The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “2012 election”

Thank You, James Zogby! (For Your Patently Biased, Offensive And Stupid Observation About President Romney)

To paraphrase – with one factually wrong, decidedly insensitive, and patently biased comment, Arab American Institute President, James Zogby, and liberal aspirant, is doing more to focus attention away from the devastating impact Palestinian culture has had on the Palestinian economy and its own people for well over two decades, the result of which (should Zogby’s despicable propaganda mesmerize the masses of Palestinians he caters to) can only stymie development in that region for more decades to come.

James Zogby, being of Arab descent, (his father came to America illegally, from Lebanon, and Zogby was born in New York) and having a liberal mindset, and bias against Israel, (probably a personal hatred too), and writing for the “Arianna Nation” severely scolds soon to be President Romney for his “patently bias comment” he made about Palestinian culture, which was neither patently biased nor anywhere near off the mark.  In fact, when Romney blamed Palestinian culture for its own economic woes, Romney hit a grand slam.  Zogby, conversely, in his pathetic diatribe, struck out.

Says Zogby:

Romney’s observation that “culture makes all the difference,” which he offered as his explanation for the disparities between the Israeli and Palestinian economies, was so remarkably out of touch with reality that it set off an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”

Since Palestinian culture only lives to destroy Israel, and since Palestinian terrorists have had, and continue to have a long history of hostility and violence against Israel; since its own faux government, whether that be Hamas or the PLO, both openly supports terrorist activities against Israel and Israeli citizens; since there is no real Palestinian nation, but a mere collection of people living in and around Israel, who identify themselves as Palestinians; since these people who call themselves Palestinians are wont to kill all Jews and overtake Jerusalem and all of Israel distinctly because of their culture and their cultural upbringing, what Romney said about Palestinian culture was right – and Zogby knows it!

Zogby speaks of  “an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”  Well, to be exact, Romney’s “observation” set off an avalanche, “explosion” of hate-filled criticism throughout the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) in America and around the world.  Who is surprised by that?  Who is baffled that liberals in America and around the world, most of whom also hate Jews and Israel, would condemn Romney for pointing out an obvious fact and truth about a deviant, childish, malevolent and very violent culture such as that of the Palestinians?

Most of the United States’s (sic) major daily newspapers featured articles, commentary and even editorials taking issue with the Romney quote — highlighting repressive Israeli policies, and not an “inferior culture” as the reason for the poor performance of the Palestinian economy.”

Well, duh!  It’s only the liberal media “taking issue”.  Of course, to the liberal media, the very thought of Israel protecting itself against such an “inferior culture” as that of the Palestinians, who have not stopped, nor will they stop, attacking Israel, would be shocking.  The only product the Palestinians manufacture, create and sell is terrorists and terrorism.  If a Palestinian even has a job, it is most likely as a terrorist.  If the Palestinians even have schools, can anyone imagine what is being taught?

Zogby completely ignores history when he writes:

in 1994 the Palestinian economy received a devastating hit resulting from the Israeli closure of the territories. The “closure,” which cut Palestinians off from Greater Jerusalem, and severely limited interaction between Palestinians and Israel, was initially imposed as a temporary “preventive measure” in the wake of the massacre of Palestinians committed by an Israeli settler in Hebron. The “temporary closure” never ended.

That massacre was initiated by Baruch Goldstein, and not only was it condemned by Israel, but its own cabinet expelled an extreme right-wing Kach party over its support of Goldstein’s actions that left dozens of Palestinians dead.  In other words, Israeli culture openly condemned acts of terrorism against Palestinians.  Where has Palestinian culture ever condemned acts of terrorism against Israelis?

And why does anyone think Zogby might have omitted those facts from his Romney- Israeli bashing article?

Israel, and its culture, which is far superior to anything in or around the Middle East, is the only think keeping the Middle East from imploding on itself.  If the Palestinians were to stop their acts of terrorism and violence against Israel; if the Palestinians were sincerely interested in peace with Israel, Israel would be more than happy to reopen itself, its borders, to the Palestinian people; to its economy and its culture.  Palestinians don’t want that.  Palestinians want all Jews dead and to take control of Israel for themselves.  That is who the Palestinians are, and that is their culture.  And James Zogby knows it!

Until the Palestinian economy divests itself from terrorism, from the manufacturing, selling and exploitation of terrorism, it will not have an economy worthy of supporting.  And until the Palestinian people, within their culture, renounces its goal of total annihilation for Israel, they will continue to live and die in the poverty they themselves created from their own deep-seeded hate.  And James Zogby knows it!

What is the rest of the Arab world doing to help the Palestinians, to shoulder some of the responsibilities and help Palestinians out of poverty and into jobs?  What is the hapless, useless United Nations doing?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

With the exception of blood money, and that money used specifically to fuel terrorism and terrorist activities, how much money has the Arab world contributed to the Palestinians to help create jobs, spur new business ventures and economic growth?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

How much land has the Arab world agreed to donate (or even sell at a reasonable price) to its Muslim and Islamic brethren for a Palestinian State of its own?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

And so, for pointing out, yet again, just how deeply biased liberals such as yourself are against Israel; how much you truly despise Israel and self-loving Jews (as opposed to self-hating Jews); enough to have gone to the “Arianna Nation” to post your anti-Romney, anti-Israel diatribe, thank you, James Zogby, for best illustrating patent and blatant absurdity, which is the cornerstone of liberalism.

Doesn’t James Zogby know that?

Nancy Pelosi: The “Mind Numbingly Stupid” Iron-ing Lady, Part 2 (What Does Eric Holder, Voter ID and Racism Have To Do With It?)

Nancy Peloist ismind numbingly stupid“, and that is putting it mildly.  And Eric Holder has committed grave and serious actions against the best interests of America with regards to Fast and Furious.  For Pelosi to complain that all the attention the GOP is giving Holder, including demanding his resignation (Holder can keep his head, it is worthless to science for study, or any other field), that this ballyhooing among Republicans is nothing more than retribution for Holder’s involvement in the several voter ID lawsuits pending is beyond mind numbingly stupid.  It is yet another act of extreme desperation by Pelosi and the Democrat Party who continue to unravel and expose themselves for the literal know-nothing party they truly are.

Fast and Furious was a gun smuggling operation, coordinated during, and by, the Barack Obama Administration.  George Bush had nothing to do with it – he was well out of office after this monstrous, miscalculated scheme was carried out.  The idea was to sell guns with tracking capability to Mexican drug cartels, thereby learning where these cartels were located.  This plan flopped miserably and as a result, untold thousands of Mexicans have lost their lives in this seemingly endless drug war going on in Mexico, and a border agent, Brian Terry, has lost his life.  And leave it to one indignant Democrat strategist, Tamara Holder (who is white and of no relation to Eric Holder, who is black), to completely forget his name.  Imagine a Republican forgetting the name of Martin Luther King, and calling him “that guy” with the “Dream” speech”.  Yeah, that would go over well.

Eric Holder, again at the boot heel of Barack Obama, is engaged in a war, of sorts, with several states that have passed stringent voter ID laws.  How stringent?  How draconian?  These states, which include Florida and Arizona, have decreed, by law, that when a voter shows up to vote at any given poll they actually present identification before they are given a ballot.  Why?  That is the question Democrats and liberals ask, which is more proof they, and not Republicans and conservatives, are the real threat to American sovereignty.

Why, indeed!  Democrats are doing everything they can to make a mockery of America, American sovereignty and the entire voting process in America by their devil-may-care attitude to ensure, and make sure, anyone can vote (precluding those who are voting are voting Democrat), including enlisting the dead, the family pet, (remember Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler in the Wisconsin recall against Governor Scott Walker?), and in particular illegal aliens who are more apt to vote Democrat because Democrats are so desperately in need of every illegal vote in order to win elections.  And this is the real reason Obama is trying, un-Constitutionally, to usurp power for the express purpose of granting hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens work permits.

It is also true that a disproportionate number of black Americans still do not have voter ID’s.  Despite the fact that most states offer these cards for free, there is still the contempt emanating from this group, egged on by race hustling garbage like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, about a poll tax, racism and intentional voter suppression.  All of which the Democrat Party, including the Iron-ing Lady herself, Nancy Pelosi, is taking full advantage of.

Says Pelosi, about the GOP’s attack on Holder’s credibility:

“I’m telling you, this is connected,” Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday. “It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name … as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “connected” part Pelosi is referring to is the increased criticism coming from the GOP over Holder’s unwarranted involvement in the voter ID lawsuits.  The “protect and defend” part Pelosi alludes to is over Holder’s, Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s willingness to defend and protect their voting blocks, whether those voting blocks are legitimate or not.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right to vote to illegal aliens, or anyone who cannot identify who they are.  It is the right of every state to ensure the voting process is not tainted with corruption.  Democrats, and Pelosi, are standing in the way of justice, both in the Fast and Furious scandal and in every state’s right to enact voter ID laws.  Democrats and liberals seem to be mind numbingly immune to this reality.

