Obama is Weak… Wednesday, Sep 23 2009 

He’s weak. Everyone knows it too.

How long before the sharks attack? I am sure they can already smell the blood.

This is not good for America.

The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak
By Nile Gardiner

Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack.

Read the rest.

One Down and Several more to go… Tuesday, Sep 8 2009 

One communist down, a lot more to go. Obama being the primary communist, he’s adept at covering it up to the simpletons that watch MSNBC and the like, but he can’t hide it from those of us that are paying attention.

His minions are being outed one at a time. Van Jones is the latest one to fall.

The Blogger Who Nailed Van Jones
By Cliff Kincaid

If the Van Jones resignation is blamed on his statements about Republicans and 9/11, a great lesson will have been lost. As we argued in a previous column, “It’s the communism, stupid.” If people don’t recognize the dangers of having a communist in the White House, then the nature of the scandal will not have been understood. Blogger Trevor Loudon of New Zealand broke the story on April 6 and has some thoughts on what happened and where this story is heading.

His main point is that Van Jones and Barack Obama share the same Marxist ideology and background. Obama, however, is more careful and clever.

More

Van Jones Resigns…
By American Elephant

…and proves he never had the integrity to work on behalf of the public in the first place.

With a childish temper tantrum, Anthony “Van” Jones resigned his position as Green Jobs Czar for the Obama Administration. Jones said he was resigning because “opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”

Vicious smear campaign?  Lies?  Distortions?  The leftist media is going to say this is a product of a right wing conspiracy.  You’ll probably hear some call it racist.  You be the judge.

More

The Confidence Party
By
Rich Evanns

The resignation of Van Jones marks some sort of turning point. And the Democrats know this, consciously or not. One advantage Democrats have had over Republicans for some time is confidence. They are much more confident as a party, they make the stronger moves, and they thumb their noses at the opposition. And with the support of a compliant mainstream media, it seems to work.

But the Van Jones resignation suggests that Democrats may be losing that crucial characteristic which has made them a formidable political force, and the Republicans are gaining it.

More

Chinese Flag at the White House… Friday, Sep 4 2009 

You idiots still think he isn’t a communist? He’s surrounded by them in his cabinet and now he’s pandering to them.

China’s national flag to go up in White House on Sept 20
By Hou Lei

The national flag of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on September 20, media reported Sunday.

Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.

More

Smackin’ Down The Won… Wednesday, Jul 15 2009 

Come to the Dark Side Luke…
Liz Cheney puts a smack down on The Won…

Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
By LIZ CHENEY

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

More

The Give/Save BS Thursday, Mar 26 2009 

The Give/Save act passes the Senate. What a disgrace. There seems to be only a few people in the Senate that have any sense of responsibility, fiscally, or otherwise.

Here are the fiscally responsible 14:

Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)

Here are the those that have no nuts:
Not Voting – 11
Begich (D-AK)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Martinez (R-FL)

Here’s Senator DeMint’s speech(emphasis mine):

Transcript:

NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT – (Senate – March 24, 2009)

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for few minutes on the Serve America Act. I think this is a great opportunity to talk about what is good about a lot of the Members of the Senate. I certainly appreciate and applaud the sponsors of this bill for their good intentions and know their hearts are in the right place. Some of my best friends are supporting this bill. But I think, as we look at what is good about the hearts of many Members of the Senate, we need to recognize this bill does represent a lot of what is wrong with our Federal Government today-a lot of our philosophies, and a lot of our departures from a constitutional form of government.

What works in America today is our civil society-a lot of the volunteer groups that many of us have been a part of. I know for years I spent more time in United Way and a lot of the charity groups, being on their boards back in my community, and I saw what the volunteer arts groups and PTAs and health groups did to build a strong community. Civil society works in America. They are small groups. They are the true engines of character in our country. They promote service and patriotism. In this time where we have seen some of our economic institutions let us down, we have certainly seen our Government and our policies let us down, civil society does not let us down. It works in America today.

It is understandable why Congress would want to get involved. We see that passion to serve, that desire to do something that is greater than yourselves. We look at that working in our civil society and we want to get involved and expand it.

