Dennis Gerkin 7 Minute Message On Civility
Feb 18, 2021 Opinion
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: civility, dennis gerkin, hate, jesus
Zo Is Right On The Money Again
Apr 19, 2009 Political
Zo has a new video out which is getting a lot of attention at Big Hollywood.
I guess Zo is one of the people who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. At least according to the skank Garofalo.
[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: big hollywood, conservative, eminem, hate, palin, pregnancy, responsibility, zo
Listen To Powell, Not Limbaugh?
Dec 12, 2008 Political
Colin Powell betrayed the party that enhanced his career and took good care of him over his career in order to vote for Barack Obama. Powell said that it was because of Sarah Palin but the real reason is that he voted color over party. At least that is what I felt when he endorsed Obama. I have always believed that Powell was not conservative and that he might be better off as a Democrat and it looks like that might be the case. It would appear that Powell endorsed Obama because of his color and his political beliefs.
Powell recently told people that the Republican party needed to change and that we needed to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Powell asserts that Limbaugh spews fear and hatred. This is a bunch of hogwash but Powell asserts it as so because Limbaugh has not been kind to Democrats. Truth be told, he has not been kind to Republicans who are not conservative. Powell can believe that Limbaugh and people like him hurt John McCain but Limbaugh was not on McCain’s side. When he had only a choice of two McCain beat out Obama (as is the case with many Republicans) but Limbaugh has always been tough on McCain for his lack of conservatism.
I guess we are now suppose to listen to the wisdom of Powell because he will save the party? He has liberal views and he was never truly conservative. Couple that with him turning his back on members of our armed forces left behind in Vietnam (something McCain also did along with John Kerry) and one is left to wonder why we need to listen to what he says.
Colin Powell was a mediocre officer who had a successful career (military and civilian) because he was taken care of by people in the Republican party. Powell is smart and competent but it was Republicans, not Democrats, who elevated him to high office. Powell turned his back on his party in order to vote for a man of color. I stated before that voting for (or against) a person based on color is as valid a reason as any but at least have the guts to say that is what you are doing.
Powell probably did not have to worry about that because he was able to throw insults at a capable politician in Sarah Palin in order to cover his real motives.
That and he really leans liberal so she gave him cover there as well.
Rush Limbaugh is not going anywhere. He makes more money in a year doing what he does than Powell will make in a lifetime and Limbaugh has quite a following which is much larger than any following Powell might have.
Though after he endorsed Obama he became a darling of the moonbats who only a few years ago called for him to be charged with crimes for the Iraq phase of the war on terror.
I guess he is no longer an Uncle Tom to the black community who blindly follow Democrats to the plantation.
Powell wants the Republican party to retool and move left. What we need to do is move more right and stay with our conservative principles.
A good start is by getting rid of Powell and ensuring he has no platform in our party.
Source:
CNN
Michelle Obama has spoken; No VP Hillary
May 11, 2008 Political
There has been a buzz about an Obama/Clinton ticket since the early days of the primaries when media types fawned over both candidates and lamented how they wish that a vote could be cast for each. Will you run on one ticket, a dream ticket?
Early on Hillary said that the idea was a good one but it remained to be determined who would get top billing and Barack seemed open to the idea with similar concerns about top billing. With Obama in the lead it would appear that any unified ticket would have to have her playing second banana to the Obamination. Hillary would not like the idea but might be willing to do it just to get closer to the top spot. Obama might be willing to have Hillary as the VP because it would partially placate her disillusioned supporters who still believe that misogyny is at the root of her demise.
I have a bet with a coworker who believes the combined ticket will occur while I believe there is no way in hell that they will run together. It would take credibility away from both of them to combine (though most politicians rarely worry about credibility). He portrays her as part of the politics as usual crowd of DC and she says he cannot garner the white vote and has not been properly vetted. These are valid arguments and show how the ugliness of the protracted campaign further hamstrings the Democratic party and its choices.
I believe there is one factor here than trumps all others and that is the Michelle Obama factor. She does not like Hillary and she also knows that Hillary as VP brings the baggage of Bill who will hover. They would make Obama an outsider in his administration. Not to mention the fact that Mrs. Obama does not like Hillary Clinton and is not happy with the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign.
Michelle Obama is upset that Clinton keeps dragging this out even though she cannot mathematically win the number of pledged delegates needed to take the nomination outright. Never mind the reality that Barack Obama cannot win outright either. The nomination will go to the super delegates and they can do anything they wish. It is likely that Obama will get the number of votes he needs but one can never count the Clintons out and this is a fact of which Michelle is well aware. She has to be worried that the nomination will be taken from her husband and once again plunge her into a position where she is not proud of her country. Why should Clinton concede when anything can happen among the super delegates?