With Eric Holder, and his head buried deep in the Fast and Furious scandal, Barack Obama and his head buried deep in fanciful cloud formations high above reality, and Nancy Pelosi with her head buried deep within her own self, (and we can take that to also mean her self-absorbed lifestyle, her haughtiness, and the fact that she seems to have attained some metaphysical high breathing in the rancid and putrid fumes of her own arrogance and conceit for so many years – for that is the fanciful way of putting it), and the fact that regardless of who the Democrat strategist is, they will always take the side of Democrats no matter just how mind numbingly stupid they behave, just what vision does the Democrat Party have in mind for America and the future of America?

Nancy Pelosi’s vision of America, based off the lucid images formed from those same fumes she has been inhaling for so long, is an America that has no border’s, no sovereignty and no voting restrictions, just so long as she, and Democrats in general, keep getting reelected and allowed to make and to pass the laws they need in order to pander to the people they need to, for the votes they need to get reelected, so forth and so on, ad infinitum.

That may indeed be good for Democrats and the preservation of the Democrat Party, but – how exactly does that benefit America, the preservation of America as a sovereign nation; and just how long can Democrats keep this charade up before the entire American Experiment falls apart and one or more rogue nations comes in to claim America for itself?  Or does anyone really think it is the wide expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that protect America and keep America safe from hostile enemies?  How mind numbingly wrongheaded, and dangerous, is that!

There Is No Room In America For Illegal Immigrants (That Includes The Children)

President Obama has taken the “Won’t someone think of the children” argument to a new extreme low.  Once again Obama has shown his complete contempt for American sovereignty, having  usurped his Constitutional authority and power, side-winded congress and the law, waved his hand in the air and said, “Wallah”, giving (for the moment) the perception to young illegal aliens that they are now free and clear from deportation.  This is of course a canard and a stunt, solely for the purpose of increasing voters among those Hispanics and Latinos that favor amnesty, a pathway to citizenship, or what ever you want to call this insidious, this odious, this demented, nightmarish and outlandish reckless disregard for American law, common sense and common decency.

The problems with allowing teenagers, 16 and under, what is essentially full immunity from prosecution and deportation for being in America illegally are numerous.  The first and biggest problem is that it is a lie, and the multitudes of young illegal aliens who think they are now granted a full pardon, as it were, are in for a very rude awakening in the near future – after the election, and when Obama no longer needs to rely on theirs, or anyone’s vote, whether he remains President or not.  The un-Constitutionality of Obama’s gesture will be a hard slap in the face to these young illegal aliens who think they are now, and always will be, untouchable by law enforcement.  If you are in this country illegally and you are arrested – you will be deported.  You may have a small window of freedom, but only until after the 2012 election.  Then, reality, and law, will set back in.

There are millions of Hispanics and Latinos in America who have come here the responsible way.  That is, legally and through the long and arduous legal process.  How does anyone expect them to react to the news that for all their hard work, all their patience, all their sacrifice and dedication, and all the money they invested in becoming American citizens, a whole class of illegal aliens has “passed go” and gotten the “get out of jail free” card and will not have to pay any fines?  If we are to talk about alienation, we must include how utterly alienated and abandoned by Obama and his Administration, and the Democrat Party as a whole, those Hispanics and Latinos have become who came to America through legal channels rather than through illegal underground tunnels and other avenues and pathways.  Don’t you think they might be just a little bit insulted by Obama’s obvious pandering?

It’s true that some people who come to America illegally are brought by their parents at relatively young ages.  (As babies and very small children.)  It is also true, and a well documented fact, that many more children come to America illegally on their own.  Look here, here, here, here and here for a video called Children in No Man’s Land, which documents the plight of children who try to enter America illegally by themselves, and what ultimately happens to them.  In granting young illegal aliens a short reprieve from deportation, Obama completely overlooks this astounding fact that so many kids, 12 and over, are coming to America illegally by themselves.  Obama’s pandering to the anti-American sovereignty wing, a very small group of radicals, will only encourage more of this dangerous and irresponsible behavior from other kids, under 16, who now will think all they have to do to secure their own visas is to just make is across the border before they are caught.

And what about black Americans?  How well received has their reaction been?  With unemployment still about 8% nationwide, and unemployment among blacks double that, approximately 800,000 (conservatively) illegal aliens will be competing for jobs that are already scarce, making finding work all that more difficult, and compounded even more for blacks.  With a stroke of mighty arrogance, Obama has begun issuing work permits for all illegal aliens who came here as children, 16 and under, and who have not broken any other of America’s laws expect that one law in particular, which neither Obama nor the Democrat Party thinks is an actual crime.  Millions of Americans out of work, Obama’s Recession and Obama’s Economy stagnating still under the heavy weight of taxation and regulation, and yet somehow there is room in America, and the American workplace, for illegal aliens?

Apparently America is a wide open, wild and lawless frontier for illegal aliens, and that is just how Obama and the Democrat Party want it to remain.  At least, until after the election.  No matter how you look at it, Obama is intentionally throwing all Americans under bus to pander to the few radicals and anti-American sovereignty groups he thinks he needs in order to win reelection.

What can be lower than a politician – a United States President – using children as props and tools, and pawns, simply to score political points and secure another term in office?

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

How Republicans Can Use Schumer’s, Dems “Ex-Pat” Tax Scheme To Benefit All Americans

Chuck Schumer, (D -NY), and Bob Casey, (D-Pa) are unveiling a new tax scheme, the “Ex-PATRIOT Act” or Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act.  But before Republicans roll their eyes and hammer their fists in anger, they would do well to take a moment and reflect at what a golden opportunity this “tax hike” could be for Republicans and how it could actually reduce the tax burden if Republicans are smart enough to use the Dems tax scheme to a new advantage.  How would they do that?

The Ex-Pat Act is in direct response to those Americans who have renounced their American citizenship, specifically to keep from having to pay the exorbitant taxes Americans are forced to pay under our draconian tax system.  The Act would impose a 30% tax “on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.”  The reason why Schumer, and other Dems, are proposing this, new tax, besides the obvious reason – their Democrats, and Democrats never met a tax hike they didn’t like – is to make certain that people who do renounce their American citizenship, like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who did renounce his American citizenship before taking Facebook public, would still be required to pay the tens of millions in taxes on his stock purchases he would otherwise owe as an American citizen, some 67 million dollars.

But – why should Republicans go along with this scheme, and how can Republicans use it to their advantage, and to ultimately reduce the tax burden?

Before Republicans throw the Ex-Pat Act into the Boston Harbor, they ought to sit down with Democrats and make a deal that would benefit all Americans and American business; and, while it would impose a hefty fine on American tax “traitors” (which we ought not be too concerned with, yet) the benefits of this tax could have dramatic implications if Republicans play their cards right.  But, of course, if Democrats balk, or refuse to compromise, then by all means we ought to support, with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, those Americans entrepreneurs and business risk takers that flee American and America’s outrageous and crippling tax system.

Behind those proverbial “closed” doors” Republicans ought to demand, in exchange for going along with the Ex-Pat Act, that both capital gains and corporate taxes be put in limbo (a moratorium) for a period of five years, after which both those taxes would come back at a competitive 9%, respectively.  Ideally both those taxes would be abolished all together, along with a host of other non-essential taxes (of which most taxes are).  However, until Republicans control all three Houses, and in particular, fiscal conservative Republicans who are determined to shrink the size of government, that is unlikely to occur.  But we can get the ball moving in the right direction.

One of the most important things we can accomplish in regaining control of our economy, and growing that economy, and in creating a plethora of new jobs, and new tax revenue, is to reduce the risk involved in owning and operating a business, investing in that business and profiting from that business.  It makes absolutely no common sense, or smart business sense, to have among the highest corporate and capital gains taxes in the world.  The more we can reduce these taxes, make them more competitive, more attractive for American businesses who have already fled to other nations to return to America, and even for foreign business to relocate to America, the more we can reverse our stagnant economy, which is, in essence in a coma and on life support right now.

Obviously there are other business taxes associated, and we will need to deal with those too, as well as the entire tax system.  But if we can do this one thing, put that five-year moratorium on capital gains and corporate taxes, in that five-year period we will see our economy rebound and grow with dramatic results.  New businesses will be created; current businesses will expand; all of which will need new workers to meet demands.  Millions of real jobs, with competitive wages and salaries will be created, putting millions of Americans back to work, and dropping to unemployment rate well below 5%.

We know exactly what Schumer and the Democrats are up to with their Ex-Pat Act, but before we pooh-pooh it, let’s use it to our advantage for real and meaningful tax change in our country.  Of course, the Democrats might just walk away from the table and scrap their tax scheme altogether.  That is a possibility.

So what?