Unfortunately, our history shows us when Government gets involved, it tends to take something that is working and make it not work nearly as well. Civil society works because it is everything Government is not. It is small, it is personal, it is responsive, it is accountable. Civil society must be protected from any effort to make it more like Government.

That is what we are doing with this bill today. This bill centralizes control of important functions of our civil society. There is a downside to good intentions here in Government. The Founders created a limited government and our oath to support and defend the Constitution means that is our focus here. Our oath is to a limited government. The Founders wanted the people to be free from our good intentions. Government charity is anathema to what our Founders intended and what our Constitution stands for. Despite our good intentions, where we try to implement those good intentions and our compassion through the force of Government, we are effectively violating our oath of office here.

Well-intended legislation has left more than half of all Americans dependent on the Government. Today in America over half of Americans get their income from the government or a government source. About 20 percent of the country works for the government or an entity that gets its primary source of revenue from government. Another 20 percent gets their income and health care from Medicare or Social Security. Once you add in welfare and other subsidies, you make it so over half of all Americans are already dependent on the Government. This bill proposes to spend nearly $6 billion over 5 years, which means it will be probably $10 billion, probably more, over a 10-year period. It will have nearly a quarter of Americans working for it, which means it will be the 14th largest company, as far as employees, in the entire world.

What have we done here that suggests we can manage anything like that? Do you see anything in our history as a Federal Government that shows we have the ability to effectively manage something like that without extreme levels of waste and fraud and abuse? Look what we have done recently with the stimulus plan and the bailout plans. As soon as it comes to light what is actually happening with that money, people are outraged at what is going on. Despite the good intentions of this bill, we are creating a huge new government entity that will be unmanageable and violates some of the core principles of our civil society. Every time the Government steps in to solve a problem, it creates three new problems in its place.

This bill is everything wrong with how Congress sees the world. Government will make service organizations less effective, less responsive, and less personal. When the French historian de Tocqueville came to the United States not long after we were founded, one of the things that amazed him about our country that was so different from France was that in his home country when there was a problem, people would say: Someone ought to do it and government should do it; but in America we were different. When someone saw a problem, they went and got a friend and formed a small group and solved the problem themselves. Much of that was motivated by religious convictions that our place in this world is not only to help ourselves but to love and help those around us. That was key.

Jefferson called it little democracies, when he saw these little groups all around America voluntarily doing things to solve problems and make communities better. Burke called them little platoons. Most people who understand America know that those voluntary groups are what made our country great and what sustain us even today. Civil society binds communities, not by its fruits, but by its motives-charity, donations, giving without thought of getting anything in return. This is the selfless sacrifice that happens throughout America today. This is what works.

What does not work is what we are doing right here. The big difference is private service organizations exist for the people who receive the aid. Government service organizations exist for the people who give it-in this case, for the people who are paid to do it. You cannot pay people to volunteer and expect the organization to remain focused on its mission. Charity is a private, moral impulse, not a government program.

Government will not and, by definition, cannot strengthen and replace the civil society. Volunteerism is something that works in America. When we think of America, we do not think of Congress and Presidents, we think of Little League games and PTA meetings and bake sales.

Civil society is America. It responds to needs, meets challenges, and solves problems because it is free from Government. Because volunteers donate their time and money, accountability is acute. I have seen it. I have sat on a United Way board. Every year we evaluate every program and every dollar we have given to someone, and we determine is it working or can we make it more efficient.

If the program is not working, the money goes away immediately. That does not happen here. If the program does not work here, we add more money to it. That is going to happen with every program we start, including the one we are talking about today.

Projects that do not work in a civil society get cut. Organizers who lose or abuse funds are dismissed. It is voluntary. So everyone is invested in its success. We know the large groups throughout America, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the United Way, the Salvation Army, the YMCA, Catholic Charities, fraternal orders, groups such as Kiwanis, Rotary, Knights of Columbus. These are large organizations, but they work because they are locally controlled.

Smaller groups, local arts councils and community theatres, PTAs, youth sports leagues, the animal rescues, the book clubs, crisis pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, food and other clothes drives that go on, church service groups, they are everywhere.