There are many reasons that an Obama/Clinton ticket is unwise but no matter how many reasons there are for or against the only opinion that will really count is the one offered by Mrs. Obama. She does not want Hillary on the ticket and therefore Hillary will not be on that ticket.
No man wants to go through life hearing his wife repeat “I told you so.”
Source:
Real Clear Politics [Robert Novak]
Jay at STACLU has a video up from SNL where they are pretty brutal to Hillary
Others with interesting posts:
Stop the ACLU, Rosemary’s Thoughts, jamesloganmd, Right Truth, Kodera’s Korner, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, InvestorBlogger, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, A Blog For All, 123beta, , Cao’s Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Obama had it All Wrong
Apr 15, 2008 Political
Last week Barack Obama made a statement that has ended up being the most damaging of his campaign, at least up until this point. The young Senator indicated that people in small towns (the unstated message: mostly white people) turn to guns and religion and against immigrants because they are bitter about their economic situations. As an aside, most people are against ILLEGAL immigration and have no problem with those who come here legally.
I have been listening to the talk shows and reading stories about the Obama gaff and I am amazed at the number of people who say that Obama was right in what he said but he chose his words poorly. I do not believe this to be the case and I refuse to accept the apologists point of view that Obama meant people were angry because of their economic situation. I don’t see any possible way to arrive at that conclusion from the statement he made. What does turning to guns actually mean (does he mean violence) and why indicate that the small town folks only turn to religion in bad times?
The fact is, poorly chosen words or not, Obama did not say people were angry no matter how this is spun. There is no need to bring guns or religion into this to indicate anger. I could see the argument about ILLEGALS (though Obama chose to say immigrants) because many people are bitter about them coming here and taking jobs. But, many people were upset with them being here long before economic circumstances turned sour. There are a great number of law abiding citizens who resent ILLEGALS being here regardless of the economy as demonstrated by the huge opposition to the amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats.
Many people in small town America own guns and are responsible people. They do not go around shooting people for the hell of it and they do not commit crimes with their guns. Certainly there are some who do but the overwhelming majority are law abiding gun owners. Obama was referring to Pennsylvania when he made his statement. That state has a huge number of hunters and other legal gun owners. The bulk of the gun crimes are in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where people (many of whom may not legally possess firearms) use illegal weapons to commit crimes. Obama chose to ignore this group of people who happen to be the ones that turn to guns in good times and bad and instead insulted a group of people who are responsible firearms owners.
Obama also decided that he would knock religion as some crutch that people only turn to when they are on the skids. In the Obama world people turn into gun toting zealots when times are bad. Otherwise they would be non gun owning part time worshipers who were happy to have a good life while helping ILLEGALS cross the border. It does not occur to this elitist (I know he grew up poor) that many people hold their religious convictions in high regard regardless of their economic circumstances. It never occurred to him that many believers have faith that through good times and bad God will not saddle people with more than they can handle. Obama fails to understand that there are people who worship as a matter of devotion rather than a matter of convenience. It is not hard to see why when one considers that Obama joined the most popular black church in Chicago to increase his standing in the black community. Since his pastor always preached hatred and doom and gloom it is not hard to see why Obama believes that people only attend church when things are not going well. Twenty years of clinging to hatred obscured any message of hope that one expects from religion.
The Obama apologists and the candidate himself would have us believe that he misspoke about his true meaning. They want us to believe that Obama was saying that people were angry because of their situations when he actually stated that guns, religion and opposition to law breakers are refuges for those who have nothing in life or those who have lost a lot. No matter how one slices it there is no way to get to what they say the meaning was from what he actually said.
Senator Obama, when apologizing, stated that he chose his words poorly and that he should have said it better. He and those who defend him are upset that his words are being “twisted” to fit a political agenda. How dare people politicize the words of a political candidate!
It is amazing that Obama would cry about his poorly chosen words being twisted and used against him. The Senator did not hesitate (nor do any of his followers) to twist the words of John McCain with regard to being in Iraq for 100 years. McCain meant that we could have a presence there (after the war) just as we have had in Korea and Europe for the last 60 years or so. Though this was clearly what John McCain said, it has not stopped Obama and his minions from saying that McCain said we would be at war for 100 years. All the Democrats have twisted those words to indicate we would be at war for 100 years when that is clearly not what was said or what was meant. For those who doubt the meaning:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” CNN
As for Obama’s statements, he said them and he will have to live with the backlash. I believe it shows his disdain for small town America and the predominantly white residents thereof. That he feels this way should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard his pastor speak.
It seems Barack Obama clings to that message of hate.
Tags: hate, Iraq, McCain, Obama, small town