Republicans are in a good position to retain the House, pick up more seats in the Senate (if not take that too) and Romney is looking pretty good in the polls right now against Obama.  This may be the Democrats one and only opportunity to increase taxes before the election, and, if Romney’s wins, the last opportunity for a very long time.  Would Schumer and the Democrat Party risk blowing such an opportunity?  Just how badly do they want to “sock it to ‘em” – those Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid, and to evade paying taxes?  Are we willing to find that out, or will we arrogantly squander a precious opportunity to cut taxes?

Hispanics/Latinos Without A Mind Of Their Own Is A Terrible Thing For Liberals To Waste

A Latino or Hispanic with a mind of their own is very dangerous indeed – for Democrats and liberals.  Dangerous because they tend to be more affluent, more educated, more financially stable, more firmly rooted in their families, their communities, in Americanism itself and supportive of  the original intent of the U.S. Constitution – and also very much legal American citizens with pro-American, pro-conservative attitudes who are more apt to vote Republican.

On the other hand, a Latino or Hispanic without a mind of their own is a terrible thing for a Democrat or liberal to let go to waste.  That is why Democrats and liberals always, always, pander, beg, prep their tongues and humble themselves before whatever orifice they need to lick to make Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own feel they are needed, important and special by promising them amnesty, free money, free education, free housing, free health care, free food, and gosh darn it these mindless, robotic Latinos and Hispanics, who don’t have a mind of their own will go into the voting booth each election cycle and pull the lever, punch the card, press the place on the screen that says vote Democrat.  Even a Latino or Hispanic without a mind of their own can surely differentiate between a “D” and an “R”, can’t they?

What liberals want us to believe is that unless Romney plays the “amnesty card” or the “DREAM Act card” he will not win enough of the Latino and Hispanic votes he needs in order to beat Barack Obama in November 2012.  And to believe that is to believe that all Hispanics and all Latinos are just as shallow, just as corrupt, just as disingenuous and just as criminally-minded as are Democrats and liberals.  Also, to believe that is to believe that all Hispanics and Latinos really want from America is a free ride.  How gullible do Democrats think we, conservatives, are?  How gullible do Democrats think Hispanics and Latinos are?  And – just how many Latinos and Hispanics need to be gullible to secure and lock up the Democrat vote this 2012 election?

S.S. Latino Blogger for the Arianna Nation (HuffPost), Kristian Ramos, is counting heavily on the gullibility of Hispanics and Latinos, and counting on more of them without minds of their own to  look instead at all the pretty little pictures, colors and shiny objects Democrats dangle over their heads to enamor them, lure them, bait them, hook them and entrap them, and reel them in to the Democrat basket where they will flop around helplessly until Democrats release them back into the sea that is the American populace – but only if they vote Democrat.  Otherwise, Democrats will leave them flopping around until the inevitable happens.

Ramos wants to know if Romney “will ever reach out to Hispanic Voters”.  If by “reaching out” Ramos means “prepping for a tongue lap dance” as Democrats do, then no, Romney will not sully himself as Democrats so readily and eagerly do.  And for Romney’s “snobbery” Ramos believes Hispanics and Latinos will not vote for him.  As if all Hispanics and Latinos need to be bathed in, and caressed by, a politician’s pandering and schmoozing tongue.  Perhaps that is the case with Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own.  But why would any Hispanic or Latino enjoy the feeling of a Democrat tongue lapping when that tongue Democrats wag and wiggle in front of them is razor sharp, diseased and laced with political poison?

Romney’s campaign outreach to Hispanics faces deep structural and policy deficits. His campaign does not have the necessary tools to present his best case to Hispanic voters. From a policy standpoint, his stance on the DREAM Act is complicated at best and his embrace of the Ryan Budget puts him at odds with Hispanic voters on education and Medicare.”

In other words – Romney won’t be corralled into the Democrat lie that all Hispanics and Latinos really want out of America is a free ride.  And that frustrates Ramos who knows that the more Hispanics and Latinos there are with minds of their own will vote for Romney, despite the fact that Romney will not support amnesty, the DREAM act or any type of free ride legislation scam and trap Ramos wants Latinos and Hispanics to fall for and become addicted to, and dependent upon from cradle to grave.

Ramos insists Romney’s numbers among Hispanics and Latinos are “sagging”.  This is simply not so.  Ramos also gets his information about Romney’s supposedly “sagging numbers” from another highly questionable and dubious source – the media!

What “media” pray tell could that be?  The biased, prejudiced, pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty, liberal, anti-American MSM perhaps?

Ramos thinks Hispanics and Latinos will feel slighted, insulted and dehumanized by Romney’s “self-deportation” statements he made recently.  However, Ramos misses two important facts.  One – Hispanics and Latinos with minds of their own can clearly see through the Democrat lies and pandering, and won’t be fooled into believing Romney is anti-Hispanic, anti-Latino.  Two – Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own are not intelligent enough to know when they are being slighted, insulted and dehumanized (and conned) to begin with.  Remember, all Hispanic and Latinos without minds of their own see are those pretty pictures, colors and shiny objects Democrats dangle overhead.  But they are merely illusions and mirages; intangible, unreachable, unattainable; unrealistic campaign promises, in other words.

How much of a mind does a Latino or Hispanic, or anyone, need to have to see through self-serving Democrats and liberals who only want their votes and are willing to do anything to court, pander and secure those votes, no matter how dirty, how disingenuous, how anti-American it is and they need to be?  How much of a mind does a Latino or Hispanic actually need to have to see that Republicans and conservatives do not view them as the mindless, robotic dummies Democrats do?  S.S. Blogger, Kristian Ramos, only believes Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own are the key to a Democrat and Obama win this 2012 election.  Will he be right?

Chen Guangcheng: The Pompousness Of China Demands America Be Even More Pompous

With the 2012 Presidential election mere months away, would Barack Obama be daft enough to offer an open apology to China for aiding Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, whose only crime was speaking out about the horrors and inhumanity of forced abortions in China?  Would Obama, by this apology, thereby provide Republicans their own opportunity to attack Obama on what would be his incredible weakness and insensitivity on human rights abuses?  Doesn’t the escape of Chen, and the U.S. involvement in protecting and shielding him from Chinese retribution, box, even intern, Obama into a corner he himself cannot so easily escape?

Either way, Obama is going to piss a lot of people off.  Either the Chinese government, if he doesn’t apologize.  Or – his entire pro-abortion, pro-population control, Democrat/Socialist base if he does apologize.  Will Republicans and conservatives be smart enough to use this issue to excoriate Obama and Democrats, by exposing how insincere and hypocritical Democrats and liberals really are when it comes to human rights abuses – if those abuses are the result of so-called “dissidents” being involved in acts of saving and protecting human life in the womb?

Whatever Obama does (and in all rationality that will not include an apology) there is, and there remains, far too much “ceremony” and “dance” between the United States and China going on in regards to Chen Guangcheng and that apology China demands – and the ridiculousness of that apology.

Indeed, there is, peculiarly and suspiciously, far too much nonsense and shuffling of feet, and of hands in pockets, between America and China on a range of human rights issues.  China has even censored Chen’s escape from its own people.  Obama is feeling the pressure from all sides to do something for Chen; something which will undoubtedly further antagonize China.  But to wash his hands of Chen at this point would further destabilize, demoralize and demonize Obama’s reelection bid.

Chen has since left the U.S. Embassy with the assurance from China both he and his family would not be harmed.  Even that begs the question – what kind of a government engages in psychological terror against its own people by threatening to bring harm to one’s entire family for the crimes of that one family member?  And, what is China’s word really worth?

And – is it moral to allow some Chinese (and with a population over one billion, “some” is meant to represent millions) to be, and to continue to be, abused and to have their rights, their dignity, their humanity stripped away from them because America is afraid of antagonizing China to the point its shuts its country, and its money, off completely from America?

If China is engaged in such horrific practices against its own people (which there is clear evidence it is); if America is aware of it (which America is); if an “aware” America ignores these abuses, whatever reasons America would offer for turning a blind eye, what does that say about the morality of America?  To put it blatantly, America needs to stop sucking up to the Chinese for their money and the money they use to buy American debt.  America needs to abandon any fear it has with regards to the Chinese military and its capability, including its nuclear prowess.  America needs to put aside China’s power as an economic force in this world.  Or, is China’s military, its economy and its money, and the money China uses to buy our debt, worth allowing China to continue, unhindered, abusing its own people?  Is it worth buying time, hoping diplomacy will eventually win out and China will see the senseless cruelty it has heaped upon its own people?  How many more of China’s citizens is America willing to “throw under the bus” in that meantime?

It is China who owes America an apology for bribing U.S officials to look the other way when it commits human rights abuses against is own people.  It is China who owes its own people an apology for the human rights abuses and atrocities it has committed against them.  And it is the U.S. government who owes Americans an apology for accepting billions of dollars in blood money in exchange for being so complacent.