Those are the little platoons, the little democracies that make this country work. For us to presume, in the Congress, that somehow we are going to reach out into all these groups and make it work better is pretty presumptuous based on our history.

Why now? Why at a time in economic crisis with unimaginable debt and spending do we come in and say: We need to spend another $10 billion over the next 10 years to create another Government program to do something that is already working.

At the same time, we are talking about creating this new bureaucracy to replace private voluntarism with Government programming. We are actually cutting some of the incentives for people to give to charity and for the private sector to work. The President’s budget actually cuts the charitable donations of the people who give the most to charity in this country. So look at what we are doing. We are making it harder for the private sector to work.

You also look at what we have done over the years, forgetting that a lot of private charity and the motivation to serve God and community is a religious-based motivation. What have we done in this country?

We have essentially tried to purge that motivation from our country. Most public schools, or at least a lot of them, used to sponsor Boy Scout groups. But after being sued for years because the Boy Scouts have God in their pledge and they set standards for their leaders that some do not agree with, the threat of lawsuits essentially means our Government schools have thrown out the Boy Scouts.

More than half our astronauts, half our FBI agents, a lot of the most successful people in this country were trained in the Boy Scouts to serve their community, where their character was developed. But this Federal Government has forced them out of public places. For years we purged religion from our society. Religion was the primary motivation for a lot of civic groups, a lot of services, a lot of charities, a lot of hospitals that were formed, a lot of schools.

But we have said that has no place. Because we have unleashed the ACLU and other groups to constantly sue and intimidate groups, that religious motivation has been moved, has been purged in many cases.

Now we are going to come in and help solve the problem we have created. We want to promote voluntarism, we want to promote community service, when what we have done over the last several decades is essentially tried to destroy the motivation for people to serve a cause that is greater than themselves.

We cannot replace private charity with Government programs. If we try, a lot of people are going to miss meals, suffer cold winters, and leaky roofs. I wish to go back to where I started. I appreciate the motivation, the heartfelt sense of compassion and the patriotism that I know my colleagues feel in sponsoring this legislation.

But I think we need to come to a point as a government that we recognize we cannot do everything. That is why we take the oath to the Constitution to defend and protect the very limited form of Government. This Congress, this Government, does not need to start or expand an organization to a quarter million people, when we are paying people to do work that we decided needs to be done and take those decisions out of the hands of millions of Americans who look around every day and see what they can do to make their families, their communities, and their country a better place to live.

These are not Government decisions. We need to focus on what we were set up to do and do it much better than we are doing, instead of every week coming in here, bringing our good intentions and our compassion and every problem we see across the country we say something needs to be done. Then we say: The Government needs to do it.

That is the fatal flaw of the Congress today, is we forget that sacred oath of office that says: We will protect and defend the Constitution which says this Federal Government has a very limited function. And those functions that are not prescribed in the Constitution are left to individuals and to the States.

This is a huge well-intended mistake we are making. It serves a point that we need to realize this Government needs to stop spending and stop borrowing, stop taxing, and let America work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Revolution in the Air? Wednesday, Mar 25 2009 

I like this. The states in some cases are revisiting the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and telling the idiots in Washington, D.C., that they are on notice. When Congress and the President overstep their bounds, then the states must act in sovereignty as is the case with Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by 12 other states on this.

I say bravo! That is what America was built on. Freedom and not subjugation by government. Walter Williams explores this in more detail:

States Rebellion Pending

by Walter E. Williams

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance — perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants — has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

More

I Want Obama to Fail, Miserably Tuesday, Mar 10 2009 

Wow. The rant. The rant… I can’t blame him. All I can think of is: “The horror. The horror.”

I want Obama’s liberal, socialist, communistic, neo-Marxist agenda to fail too!

I think Obama’s a lying sack of shit, mostly. But I suppose I must also defer to the FACT that liberalism is a mental disorder.

I want Obama to Fail, too.

It’s been a while since I listened to the Esteemed Mr. Limbaugh regularly, and with the “I hope he fails” kerfluffle, I have taken him up again.  I agree with Rush.

