Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
-- John Stossel
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words....
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus - college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The object of this strange, slanderous attack is pretty clear. The Times endorsed John McCain during the primaries because they were scared to death of Mitt Romney. The Times wanted desperately to see Romney defeated because he's a Reagan-type conservative. Being a major part of the left-wing establishment, the Times sought to crush Romney's quest for the GOP nomination by endorsing "the lesser of two evils", given that McCain is less conservative. And the ploy worked.
So now the Times has turned on its heels. With Romney now out of the race, we see the paper falsely attacking the only remaining threat to Obama and/or Clinton. The Times' editors/reporters are so desperate to see a democrat win the White House in November, that they'll go so far as to publish a story that has NO merits, NO confirmed sources and NO evidence to back it up! In the end, the New York Times has done nothing more than reinforce its reputation for piss-poor reporting, liberal bias and scandal.
Perhaps Senator McCain should send the Times a "thank you" letter. For in the end, this blatant, slanderous smear campaign against the Republican nominee will likely galvanize conservative support for the GOP nominee. Conservative voters who may be less than thrilled at McCain winning the nomination, will circle the wagons around the man standing between Che Guevra Hussein Obama winning the White House.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
* In 2004, Obama said he supports a federal ban on concealed carry for personal protection because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Interesting. How can a Floridian who has a permit to carry a firearm for personal protection possibly be a threat to Illinois residents?? Sadly, in Illinois the only citizens who carry guns are the criminal kind, while law-abiding citizens are left utterly defenseless.
* Obama says, "I believe we need to renew, not roll back, this common sense gun law." He was speaking about the Clinton gun ban of 1994 that banned certain handguns, rifles and shotguns based solely on their appearance! Said gun ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after DOJ and FBI statistics showed it had no impact whatsoever on reducing violent crime.
* In 2003, the town of Wilmette, IL. prosecuted Hale DeMar for using a handgun in his home to defend his family during a home invasion. Like many other Chicago area suburbs, Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns. In response to this outrageous prosecution, several state legislators introduced a bill that would protect the right of self-defense for residents like Mr. DeMar. Barack Obama voted against the legislation!
* As a state senator, Obama regularly supported "gun control" measures including a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. This kind of thinking clearly punishes law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals since law breakers are not the type to go into a gun store, submit to instant background checks and fill out the paperwork to buy a firearm.
* In 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that threaten to put gun manufacturers and dealers out of business. You know, the kind where a careless gun owner accidentally shoots himself in the foot, then sues the gun manufacturer because they didn't prevent him from being so stupid.
* Obama told voters prior to the Iowa caucus that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen and that homeowners should have a firearm to protect their home and their family. But in the next breath, he said, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic." I love that quote because there's no such thing as a "17-clip semiautomatic." What Obama either doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and/or sports shooting. It has everything to do with the right of "The People" to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants in government.
* Obama told the NAACP, "We've got to make sure gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities." So let me get this straight... according to the illustrious, well-spoken Senator from Illinois, legitimate gun dealers are actually loading vans full of thousands of dollars in firearms and "dumping" them in black communities??? Wouldn't that just be really bad business sense? Think about it.
Barack Obama is nothing more than a spit-polished windbag who lacks substance! But one thing is for sure, if elected President, he would do everything in his power to abolish the rights guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. No different than Hillary Clinton, Obama is a fascist who seeks to destroy our rights as individuals.
The source of this article, along with many other eye-opening facts can be viewed at http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
--Gary Hubbell (columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A little vain, self-centered and narcissistic, aren't we Michelle??
Monday, February 18, 2008
And so we have a communist Cuban flag with Guevara's face imposed upon it hanging on the wall in one of Obama's campaign offices. This man wants to be President of the United States! If this leaves any doubt as to Obama's stance on the political spectrum, I'll be covering that in greater detail in later posts. But I'll leave you with this to chew on... Barack Hussein Obama has been voted the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate... even more liberal than the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.
Che Guevara promised change and promoted himself as a man of the people. Socialism is very, very dangerous... and Barack Obama frightens me!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday on the way to work and of course he was talking about the election, specifically Barack Obama. Several Obama supporters called in, and after establishing that they were in fact planning to vote for Obama, Hannity asked them why and if they could name just one specific political achievement that led them to support Obama. Not one single caller, out of the four or five I had time to listen to, could name a specific political achievement that pulled them toward the Obama camp. One female caller said she likes Obama because, "He's just more likeable than Hillary Clinton." Well, I have to agree with her on that point.
This is a disturbing trend I've noticed among those who say they have voted for or plan to vote for Obama. They like the guy, but they don't really know anything about him. Truthfully, a lot of people don't know anything about him. Obama's voting record as an Illinois state senator is full of "no votes" or "present" votes. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has not sponsored or written a single piece of significant legislation that has been passed into law. He's sort of like a friendly ghost... you don't really know why he's there, but hey, at least he's likeable.
As Hannity gently pointed out to his callers and listeners, while like-ability is a good quality for a person to have, it does NOT qualify a person to be President of the United States. Listen to a Barack Obama speech and you're likely to hear the word "change" spoken dozens, if not hundreds, of times. Change is good in politics and I want change in Washington as much as the next American. But I want specific change, and that is where Obama falls way short. He almost never gives specifics on how he'd change anything. Be it social security, health care, the War on Terror or any other important issue facing this country, Obama fails to give specifics for his recipe of "change."
Barack Obama has been called a "visionary" and "the next John Kennedy" by many in the media and the liberal establishment. They couldn't be more wrong. Vision is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine without specific plans. Obama severely lacks the experience and knowledge to be the most powerful man in the world. No man, or woman for that matter, should ever be elected Commander-in-Chief of the world's most powerful military based solely on like-ability. The Presidency is not a job that affords the luxury of on-the-job training. The Presidency is not a job for Barack Obama!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
-- William J. H. Boetcker
Another deadly campus shooting today resulted in at least 5 deaths and more than a dozen wounded. Today's massacre took place at the Northern Illinois University in Dekalb, IL. I mention the location because this is Barack Obama's home state, where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons for self-protection. In fact, the only people who carry guns in the state of Illinois are cops and criminals. Once again, the victims in today's tragedy were helpless to defend themselves against an evil psychopath who didn't care what the law says about carrying a gun.
Barack Obama is a hard core anti-gun politician and so it's fitting that he's from Illinois. It's even more fitting that as a former Illinois legislator, he's at least partially responsible for the people of Illinois being helpless to defend themselves against violent criminals. Obama has gone so far to express support for outright banning handgun ownership altogether. Apparently he wants the rest of law-abiding America to be completely defenseless against evil criminals, just like the poor citizens of Illinois.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Once again, the Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime.
Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.
Since most states do not have these kinds of laws -- gun control having been rolled back and rejected at the federal, state, and local levels in the last 15-20 years -- Brady gave most states "failing" scores. Forty-two states received 28 points or fewer, and only one state received a score higher than 63--California.
But, as usual, Brady's scores correlate inversely with states' crime rates. Using crime data published by the FBI for 2006, the most recent year available:
* California, the state that has the most gun control and received Brady's highest score (79), has violent crime and murder rates that are 14% and 23% higher, respectively, compared to the rest of the country.
* Brady didn't bother giving a score to Washington, D.C., which has more gun control than California and even higher crime rates.
* Most of the 38 states that Brady gave 20 or fewer points to, have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates.
* For states that have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates, Brady gave average scores of 19, 19, and 14, respectively.
* For the 10 states with the lowest total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates, Brady gave average scores of 12, 12, and 9, respectively.
-- provided by the NRA-ILA
For those who don't know, it is illegal to possess firearms in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. So how could the criminal who perpetrated this violent act possibly have used a GUN to shoot five innocent women? You mean to tell me that he didn't obey the law? Is it possible these women may have had a fighting chance if their right to self-protection (right to keep and bear arms) was not infringed by the fascist Illinois government? Hmmm.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Well, the communists on the Berkeley, CA City Council are at it once again, voting this week to order the US Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) took great exception to this ruling, stating, "This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families. The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money." DeMint plans to draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated to Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill, adding that any federal money taken back from Berkeley would be given to the Marines. He added, "If the city can't show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts."
One Marine Corps official noted, "We understand things are different here, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme." BOY IS THAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT!
The Marine official told Fox News that Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway scoffed at the news. He further stated that the Marines will not be moving the recruiting station. "To actually put something into law that encourages the disruption of a federal office is ridiculous. They are not going to kick a federal office out of its rightful place there, and this is not going to discourage those young patriots who want to be Marines."
The Berkeley council also voted to give the antiwar group "Code Pink" a parking space in front of the recruiting station as well as a protest permit.
I have an idea. Let's have the federal government completely cut Berkeley off from any and all federal tax dollars they receive. Since the city has clearly chosen to become a bastion for communism, anarchy and flat out apathy toward America's enemies, let's shut them out from the United States of America and treat them like the pansy-ass stepchildren they are!