It is a fallacy that America needs China’s money, or that America needs China to bail out America’s debt.  Our debt crisis can be solved through proper fiscal restraint.  It certainly won’t be solved by printing more money, tacking that money onto the national debt and having China continuously buy that debt, in effect buying an even larger piece of America.  The debt owned by China is staggering enough already.  But – what happens if diplomacy between China and the U.S breaks down because of America’s involvement in helping Chen escape further persecution?  America loses an investor?  Is that a big deal?  Or, to put it another way – is keeping China as an investor worth the continued human rights abuses China systematically, intentionally commits upon its own people?

Isn’t about time we did have leaders with the tenacity and gall to stand up to China?  Or do we respect leaders more when they keep theirs mouths shut, their eyes closed, in exchange for all the money China invests in America?  No!  America need leaders who can openly, courageously, frankly and forcefully, address the human rights abuses in China directly, with less pomp and more pompousness of its own.

Wouldn’t Obama be better to dis China, work first on getting reelection – get reelected – then he can have the luxury all second term Presidents have in that he won’t have the worries associated with campaigning or offending anyone because he is a lame-duck President?  At that point he can work to regain Chinese-American relations, whatever that means in the face of continued human rights abuses.  That, assuming Obama wins.  If he loses (presumably to Mitt Romney) then Chen, and Chinese-American relations become someone else’s problem.  But at least Chen, and his family, would have been saved from whatever punishment China might have exacted upon them.  Isn’t that worth the gamble of slighting China for the next nine or ten months?

Anti-Americans Say Drop the “I” Word; Pro-Americans Say Drop The False Pretenses

If you lived outside of America, and you wanted to enter America, and were willing to do it illegally, would you do it merely for the purpose, the recognition of, being a human being, or more of a human being than you may feel you are now in your current locale?  Or would you do it, more logically, in order to find and secure a better life for yourself?

Supporters of Illegal Aliens are pushing a new anti-America propaganda scheme called “Drop the I-Word”.  In their view, the “I” word is illegal and it is in reference to illegal aliens and those illegal aliens that cross over into America illegally (that is to say without either the permission or knowledge of the United States Government.  Hence – illegally), insisting that illegal aliens are “human beings” and that alone entitles them to be in America and to be granted American citizenship, or at least all the rights American citizens have even if they are not actually American citizens.  The intent of this anti-America group is blatant, obvious and damning, and that is to further weaken the sovereignty of America and to literally melt, dissolve and absorb our entire nation, its geography and it borders, into that of Mexico so that becomes indistinguishable, invisible and irrelevant.  Try doing that with the Mexican-Guatemalan border!

Nobody denies that illegal aliens are human beings.  However, neither are they automatically American citizens if they happen to be lucky enough to sneak into America, illegally, and not be caught.  Anyone who does that ought to have their opportunity to be an American citizen permanently revoked.  Every nation on Earth, and that includes America, is a “nation of laws”.  (Even lawless nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea.)

Yet – millions of people, many of whom are Americans, don’t want to see it that way.  These people, who despise the prosperity of America, and those people who have become prosperous in America, will do everything and anything they can to undermine the legitimacy of America and of our Constitution and to steal the wealth created and earned by Americans through legal and honest means, and work to prevent poor and middle class Americans from having the same, or any, opportunities to rise up and realize their own economic and financial successes.

How is America made better if everyone is made, and made to be, poor?  Or does that just make everyone feel better, to be united in poverty, and an equal share of that poverty, and wholly dependent upon government to survive?  Because that is exactly where anti-American groups, which include any and all groups affiliates with, supportive of, and advocates for the “Drop the I-word” campaign are trying to take us all – and that includes Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

They hate the word illegal when it is applied to people sneaking/breaking into America, and yet they would use illegal in reference to all the wealth created and earned by millions of Americans, in particular that wealth created and earned through and from Wall Street.  Somehow, in their warped and idiotic, and narrow-minded, view trespassing onto, and into, America without authorization or permission is not illegal, but making, creating and especially earning wealth in America is, and ought to be, illegal.

The same anti-America crowd that despises wealth because they are convinced, wrongly so, that that wealth was generated off the backs of poor people (illegal alien migrants included) who sweated and toiled long, exhausting, back-breaking hours, making little money for themselves, in order for some Americans to attain that wealth is the same anti-America crowd that supports illegal immigration into America, calling those people not illegal aliens but human beings in search of a better life for themselves and their families.  Does anyone for a moment really accept the notion that being a human being ought to grant anyone immediate and permanent access, and citizenship, to America?

How is anyone (legal American and illegal alien respectively) supposed to attain wealth or any sense, any vision, of financial and economic freedom in America if wealth, and becoming wealthy, in America is made illegal because not everyone can, or will attain wealth, or the same amount of wealth?  In other words, anti-America crowds are literally seeking to ensure no one person in America (legal citizen or not) has more wealth than any other person.  Ironically, that may be the one factor, the one defining draw-back to illegal immigration into America, once people from other countries realize that even if they do break into America, and are successful at remaining hidden, they will never attain any wealth being here because wealth itself, and wealth creation, has been made illegal.  And then we will see whether or not being an American citizen, to illegal immigrants, is the same as being a human being, or worth it to them just to be defined as human beings, if there is no money in it.

What would the rationale be for breaking into a country in the hopes of better opportunities if all those opportunities are either illegal, or, because no one person is able to attain any more wealth than another, made worthless?

The greatness of American is that it affords (and in how it affords) any American citizen with freedoms and opportunities unlike, and unique to, any other nation on Earth.  When the right policies (low taxes, tax rates and regulations) are put in place, where every American has the same, and equal, opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families, it does not matter if you were born into poverty, or born in another country and immigrated legally to America – everyone has a fair and balanced opportunity to succeed.  Not everyone does, of course.  But does that mean we penalize all Americans, even those Americans who are on the verge of success, from succeeding and realizing the American Dream?  Or should all Americans be forced to fail because some Americans do?

The Democrat Party, and Barack Obama, have worked to destroy the American Dream, and while they have managed a few successes, they have not fully been able to implement their entire redistribution of wealth agenda.  Illegal immigration and illegal aliens are one of the weapons the Democrat Party is using to combat wealth in America by driving down the standards of living for, and the wages earned by, American citizens.  If illegal aliens will work for less, then obviously that is an incentive to hire illegal aliens.  It is also an incentive to keep wages down for everyone.  They (illegal aliens) also vote Democrat.

The whole “Drop the I-word” campaign is a canard and being orchestrated under very false, very dangerous, pretenses.  It is meant to both legalize, and legitimize, all the 12 to 20+ million illegal aliens that are now in America, and to usher in millions more people from, although mainly Mexico and Central America, anywhere in the world.  And, to a great extent, keep the Democrat Party in power.  Remember – illegal aliens vote Democrat.

But, if being an American citizen has no more value placed on it than simply being a human being, why do so many tens to hundreds of millions of people around the world want to be Americans if all it means to be an American is to be a human being, but a human being in perpetual poverty and servitude to government because wealth, and wealth creation, has been made illegal?  Isn’t that the whole reason why they are escaping their own country to come to America?  And – who wants to be, who cares about being, a human being if all it means to be a human being (aka an American citizen) means living under repressive and oppressive conditions such as those the Democrat Party wants to implement under the guise of wealth redistribution?

America cannot let in everyone who wants to come in, and America certainly cannot allow just anyone to enter without being thoroughly documented, vetted and processed.  What country on Earth would ever do that, and why is America the only country on Earth expected to do that?

There is only one reason, and one reason alone, why anyone wants to come to America, legally and illegally.  Is that reason really just to be a human being?  If they can’t be “human beings” in their own countries, because their own countries are oppressive and repressive, how does making America as equally, or more, oppressive and repressive by making wealth, and wealth creation, illegal an incentive to immigrate to America legally and illegally?  And – will being an America citizen matter at all to anyone, including Americans citizens, once there is no distinction between being an American citizen and being a citizen of any other nation in the world if to be an American citizen is to be, and to remain in, an equal share of perpetual poverty and servitude to government?

If, and when, that ever happens we will all be trying to escape into Canada.  Can you ever imagine that?

Whether Or Not Romney Is “Conservative Enough” Ought To Be Irrelevant To Conservatives

Mitt Romney is a conservative.  In light of the fact that Barack Obama is a liberal, just how conservative Romney is pales in comparison to just how liberal Obama is.   Conservatives control the House, they may control the Senate after 2012 as well, or at least gain more seats.  A Romney win, with a conservative House and a conservative Senate, or having gained more seats in the Senate, is far more important to conservatives and conservatism, and to America, than quibbling over just how conservative Romney really is.  Is Romney a liberal?  If not, then he must be a conservative.  He is not a moderate. Why are we wasting time debating Romney’s conservatism when we ought to be uniting behind him because he is the better choice over Obama?

The same people “frightened” over Romney being a Mormon are the same people who are frightened by Obama and the policies he has enacted over the course of his Presidency.  Which is more frightening?  Romney being a Mormon?  Or – Obama’s policies?