I hope Barack Obama fails.

I hope he fails because despite the direction he claims to want to take this country, despite the golden paradise he claims to want for us all, there are only two possibilities given the ruinous policies he is enacting, an the path he has set us on with these proven losers:]

1) He’s mad as a hatter.

2) He’s a lying sack of shit.

More

Economy 101 Continued Tuesday, Mar 10 2009 

Back on the economy a bit here. The moral of the story? Keep government the hell out of it and all will be well. Government interference is what got us into this mess in the first place. Government interference isn’t going to fix the problem.

Subsidizing Bad Decisions

by Thomas Sowell

Now that the federal government has decided to bail out homeowners in trouble, with mortgage loans up to $729,000, that raises some questions that ought to be asked, but are seldom being asked.

Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as seven hundred grand– for the very good reason that he could not afford it– why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn’t afford it either, but who got in over his head anyway?

Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel that they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house, but who went ahead and bought one anyway?

More

Related:

The Risible Claim of “Responsibility”

by Mona Charen

Happening to scroll through old news the other day, I came across this declaration from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “While President Bush continues to trumpet his so-called ‘economic achievements,’ the Bush Administration confirmed today that the budget deficit for 2006 will be one of the largest in our nation’s history. President Bush’s failed economic policies have resulted in budgets that are drastically out of balance and skyrocketing debt. Budget deficits translate into higher interest rates, which means that mortgages cost more, credit-card debt grows, and student loans cost more. … Democrats know how to restore fiscal discipline with tough policies of pay-as-you-go budgeting, no new deficit spending…”

Cough cough. Daniel Casse at the Commentary Magazine blog offers additional golden oldies. He remembers the New York Times’ Paul Krugman writing in 2003, “As a drunk is to alcohol, the Bush administration is to budget deficits,” as well as Thomas Friedman lamenting just a few months ago that “Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars and now bailouts.”

More

More Lies Thursday, Mar 5 2009 

This is really getting old. He lies as soon as he opens his mouth. He’s just good at hiding the lies inside the rhetoric that the masses like to hear. Pay attention morons.

That said, I bring you this piece:

Obama Lied; the Economy Died

by Tony Blankley

I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the past eight years. Thus, I have chosen as my lead this proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic theme of 2003-08: “Bush lied, people died.” There are, of course, two differences between the slogans.

Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon (rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook and soon will be a cataract of verbal deception.

More

Related:

Is Talk Cheap? Barack and Adolf

by Thomas Sowell  (March 3, 2009)

They say talk is cheap. But in fact it can be devastatingly expensive. Among the generation of Germans who were enthralled by Hitler’s eloquence, millions paid with their lives and their children’s lives for empowering this demagogue to lead them to ruin and infamy.

Germany before Hitler was one of the more tolerant nations in Europe. That was what attracted so many Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe– tragically, to their doom.

German immigrants who settled around the world have been among the more tolerant peoples– not angels, a standard that only intellectuals could use, but comparing favorably with most others.

Do not for one moment think that we are either intellectually or morally superior to those Germans who put Hitler in power. We have been saved by our institutions and our traditions– the very institutions and traditions that so many are so busy eroding or dismantling, whether in classrooms or court rooms or in the halls of Congress and the White House.

More

Related:

Smoke and Mirrors: The Magic of Barack Obama

By Monte Kuligowski

Every good magician can alter one’s perception of reality by use of deception. In context of a magic show, trickery is a good thing; when it comes to a political show, it’s not so good. President Obama has come to be known as one of the most eloquent politicians in American history. But it was not eloquence alone that got him into the White House; it was eloquence coupled with pretense. And with those twin characteristics Obama is almost effortlessly imposing his extreme-left agenda on the country.

From the womb of the Democrat National Convention in 2004 a star was born. And not just any star but, The Star, the savior of all things liberal arose from obscurity to instant national media fame. Yet, interestingly, the famous speech delivered by the future president contained no overtures of liberal policy. While delivering the convention’s Keynote Address, Obama spoke of America “as a beacon of freedom and opportunity.” He spoke of his father who herded goats in Kenya and his maternal grandfather who “signed up for duty” after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He even mentioned the “Creator” and “inalienable rights.”

