I mean, Samuel L. Jackson Voted for ObamaBECAUSE HE’S BLACK. Yeah, you and how many more from the 90% of the black vote? Politics be damned. A fine example to America, eh? Way to get past racism! “They did it to us for all those years, now it’s our turn to be racist.” That’s what I’m thinking…
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve always liked the movies that he was in. I just can’t look at him in the same way anymore though. Kind of ruined it for me.
Barack Obama’s politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the “Pulp Fiction” star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only … because he’s black.
In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, “I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”
The hypocrisy of the left is unbridled. Their outlandish sniveling during the Bush era and their lack there of with the SCOAMF for doing essentially the same thing, and in many cases even worse, is something to behold. It’s utterly ridiculous.
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:
The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
A new Washington Post-ABC News pollshows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.
Until Coulter came out for Romney, I thought she was a stalwart conservative. Boy was I wrong. And disappointed. As soon as she said she supported Mittens Romney, I knew there was something wrong. Then she goes out of her way to defend Romney’s liberalism by stating that because Massachusetts is liberal, he had to play the liberal to get elected. He didn’t stop there. His liberal steak leaks out of him at every turn. Peter Ferrara goes to town on her skinny ass and lets her have it with both barrels. Too late, but excellent none the less. I fear that Ann has jumped the RINO…
Sorry, Ann. I have adored you as a commentator, as you know, and appreciate your kind words about me in the past. But in discussing the individual mandate in your piece last week, “Three Cheers for RomneyCare,” you honestly don’t know what you are talking about. In the process, you are transgressing on my own work and past policy achievements, and grossly undermining the policy and political case against Obamacare. Read on, and I will explain in full.
It was me, working for and with conservative health policy guru John Goodman, who first rang the alarm bell for conservatives over the individual mandate in the early 1990s. As I explained recently in this space, it was we who led the fight to kill the Heritage Foundation health bill at that time.
That bill had been introduced by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) because he thought it was the conservative alternative to HillaryCare. Leaving Heritage over the matter and working for Goodman’s National Center for Policy Analysis, I went through the bill line by line and wrote up all the conservative objections, which primarily stemmed from the individual mandate. I then got my critique signed by 37 major conservative leaders.
It was the only time you could find Phyllis Schlafly and Ed Crane signing on to the same document. Others who signed included Paul Weyrich, David Keene, and Grover Norquist. It was a Who’s Who of conservative leaders.
When I delivered the document to Nickles’ office, he had the good sense to pull the bill. Stuart Butler was furious with me, and it has ruined our previously close friendship to this day. I received awards for this work from the American Conservative Union and the Eagle Forum. That is because the Heritage health plan with its individual mandate was detested throughout the conservative movement, and there was broad approbation for my work in practically figuring out how to pull them back.
The assault on our Constitution is unprecedented. This Administration and the Democrats in general have been spewing absolute shit out of their shit holes under their noses. If you think for one second that this President, or his minions are pro-America, you are absolutely delusional.
They can’t do it the right way, the way it is given in the Constitution, so they want to change our Constitution to fit their collective socialist agenda.
Keep this shit up, and there will be another revolution. Those of us that took the oath like myself, will defend the Constitution against ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, and are ready to continue to defend it even now.
You assholes that think you can trample on the Constitution without a fight, are in for a rude awakening.
In the last week in the popular press and academic journals there have been several pre-election essays and op-eds about the cumbersome nature of the U.S. Constitution as we were reminded by the president and its unsuitability for emulation by other countries per Justice Ginsburg, given contemporary supposedly superior models. In addition, we are told that food stamps are a great win-win situation for everyone, and that breaking immigration laws are infractions not really violations.
What we have here is an assault on traditional American notions of self-reliance, respect for the law, and a sense of American exceptionalism as embodied by the Constitution. It is weird, to say the least, to even hint of superior constitutional systems elsewhere, given the current chaos in South Africa, and the coming implosion of the European Union — not to mention the mess in the Middle East and Russia.
This video fromCAGW says it all when it comes to the tax and spend culture we are currently living through. It will only get worse if we don’t stop the madness now.
Yeah, let’s keep taking from the makers and give to the moochers. That’s a great plan for prosperity! NOT!
We, as a nation, cannot continue to let this happen. Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer producers and more and more moochers. It may already be too late to right this sinking ship.
“Fifty thousand for what you didn’t plant, for what didn’t grow. That’s modern farming — reap what you don’t sow.”That’s a line from a song about farm subsidies, “Farming The Government,” by the Nebraska Guitar Militia.
But these days it applies to more and more of the U.S. economy, as Charles Sykes points out in his new book, A Nation Of Moochers: America’s Addiction To Getting Something For Nothing.The problem, Sykes points out, is that you can’t run an economy like that. If you tried to hold a series of potluck dinners where a majority brought nothing to the table, but felt entitled to eat their fill, it would probably work out badly. Yet that’s essentially what we’re doing.
In today’s America, government benefits flow to large numbers of people who are encouraged to vote for politicians who’ll keep them coming. The benefits are paid for by other people who, being less numerous, can’t muster enough votes to put this to a stop.
Over time, this causes the economy to do worse, pushing more people into the moocher class and further strengthening the politicians whose position depends on robbing Peter to pay Paul. Because, as they say, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can be pretty sure of getting Paul’s vote.
But the damage goes deeper. Sykes writes, “In contemporary America, we now have two parallel cultures: An anachronistic culture of independence and responsibility, and the emerging moocher culture.
Caught this over at Hill Buzz. Excellent painting. The Founding Fathers along with the Conservative Presidents are looking on with the WTF? look, while the liberals are clapping and the RINOs are like meh.
Have you seen this?
It’s landed in our inbox here at Buzzquarters a few times in the last week but it’s always forwarded without attribution — and I’d love to know who the artist is so s/he can be recognized.
At first, I thought the presidents were trying to set Barack Obama on a date with the man on the bench, but once I realized it wasn’t Kal Penn or Reggie Love sitting there I understood it was a representation of the tens of millions of out of work and desperate Americans that Obama’s willfully ignored as he’s trampled the Constitution and carried on with whatever “Hopeychange” ended up being.
Have the people at Match.com discovered the real reason why so many liberals are such a bunch of snarky, foul-mouthed scolds? Could it be bad sex that leads to bad politics? Or maybe it is the other way around, as bad politics leads to bad sex?
The Match.com‘s Singles in America found that liberals have 40% more sex than conservatives — but conservatives enjoy their sex more.
Republican lawmakers Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) released a new report suggesting top Department of Justice officials had extensive knowledge of and involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