The same people who challenge Romney’s conservatism are the same people who challenge Obama’s legitimacy as President and as an American citizen, and his policies.  Which is the better and more pertinent challenge?  Romney’s conservatism?  Or  – Obama’s policies?

The same people who insist Romney is not conservative enough, are the same people who insist Obama is too liberal.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney, who may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?  Or  – Obama, who is too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who fear Romney will not push for conservative policies with as great a fervor as they believed Rick Santorum, or other Republicans, might have, are the same people who fear Obama would push for more liberal policies in his second term.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney pushing for conservative policies, even if they are not deemed “conservative enough” for some conservatives?  Or – Obama, who would push for more liberal policies deemed too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who worry Romney, as President, will let them down by not supporting, more vigorously, more courageously, conservative issues, policies and legislation, are the same people who are now worried because of the issues, policies and legislation Obama has supported.  Which is less worrisome?  Romney supporting some conservative issues, policies and legislation, and supporting some more vigorously and courageously than others?  Or  – Obama, who supports zero conservative issues, policies and legislation, nor would he in his second term, and who supports liberal issues, policies and legislation very aggressively, very vigorously?

The same people who oppose Romney as the Republican nominee for President, and as President, because he is a Mormon, are the same people who oppose Obama being President because they either believe he is a Muslim or an atheistic/counterfeit Christian President.  Which is less unsettling?  Romney, who is a Mormon, and someone who upholds the same values as conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?  Or – Obama, who, regardless of whether or not he is an atheist, a Muslim or a Christian, upholds values diametrically opposed to conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?

There is no logical reason for conservatives to oppose Romney on the basis that he is not “conservative enough”.  He is more conservative than Obama, and that should be the more, and the most, important criteria than anything else, and Romney as President ought to make all conservatives more comfortable than Obama as President.

Why is it worth it to any conservative to quibble, to squabble, to debate just how conservative Romney is, compared to Obama?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see Obama reelected to a second term because Romney may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see America taken down an even darker and dangerous path, all conservatives agree Obama would in his second term, than it is in seeing Romney beating Obama in the 2012 election and having that much more of a chance to change that path to a better and more brighter one, simply because Romney may not be “conservative enough” for some conservatives?

Is Romney a RINO – Republican in name only?  Not only is there is no evidence to this, Romney has clearly stated his positions on the issues throughout the debates.  Romney is clearly a Republican, and a conservative Republican, in his politics.  Is Obama a DINO – Democrat in name only?  Not only is there no evidence to this, Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is a Democrat, and a liberal Democrat, and supports, with a passion, Democrat positions and issues that every other liberal supports.  Which makes conservatives less anxious?  Romney, even if he is a RINO?  Or  – Obama, who has 3 1/2 years worth of a track record supporting a very liberal agenda, and who will continue that agenda into a second term?

Which is the better use of time and energy for conservatives?  That time and energy invested quibbling over whether or not Romney is “conservative enough” to be President of America?  Or  – that time and energy invested in standing behind, and with, Romney, for President of America over Barack Obama?

Barack Obama Is Not A Chevy Volt – He’s A Chevy Chase!

Barack Obama is to the Democrat Party what the Chevy Volt has turned out to be the “green” automobiles.  And just like the determination of Chevrolet, the Democrat Party is determined to stick with Obama.  Chevrolet and the Volt vs. Obama and the Democrat Party – which is the better gamble?

From Resurgent Republic:

As part of our Target Voter Series, Resurgent Republic sponsored four focus groups among Independent voters in Denver, Colorado and Richmond, Virginia. These respondents all voted for President Obama in 2008, but are undecided on the generic presidential ballot today. Conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, the focus groups were split by gender.

In 2008 President Obama won a majority of the national vote due to his strong performance among Independents (52 to 44 percent), and as a result, he began his presidency with a deep reservoir of goodwill among swing voters. Due to Obama’s fiscal policies, it didn’t take long for his support among this target demographic to fray, as shown in our inaugural April 2009 national survey. A rebellion of the center erupted in 2010 as Democrats lost control of the House and were defeated in several battleground gubernatorial races. Ever since that point, President Obama has sought to win back swing voters, a task that will undoubtedly continue to Election Day.

How low is Barack Obama’s “likeability” among his own supporters?  It’s lower than Chevy Chase’s “likeability” among “Community” cast members, and producers.  It’s so low Chevy Chase has a better chance of being asked back to “Community than Barack Obama has in being reelected President.  And right now, Chevy has close to zero percent after his now infamous rant.  At least the Chevy Volt was well-intentioned.  It’s hard to say that about Barack Obama.  For that matter – it’s hard to say that about Chevy Chase.  Perhaps it is better to say that Barack Obama is to the Democrat Party what Chevy Chase is to “Community“.  Or is Barack Obama to Chevy Chase what Chevy Chase is to Barack Obama?  In other words, two self-defeating birds of a feather.  Well, at least there was a time Chevy Chase was funny, 30 years ago.  He ought to do another “Fletch” movie.  Those were fun.  What’s not fun is Barack Obama’s Presidency.  When Obama loses this November to Romney, perhaps he and Chevy can make a movie together.  How fun would that be?

If Obama Bows To Mexico’s “Best Interests”, Will Anyone Be Surprised?

Will Obama, who has bowed to everyone else, bow to the pressure being put on him by Mexico, and The National Human Rights Commission in Mexico, another corrupt organization?  There are over two million people sitting in American prisons.  Of these, a hand full are on death row throughout the remaining states that still enforce the death penalty.  Some death row inmates are not what you would call American citizens.  In fact, some of them are citizens of other countries who have, while in America, committed crimes, been convicted of those crimes, and sentenced to death for those crimes.  Some of these death row inmates are, it turns out, citizens of Mexico.  Is it fair to afford them special rights?  Is it fair to spare the lives of convicted murderers, and criminals who holds citizenship of Mexico, because we have a large population of people, legal and illegal combined, from Mexico?

We have a Presidential election coming up soon.  Obama needs the Hispanic vote.  He needs to court the Hispanic vote.  Is anyone surprised that Obama would support overturning the convictions of 58 duly convicted criminals while turning his back on his own country, his own people, his own judicial system?  (And if there is any error or any inconsistency, or any new evidence to be introduced that might clear any of these Mexican nationals, by all means address it)  Obama has the Presidency to gain, while  58 Mexicans on death row have their lives to gain.  What does anyone else have to gain, and what else is gained by overturning these death sentences?

The National Human Rights Commission has gone screaming and crying all the way to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, (which has absolutely no jurisdiction, no right, legal or otherwise, to intervene, in America and American law) to plead for mercy on behalf of these 58 Mexicans.  What they aren’t doing is denying the guilt of the people they are trying to save from execution.  Their only concern is that they are Mexican citizens, and as such, ought to be tried by a Mexican court, not an American court – and especially an American court in a state where the death penalty still exists.

Obama has tried to intervene before, when a Mexican citizen was to be put to death for committing murder here in America.  He did that almost one year ago, well before the campaign season was in full swing.  Now it is in full swing, and Obama is in a worse position than he was back in July 2011.  He knows he has to bow to anyone who will help him get reelected.  He knows he will have to lower himself, and drag America down with him, in order to win a second term.  He needs that Hispanic vote.  Except for pandering, what other way does Obama know to secure any voting block?

Is it any surprise that Obama sides with Mexico and is empathetic, more so, to convicted murderers than he is to the American victims and their families?  Is it any surprise that Obama would throw the victims of these 58 death row convicts ( and remember, no one is contesting their guilt) under the bus to secure the Hispanic vote?  What is puzzling, and damnably, is why Hispanics, who are  legal American citizens, would sully themselves, would degrade themselves, their heritage, and be in support of overturning the death sentences simply because these 58 death row inmates are Mexicans.  Either Mexicans who legally immigrate to America and become American citizens are proud Americans or they are not.  Either they are loyal Americans, and responsible, law-abiding American citizens, or they are not.  Either they have renounced their loyalties, their ties, their allegiance with Mexico, or they have not.  And if they have not – what they hell are they really doing in America?

The complaint by the Human Rights Commission in Mexico is that the Mexicans tried, convicted and sentenced by an American court were not read their “rights” when they were arrested, and thus either had “no idea why they were being arrested”, or “were not told of their rights when arrested” or even why they were being arrested.  This speculative at least, and irrelevant at best.  First of all, non-American citizens do not have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, even though American law enforcement does take measures to ensure nationals from other countries are not unduly, unnecessarily, unreasonable treated.  Secondly, is anyone who commits a crime in America so stupid they would actually believe that as a foreign national they have some special and extra rights if they happen to be captured?  Or does that only pertain to Mexicans who commit crimes in America, and feel they do have special privileges because they are Mexican, and they are overly confident their own government will bail them out?