Healthcare. Government run health care is usually a death sentence. Britain, Canada, and yes, even the socialist Mecca, Sweden suffer undo hardships, and lack of innovation in their health care systems. Canadians can at least head south and get some real medical care.

More

Related:

Obama’s Accounting Joke Is On Us

An honest accountant dies and St. Peter tells him that he must first spend a day in hell to decide where he wants to be.  In hell, he finds beautiful golf courses without greens fees, alluring women who promise to fulfill his fantasies, and a mansion without cost to him.  The accountant returns to St. Peter and tells him that hell is his choice.  Upon arriving back in hell, it’s a desolated wasteland full of poor wretched souls, the women are decrepit and reject him, and his home is a hovel.  The accountant asks the Devil about the change.  The Devil replies: Before you were a recruit, now you’re staff.

The former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, respected for honest accounting, Peter Orszag, is now Director of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Now he’s staff.

His fall from grace was on exhibit several times this past week.

Last Friday, Orszag defended the trimming of itemized deductions by asserting that, “the best way to boost charitable giving is to jumpstart the economy and raise incomes – and the purpose of the Recovery Act enacted earlier this month was to do precisely that.”

More

Related:

Where in the world: Going Galt and Wreck-overy.gov logo-mania

Assault Weapons Ban BS Tuesday, Mar 3 2009 

The “Assault” Weapons Ban garbage is back. When are you idiots going to realize that gun control doesn’t work? It never has, and it never will. Gun control empowers criminals over the law abiding citizens. So called “gun free” zones, are magnets for idiots with a vendetta. Anytime there are three, or more people killed with a gun, it is likely in one of these zones.

Holder’s “Assault Weapons” Folly

Posted by David Rittgers

Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that the Obama administration will seek a new federal “assault weapons” ban.  This is an ill-advised policy that defies common sense.

The ban would be a revival of a law passed in the early years of the Clinton administration that expired in 2004.  The law prohibited the sale of newly-manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition and having two of five cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles.  If you had a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, you couldn’t have a bayonet lug.  More recent proposals have attempted to ban “barrel shrouds,” which the rest of the world calls “handguards” – the place you put your hand (instead of on a hot barrel) to prevent burning it while firing.

The emphasis here is on the cosmetic – any rational discussion of the issue ought to note that an “assault weapon” is any object you use to assault someone with – and banning the presence of a bayonet lug on the barrel of a rifle is senseless.  Knives, tire irons, and bricks can all serve as “assault weapons.”  This is an instance where quotation marks are not just appropriate, they are required.

More

Related:

Video Lies by the Brady Bunch

Now the Brady Bunch is using videos to spread their lies.

There are two videos at the link, one of a fully automatic rifle and one of the semi-automatic version. The accompanying text says:

Some gun advocates disingenuously argue that assault weapons are only fully automatic machine guns, and that their semi-automatic versions are merely “like many hunting rifles.”

That’s false.

The only difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic assault weapon is about 3.5 seconds.

Time for yourself the difference in rate of fire between these two weapons, each loaded with a 30-round magazine.

Then decide which one you need to “hunt” with.

More

It’s about time!

Rep. Paul Broun forms task force to defend rights of gun owners

By Blake Aued| Morris News Service

ATHENS, Ga. — U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is shooting back at Attorney General Eric Holder for proposing a renewed ban on assault weapons.

Mr. Broun, a Republican whose 10th District includes parts of the Augusta area, recently formed a bipartisan Second Amendment Task Force with Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. He said in a news release that a ban on assault weapons is “extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our constitutional right to bear arms.”

Mr. Broun was responding to Mr. Holder’s widely reported statement Wednesday that President Obama wants to bring back a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.

More

On a side note; I checked around online for some pistols, and ammo in a general sense. One thing I noticed, is that the four sites I visited for guns, are all sold out.

They are also sold out on most of the popular ammo as well.

Obama and his merry band of thieves have definately sparked an economic growth in the guns and ammo industry. Way to go douche-nozzle.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers