the only criminal involved. She has most of the Democrat party as accomplices.
So while she wants a term of four years I think twenty-five to life is more appropriate.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Clinton, corruption, crime, lies, sanders
City Riots vs Biker Gang Shootouts
May 21, 2015 Commentary, Law Enforcement
There is an article on the local CBS affiliate website that tries to draw comparisons to the way the riots in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD have been portrayed in the media with the biker gang shootout that occurred in Waco TX.
The article discusses these events and concludes that riots that damaged property (which the author notes can be replaced) but where no one was killed received more coverage than a biker shootout where nine died. It is further noted that during the riots the police showed up in riot gear, used tear gas and made mass arrests while they were shown in their normal uniforms in Waco in what the article describes as nonchalant.
The article also points out that the riots had live media coverage whereas that did not happen in Waco.
The point seems to be that when predominantly black communities riot there is outrage and the rioters are viewed as thugs but when white bikers have a shootout there is not as much coverage and the incident is viewed as an isolated incident.
These items involve two entirely different crimes and this article only serves to further push a race narrative where one does not exist.
Yes, most of the rioters were black but the cities involved have mostly black populations. There were some white people there and they were attacked by the rioters. There is no doubt that some white folks participated in the unrest.
In Waco most of the bikers were white but there were some people of color. It was reported that there were some black and Hispanic bikers involved.
Perhaps the reason there were not cameras and live play of the gunfight is that it happened spontaneously. The police were aware that some trouble was brewing but the police do not call the media in every time there is a threat of violence. I am not sure how much media is available in Waco but the issue in Ferguson simmered for weeks giving the media plenty of time to show up and Baltimore has many major news outlets in or near the city. The media would have been present because there was unrest (read that as thugs attacking people and breaking the law) on Saturday and the riots occurred on Monday. The media had time to gather.
Since the gang shootout happened there has been word there will be some sort of retaliation. You can bet the media is there now.
As for the police. They anticipated violence in the cities and were dressed appropriately. In Waco they had information something might happen. The big difference here is that the police in Waco were involved in the shootout. They were shot at and they returned fire. They then arrested hundreds of bikers. During the riots, particularly in Baltimore, the police were continually attacked and DID NOT fight back. They were ordered to give the rioters room. Perhaps if the police in Baltimore had started attacking those who were breaking the law and arresting them in droves we would have seen pictures of police officers being nonchalant as they walked around hundreds of handcuffed protesters.
Since the police in Waco were allowed to do their jobs they had all the bikers under control and were able to be more “nonchalant” than the police in the rioting cities.
The only thing these incidents have in common is that they both involved people who were breaking the law. The idea that the rioters had a grievance so their behavior can be excused especially since no one died is ridiculous. They were breaking the law and they were destroying property. No one died but scores of police officers were injured.
The bikers felt they had a grievance as well but their actions are no more excusable than those of the rioters. The big difference is that the police responded to the violence in Waco.
And for those who think there is disparity, there is. The rioters in Baltimore who happened to get arrested complained about high bail amounts. Every biker arrested in Waco had bail set at one million dollars far above any amount reported from Baltimore.
The thugs in Waco will get what is coming to them just like the thugs in Baltimore eventually will. And yes, both groups are thugs. Despite what the author wants you to believe, the bikers were referred to that just as the rioters in Baltimore were.
When people stop trying to excuse any kind of bad behavior and start holding everyone accountable society will be better off.
And then people will have no excuse for race baiting articles…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: baltimore, biker gang, crime, ferguson, riots, shootout, waco
If She Had A Gun
Feb 10, 2015 Second Amendment
Many food chains that offer delivery do not allow their drivers to carry firearms even if they have a permit to do so. The people who deliver food carry cash and are often required to deliver at late hours in dark places.
A Domino’s pizza delivery woman in Antioch California delivered a pizza to an address where she was forced back into her car by a man with a gun and then forced to drive to another place where he raped her.
This happened in California so it is unlikely that she was able to carry a firearm at any time because that state, like many other anti firearm states, would rather have its citizens end up as victims.
Yes the rapist had a gun and if she had one it might not have made a difference but at least she would have had a chance. In fact, if people in California were allowed to carry there is a chance the rapist might never have targeted her. If criminals know people could be carrying firearms they are less likely to attack them.
In places where people might be armed (whether they are or not is not the point) criminals do not know who has a concealed firearm and who does not. They do not like those circumstances.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims and they prefer knowing that no one else will be armed. This is why nuts attack gun free zones like schools, malls and movie theaters. They know that the odds are in their favor and that no one is probably armed because responsible firearms owners follow the law.
In a just world instead of being the victim of rape the young lady would be standing over a bullet riddled body describing what happened as the police draw a chalk line around the dead would be rapist.
Liberals (and face it, these are the ones who want us disarmed) can’t have that. If you can take care of yourself there is no need for government to be your everything.
Well how is that working out? The police were not there BEFORE the rape to prevent it. They showed up afterwards to take a statement.
The fortunate thing is this rapist was an idiot. The police went to the address the pizza was to be delivered to and he was there. They were able to arrest him and charge him with multiple crimes.
While it is great they caught the animal the reality is the victim has been scarred for life.
She never had a fighting chance because the government made her a potential victim by pushing for and enacting gun control.
Speaking of gun control; how well did it work out for the criminal in this case? He used a firearm to commit his crime and he is 17. He should not have had a handgun at that age to begin with regardless of his criminal record (which is not discussed in the article). If criminals obeyed the law he would not have had a firearm…
Even if states follow the Constitution there will still be problems as long as there are gun free zones or jobs where people who have the potential for danger are not allowed to carry.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: crime, gun control, liberals, lies, rape, Second Amendment
Karma Is A Female Dog
Apr 29, 2014 Commentary
Or maybe it is just that things come back to bite people in their behinds. A long time ago (2004) some guy who goes by the name of Skinny Suge made a video entitled Stop Snitchin’. Basically, the video was a tutorial (warning) to people who snitch.
Skinny wanted people to know not to talk to the police and to keep any information they had about crime to themselves. The video threatened violence against people who might be inclined to inform the police of wrong doing. There is no telling how many crimes have gone unsolved because people who know what happened refuse to say anything because of the video and the fear of retaliation.
Skinny (aka, Rodney (or Ronnie) Thomas), who spent some time in prison for assault, has evidently had a change of heart.
You see, his son was murdered and he wants anyone with information to come forward and tell the police.
So let me see, the guy who made a video threatening violence to informants wants people to now inform because the victim of a crime was his son.
The death of a child is horrible and I feel sorry for the family. I truly hope the police catch the murderer(s) and put them away.
But how many crimes involving the death of other people’s children have gone unsolved because of Skinny and his video threats?
Seems to me this is Karma coming back to bite Skinny in his behind. Who could blame people for refusing to say anything? Even if they are not afraid they might just keep quiet on principle.
Who could blame them when Skinny made it clear that this is what they should do?
If people follow his previous instructions it appears Skinny could be attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: crime, karma, murder, stop snitchin', threats