To date, all 58 Mexican nationals on death row remain there, awaiting their death, as it ought to be.  And until new evidence can be introduced to prove the innocence of any of these inmates, there is no other logical reason to overturn any death sentence.  However, should such a move go forward, and should these death sentences be overturned without the addition of new evidence, all this does is embolden foreigners from anywhere, but Mexico especially, who might want to commit crimes in America, to be that much less fearful of legal retribution, and of being convicted and sentenced to death by an American court of law.  How does knowing you are that less safe in America increase safety for American citizens?

If American citizens who commit crimes do so because they do not fear, or care about, their own country’s laws and penalties, why should foreign nationals who commit crimes in America – and especially those foreign nationals who will have a so-called human rights commission going to bat for them – be any less afraid of that same law, and especially knowing they have a better chance of getting away with it, or at least not suffering the same “severe” penalties if they are tried by their own country’s court rather than an American court?

There seems to be a push being made by Mexico, and groups with close ties to Mexico (La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, etc.) to have two separate sets of laws; one for Americans who commit crimes in America, and one for foreign nationals who commit crimes in America.  Ironically, the set of laws for American citizens has already been made weak by liberal courts who allow emotions to be entered in as evidence in a trial, and who look for external reasons (early traumatic childhood experiences such growing up poor, coming from a broken home, being bullied, etc) as justification enough to not punish criminals to the full extent of the law for the crimes they commit.  This second set of laws, for foreign nationals, which right now is even weaker than the American set, would be made weaker still by special rights groups with ties to Mexico, the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.

That all leads to this question:  will Obama turn his back on America and bow to Mexico?  The answer depends on how badly Obama feels he needs the Hispanic vote in order to win reelection, and how much he believes throwing America, American law and American citizens under the bus in the hopes of gaining Hispanic support will help win his bid.  But it also leads to this disturbing question:  we already know how low Obama is willing to go in order to win reelection, but – how low are Hispanics really willing to go to help Obama win?

American Liberalism Is Dying, Though Its Last Gasps Are Louder Than Its Voice Ever Was

While it’s sad, but true, that the MSM (Main Stream Media), which is, and has always been, very liberal, is still the predominate vehicle through which most Americans receive their news, this phenomenon is slowly but steadily crumbling.  Unless you are a conservative, and looking from the outside in, it will be hard to tell, and certainly harder to tell if you are a liberal, and one who is already entrenched the in Leftist camp.  Nonetheless, as the latest gallop Poll shows, more American consider themselves conservatives than liberal or independent.  That is not a new trend, by the way.  Conservatives have always outnumbered liberals, and conservatives, by the percentages, have been rising throughout the decades.  So – how long before conservatives reach fifty percent?

That may be sooner than anyone ever thought, and thanks, large in part, to that group of Americans who nobody thought might help push conservative numbers and percentages higher and higher, into that coveted majority standing.  That group?  Liberals, naturally.  And it is through their lack of any real insight, intellectual capability, provocative debating skills, and the fact that they argue more through substantive emotions, rather than through rationality, that is, and will continue to be, their undoing.  Obviously, they won’t see it.  They will, of course dent it.  And all of that is just fine with conservatives.

We clearly see the Left’s infantile, its child-like and most juvenile nature everyday, in every liberal media outlet – CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC.  All these markets are declining in viewership.  Where are all the former viewers going to get their news?  Newspapers have been on the decline for years, and because most people can get their news online, conveniently, and for the most part, free, newspapers will continue to decline as more and more opt to use the internet to market their brand rather than the old-fashioned paper.  Good for us, but probably bad for the paperboy.

Again, if all we ever read or listen to is the Arianna Nation, The Daily Kos, The View, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, John Stewart, Steve Colbert, etc., then it will be very difficult to grasp just was is actually happening out in the real world.  And too many, in fact an uncomfortable and disturbing level of young adults, college aged, are still either listening to or reading liberal-based media or not interested in news at all, having consumed and wrapped themselves up in their own little fantasy worlds.  Luckily, most of them will grow out of it by the time they reach their mid thirties, which is exactly why conservatives outnumber liberals, and why that trend will continue, and why the percentages will long remain in conservatism’s favor – and why, by 2020, conservatives will be somewhere around the 45% mark, whereas liberals will be below 20%.  The reason?  Moderates/Independents, who make up 35% of Americans will, for the most part remain unchanged.  But any shift will see this group move to the conservative side rather than the liberal.

America is returning to its conservative roots and heritage.  Again, it’s near impossible to see this living in a liberal state, city or part of America that is a stronghold for liberalism and liberal values.  And we recognize that it will take much longer to break the grips of leftist propaganda in these areas, which are tightening and bearing down on the communities where they still have a hold.  That also is fine.  Conservatism is on the march, and we have yet to be stopped.  Portraying conservatives as the bullies and aggressors has done nothing to thwart our resolve, slow or progress or shut us up.

What happens to liberalism when Obamacare is overturned?  What happens to liberalism when Obama loses his reelection bid to, it is presumed, Mitt Romney?  What happens to liberalism when a republican controlled congress begins to repeal some of the Democrat legislation that has crippled our nation, incurred trillions of dollars of debt and kept us in a perpetual recession?  What happens to liberalism when taxes are substantially cut?  When the Keystone XL pipeline is passed and when more and more drilling permits are accepted?  What happens to liberalism when all of this comes to pass, and the nation finally realizes that smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom is not the “evil” liberals paint it to be?

Liberalism flounders and chokes on its own acidic vomit.  Not convinced?  That isn’t really important to us – right now.

Obama Laments Fox News Not Being As Nice To Him As MSM

President Barack Obama, full mental jackass, is out with some very strong words against Fox News, which he accuses of spreading the “Obama is a Muslim” rumors.

President Barack Obama told labor leaders that Fox News had convinced voters he was a Muslim, according to a new book that will be released Tuesday.  “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party,” by journalist David Corn, recounts a private meeting where Obama reportedly detailed his frustration with the outlet.

Obama, of course, is no more a Muslim than he is a Christian.  Obama is a socialist.  Socialists are irreligious.  And the Arianna Nation, political wing of the Democrat Party, and lap dog for the Obama Administration, is only running this piece to promote Corn’s pro-Obama book in the hopes that it will drive sales up and help regain and restore some of the popularity and support Obama has lost in recent months.

What the Left, and the Arianna Nation don’t get is that virtually no one in America, Republican or Democrat, at this point cares about Obama’s religion.  We care about the economy, jobs, taxes and high gas prices – all of which are extremely out of whack, and the direct fault of Barack Obama, the Democrat Party and the policies they have put in place beginning back in 2006 when they regained power in congress and in 2008 when they had it all – the House, Senate and the White House.

Recessions happen.  In fact, they happen on average every twenty years.  But up until the last recession, they were always self-correcting and the country got back to normal again.  Budgets which incur trillion-dollar deficits do not help an already dire economic situation.  Creating money and putting that money into the economy artificially only creates inflation, which drives up the cost of everything.  If Obama thinks that by injecting trillions of dollars into the system he is helping America out of a recession and more Americans out of poverty – not only does he not understand economics, he does not understand, or care, that his policies and his actions are creating even more poverty in America, not less.

All those trillions of dollars fluctuating, fluttering and flying through cyberspace don’t come without strings attached.  That money needs to be repaid, and the government wants it back – with interest.  Hence, the cost of everything has increased in order to repay it.

Gas prices, for example, are as high as they are now for two reasons:

1.  Because of the inflation caused by Obama injecting trillions of dollars artificially into the economy.

2.  Because Obama has put a halt on drilling for oil, with minor exceptions, and speculators (who do more to set the price of gas than the gas station you buy your gas at) who are bidding on the “futures” of oil prices per barrel don’t see the oil supply opening up any time soon.  In other words, if Obama signed the legislation that opened up the Keystone XL pipeline to be constructed, speculators would see that as an increase in supply, which would bring the future cost of a barrel of oil down.  This would have an immediate effect – not the five to ten year effect liberals are always ranting about – and motorists would see the price of gas come down.  Likewise, if Obama was to allow more drilling for oil now – because that means an increase in supply, the price of gas NOW would be reflected and thus reduced.

But Obama does not want lower gas prices.  He wants gas prices high so more people are forced to ride the government rails and other government provided transportation.  Obama lamenting over being called a Muslim is irrelevant after three and a half years in his Presidency, after which he has managed to rack up more debt in that time than George W. Bush did in his eight years in office.

Obama can be whatever he wants to be, and he can call himself whatever he wants.  But after January 2013, let’s make sure he is not called President of the United States.

But if he is – do we really care, as much as he apparently does, if he is a Muslin, or that some people think he is a Muslim in disguise?  Or are we going to have bigger and more personal concerns of our own to deal with?

Barack Obama’s War On Oil (Yes, It’s Intentional)

We cannot fill up our cars on the empty-headed ideas and the stubbornness of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.  Nor will our cars run on the promises of renewable energy that does not now exist but may (no guaranties though) exist somewhere in the future.  And our cars will certainly not run on the credit and good faith that renewable energy is right around the corner.  We still need the natural gas derived from oil.  We need that physical and literal golden liquid we can see, touch, smell – but don’t taste – that is at our fingertips right now.  Not the smoke and mirrors Barack Obama is trying to sell us.  For most American’s we can barely fill up our cars at all at the current gas prices (over $4/gallon and rising) without feeling it in our wallets.  It’s Obama’s fault directly gas prices are as high as they are now, and rising uncontrollably.

We know it is a lie, and yet we continue to buy into the lie that drilling for oil is too environmentally unsound and risky; that the hazards to our water supply, the air we breath, the soil we use for farming, etc. is in danger of being saturated with contaminates, which we will then consume and ingest, become sick and die.  Isn’t that what liberals are always hoping to have happen to us anyway?  Never mind the fact that we are more aware and more knowledgeable about all the harmful elements in our air, water and soil.  So much so, the air we breath now is cleaner than it has been in decades; the water we drink is less polluted with contaminates than ever; and the soil used for planting crops is healthier than ever as well.  That will continue.  So who is afraid drilling for oil will reverse all the gains we have made?  Nobody!  It’s more smoke and mirrors that force higher gas prices at the pump while politicians pretend to care about it.

We continue to be told by these politicians, who are only looking after their own lucrative interests, their own “behind closed doors and let’s make some deals” with the same businesses they publicly chide and denounce for the benefit of their voters, that it takes years before one of these pipe lines is up and running and fully operational, and because of this length of time it is not even worth it.  As for these worthless, empty-headed politicians who haven’t a molecule of intelligence in their helium filled brains, there is an easy retort and rebuttal to this we can use to shove back down their throats and force them to mercilessly gag on.

Ladies and gentleman – finding a renewable energy for our automobiles is also a long way away, perhaps a longer way off than it actually takes to bring an oil line into full production.  Yet, Democrat and liberal politicians, and anti-oil activists, never talk about that “minor” issue.  They never talk about the fact that billions of dollars have been wasted and misspent (remember Solyndra?) by our government on solar and wind technology – all of which has failed.  We, conservatives, damn well ought to bring that up every time they, liberals, get in the way of new drilling permits and more regulations that make drilling for oil more work and more expensive than it ought to be.

Our independence is at stake and we must ask ourselves – do we want to regain control of our own lives, or do we want to slowly, but surely, sink into the trap Obama and the Democrat Party are setting for us?  It may seem wonderful having someone else take care of us all our lives, but is it worth trading in our freedom and independence.  And does being fully dependent on government really mean we haven’t a care in the world?  Or do you think government dependence doesn’t come with strings attached?

There are literally hundred of billions of gallons worth of oil under our feet, and at low estimates enough oil just in America to last two hundred years or more.  Obama refuses to allow drilling anywhere America lays claim to territory, be it land or water.  At least as dangerous, if not more so, is his call for “dipping” into our oil reserves.  The point of an oil reserve is for that “just in case” scenario we don’t ever want to happen.

Despite the fact that this is an election year, and even some amount of drilling would help him regain some of his lost popularity, Obama is putting us all in a dangerous situation for two reasons.  One:  to appease a small, but very wealthy and influential, section of his base supporters – 1%-er’s by the way.  Two:  because Obama is a socialist at heart, and as such, the ultimate dream of socialism is moving everyone onto government dependence.  Hence, Obama’s, and the Democrat Party’s irrational push for spending billions on high-speed rail which (and Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood lies about it) only a small minority of Americans want, or find necessary.  There is a direct correlation between Obama’s halt on oil drilling and his push for high-speed rail, which is all tied into Obama’s push for renewable energy.

We can continue looking for renewable energy sources all we want.  And we can make it easier on the entrepreneurs and risk takers who venture into this area by greatly reducing the financial risk so that they will be more willing to spend additional money, knowing they will reap more of the profit and benefits that come with their successes, while losing less of their capital in their failures.

We can continue searching for renewable energy sources derived from wind, solar, and even nuclear; we can continue looking into synthetic and man-made energies derived from plants; we can continue talking and debating about it all we want.  We can continue doing a lot of thing with regards to renewable energy that will, it is hoped, lead to a major discovery or innovation that ultimately will replace the need for oil altogether.

What we cannot continue to do is forget the fact that right now we have only one option for the energy that fuels our cars, our homes, our businesses, our schools, our governments, etc.  – oil.  And we cannot forget the fact that Obama and the Democrat Party are doing everything they can within their power to keep the oil industry away from oil; from drilling for it, refining it and selling it to us at a reasonable and affordable price that doesn’t eat too deeply into our pocket books.

We cannot forget the fact that Obama and the Democrat Party, to appease the Left and the socialist dream for America – to see all Americans dependent on government – is keeping the price we pay for gas unnecessarily high by keeping oil drilling off-limits, and using the push for alternative and renewable energy as a distraction for as long as they can get away with.

We also cannot forget the fact that there is an election coming up in November.  Would it not do well to make this an election Barack Obama and the Democrat Party will never forget by throwing them all out of office, and making certain they never forget why they were thrown out of office?

All “Fluked” Up: Who Wants To Silence Women?

Now, if Sandra Fluke (pronounced “fluck”) was a Middle East Muslim woman, and tried to speak up about anything, in any Middle East, Islamic controlled country, she might be stoned to death for her efforts.  However, as an American, Sandra Fluke has a Constitutional right to speak in America, as do all women.  And like all women, Sandra has a Constitutional right to make a jackass of herself in public and flaunt her arrogance.  Conservatives have no desire to take that right away from her, or any woman.  So, why Sandra is all flustered and steamed over Rush Limbaugh and his comments is interesting, because it has been liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, and all liberals across America, who have been trying to silence the voice conservatives and of conservatism for years.  That includes, by the way, the millions of women who themselves are conservatives.  It is hard not to laugh at Fluke, so don’t hold back.

Sandra has stated that “slurs” will not silence liberal women, hers included.  Well, “slurs” have never silenced conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.  In fact, “slurs” against conservative women, which are an everyday occurrence in the MSM have not belittled, but rather inspirited, emboldened, encourage, inspired and driven conservative women to new triumphs, while simply driving liberal women into terrible and unstable fits of madness.  Nonetheless, “slurs” against conservative women have not ended, nor will they.

Sandra has had her say with regards to birth control and contraception.  It is Sandra Fluke herself who is trying to silence those of us, including conservative women, who take issue with the idea that it ought to be “free”.  As we all know, nothing is “free”, and the question of who is going to pay for Sandra’s, for all women’s, birth control and contraception if they are not paying for it themselves is still unanswered.  Also unanswered is the question as to whether or not Sandra supports the type of birth control and contraception which is solely intended to allow women to engage in irresponsible sex, and then end a pregnancy should an “accident” result.

Mind you, conservatives are not debating whether or not American law ought to prevent women from being promiscuous, nor are we arguing that birth control and contraception ought to be illegal.  That is just plain ridiculous.  Indeed, women take birth control for the purported health reasons also, and we, as conservatives, do not intend to oppress women and keep them from accessing medication and pills which help relief and offset undesirable side effects of womanhood.  We do have Title X, and for those women who do not qualify to enroll in this government-funded family planning program, that means their income is above the qualification cut-off line.  In other words, they make enough money to afford the cost of birth control and contraception themselves without the further aid of government and the taxpayers, or from their place of business and their health insurance provider.

So just who does Sandra Fluke think is trying to silence her?  Conservatives have not attempted to stifle her speech.  On the contrary, we love it when liberals, men and women, open their mouths in public and make complete buffoons of themselves, showing how conceited, arrogant, shallow and hypocritical they are.  We love it when liberals rant about nonsense, like a “war on women” because we will not accept what it is they are really after – free access to abortion inducing drugs and procedures – with their whole spiel on birth control and contraception.

Sandra has done a lot of explaining as to why women ought to gain free access to birth control and contraception for health reasons.  But she still supports that access so women can engage in irresponsible and promiscuous sex and to be able to kill any child created in womb if the birth control fails.  At least, Sandra has yet to come out and say she opposes free access to birth control and contraception if it is meant to be improperly used, or used to kill a child in the womb.

And whatever the cost of birth control and contraception, it won’t bring down gas prices at the pump; won’t create jobs; won’t put food on the table; won’t lower taxes on the poor and middle class and won’t reduce the federal deficit or the national debt.  But what this whole “war on women” debate has done, to a degree, is deflect from these real issues facing our nation right now, which is probably what it was intended to do all along.  If that was Sandra’s, and the democrat party’s intent, it has backfired.  Conservatives know enough about the issues dogging America, and how to correct and solve the economic issues while at the same time spending time on the social issues.

Liberals, on the contrary, don’t understand economic issues any more than they know how to solve them.  They prove that everyday with calls for higher taxes on the rich and rich corporations; rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline; more government dependence as the solution; less freedom for Americans and less sovereignty for America, etc.  Taxes are, right now, higher on the rich, and all of us, than they would be if a Republican was in the White House; gas is more expensive at the pump because Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline, and because he has put a halt to all new oil exploration and digging on American territory; Americans have less freedoms, and freedom of mobility, than they did before Obama took office; Obama would attempt to revoke as much American sovereignty as he can, and hand it over to the U.N.; and more Americans are dependent on government that before Obama took office.

More of Obama is not the solution to the problems that plague America.  Obama is the problem.  Sandra Fluke has managed to temporarily distract the nation from that.  However, conservatives have not let down their guard as liberals would have wanted.  And they can scream “war on women” all they want, and use Sandra and whatever other puppets they want, whatever non-issues they want to further distract Americans from the real issues in America.

And if Sandra Fluke, if Barack Obama and the Democrat party, if liberals think using the “war on women” mantra is a winning battle cry, we – conservatives – will not try to silence them.  Why should we, when we know we can bury them with it?

Who Would Vote For A Mormon For President?

There is still that unnerving sentiment, that irascible fear, that inescapable twitching cradled deep within the conscience of conservative America that will not go away, that will not stop pestering our minds, that will not let us a moment’s peace, and it is driving us madly insane.  Or is it insanely mad?  We know Mitt Romney is virtually a lock as the 2012 Republican nominee to face Barack Obama.  We’ve known it for some time, but because of Rick Santorum’s popularity and charisma within mainstream conservatism, and particularly within Christian conservatism, (still a huge voting block within the Republican Party) we were thus able to deny reality for that much longer and go on believing in all those wonderful fairy tales we invented in our minds to appease our consciences.  Ladies and gentlemen – it is time to face that reality.  Mitt Romney, barring any last-minute gaffes of some monumental size and catastrophe will be the Republican nominee.  Mitt Romney, of the Mormon faith.  So what?

As Republicans, and especially as conservatives, we need to be united as we have never been united before in order to defeat Obama.  The Left is running every anti-Romney, anti-conservative ad it can, as fast as its puppets can put them together.  They know Romney will be the nominee; they accepted that long before most of us did.  The Left is just as deftly afraid of Romney as many conservatives are, but for very different reasons.  The Left fears Romney because the Left knows Romney can beat Obama.  On the other hand, could it be that is why so many on the Right still fear Romney so much as well?

Just as Democrats got over Kennedy being a Catholic, as did the rest of the nation, so too must Republicans and conservatives get over Romney being a Mormon.  He is not going to impose Mormonism on America and force all Americans to give ten percent to the Mormon church.  Nor is he going to grant unconstitutional powers to the Mormon Church, or special privileges to Mormons, or any such nonsense.  Mitt Romney is an American first, then he is a Mormon.  Most Christians are also Americans first, then Christians.  Where is the difference with regards to Romney?

That many Christians have hang-ups about Joseph Smith and the “origins story” of Mormonism is a terrible excuse for such divide within conservatism, and for any divide.  Democrats are solidly behind Obama.  And that includes well over 90% of Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008.  We don’t have a lot of wiggle room on our side to allow for squabbling and bickering over whether or not we feel comfortable voting for a man because he is a Mormon.  Romney is an American, and he is a conservative, and he espouses conservative principles.  Does Barack Obama?  Then why would any of us damn ourselves, our party, our nation by giving Obama a victory when we could elect Mitt Romney?

It is, after-all, Barack Obama we are trying to defeat, not ourselves.  By not getting solidly behind Romney we are giving that much more of an advantage to Obama and Democrats.  In other words, we are playing right into their hands.  There is talk on both the Left and the right of just letting Obama win so we can focus on the 2016 election – four years away.

What good does it do for conservatism, for America, to have such a defeatist attitude?  First of all, there is no guarantee the Democrats won’t find a strong candidate for 2016, perhaps someone we have not yet heard about.   Secondly, isn’t it better, for our side, to let the Democrats and the Left talk about the 2016 election while we keep our eyes on this year’s prize?  Let’s us, conservatives take back the White House, and let the Democrats be the ones scrambling to regroup, recover and regain their political composure.  As luck would have it, it may well take at least four years for Democrats to recover from such a stinging defeat, and imagine all the fun we will have mocking them (politely of course) at their expense.

Romney listed ten important goals he had for when he becomes President.  Among them was abolishing Obama Care, pushing through legislation in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, and cutting taxes 20% across the board on all Americans.  He also supports abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the death tax, and hopefully he doesn’t stop there.  Obama is dead set on raising taxes on everyone.  And raising taxes even on the rich is still a tax on the middle class and poor because the rich will just pass the cost of that tax down onto the rest of us.  Who doesn’t understand this?

Obama, his policies, his agenda, are the obstacle to American recovery.  Not Romney’s faith.  But if we make Romney’s faith an issue, if we make his faith an obstacle, it is perceivable Obama could run away with the election.  And once reelected the only obstacle Obama will face in getting the rest of his destructive agenda pushed through congress, and on to the American people, is the fact that he only has four more years with which to do it.  Knowing time is against him, Obama will naturally push all that much more harder, and be that much more tyrannical.  He’s already disregarded the Constitution by pushing his contraception mandate through.  What is to stop him from doing anything after he is reelected?

Besides that we have the Supreme Court to consider.  In the next four years it is highly conceivable Ruth Bader Ginsburg will leave.  As it is the responsibility of the President to nominate a replacement, do we, as conservatives, really fret over having Romney be that President which must select the best candidate?  When so many court cases are literally resting on but the vote of one Justice – and, yes, that damn well means Roe Vs. Wade – would we then still be so narrow-minded in our own bigoted judgements towards Romney because he is a Mormon?  Romney is pro-life.  Obama is pro-abortion.  Which person makes you more uncomfortable sitting in the White House?

Would we really stay home this November instead of going to the polls if Romney is our nominee?  The Democrats might want a definite answer to that question, by the way, because they will undoubtedly be putting in a lot of overtime working to manufacture phony voters.  But if they know the most of us (conservatives) will skip this year’s election because we just can’t abide having a Mormon in the White House, maybe they can actually win the election for Obama by playing fair and square.

Do you still need to think about for whom, and how, you will be casting your vote this election year?  Or is four more years of Obama style economics and Obama-care a better price to pay for keeping the Mormon out of the White House?

Can’t Afford Contraception? Blame Obama And Democrats – And Help Save Sandra Fluke

Republicans and conservatives are not not the enemy when it comes to the high cost of birth control and contraception in America, and Republicans and conservatives are just as happy to make birth control and contraception as cheap and as affordable to all Americans as it can be.  It is Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that is standing in the way of achieving this.  They are the ones that have drastically raised taxes and regulations on all manufacturers, including those manufacturers which make birth control and contraception.

It is Obama and the Democrat Party which is standing in the way of women, like Sandra Fluke, and preventing her from realizing equality and independence through cheap birth control and contraception.  And when Obama called Sandra to console and commiserate with her, she should have taken the opportunity to scold him for his lack of foresight and concern into these deep matters – Obama’s doing – which have seen the cost of birth control and contraception skyrocket in America since he took office.  American women, like Sandra, who are consumed with acts of nymphomania are being forced to slake that lust because of Obama and his draconian and sinister tax policies, which hurts American nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, who supposedly has a mind of her own (the rest of her body she apparently has given away to many different men) ought to have taken the opportunity to chide Obama directly, and inform him that his tax policies on American business has had a devastating effect on woman, like her, all across America who now cannot have as much sex as they had wanted and so desperately need.  Sandra should have made the same type of impassioned plea for lowering taxes and regulations on American business as she made to congress for lowering the overall value, worth and standard of American women.

Sandra ought to have been insistent and firm with Obama that the fault for her having to limit her sexual escapades is his fault directly.  It is Barack Obama who owes Sandra Fluke the apology.  The mental anguish for which he has caused her, for having to reduce and curb her sexual romps has turned Sandra into the quivering, emotional, incoherent, unstable, blithering idiot we have seen over and over again in many different video feeds.

Raising taxes on business has many consequences.  For nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, we are finding out just how dire the results of Obama’s oppressive assault on them has been.  For all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra fluke, for all sex addicts and sex junkies, like Sandra Fluke, there can only be one recourse – that is to vote Republican in the 2012 election.  Obama has already stated he intends to raise taxes even higher on Americans business. This will cause American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, to go into convulsions, for they will be forced to reduce their sexual appetites ever more, and starve themselves, becoming anorexic in their abstinence.

Their withdrawal will be tough, and may lead many nymphomaniacs to seek spiritual guidance to help them overcome the loss of what is most precious to them.  Nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, may even have to resort to their worst nightmare – monogamy and a monogamous relation with one man, one person with which to share the rest of their lives.

And when the Occupy Wall Street crowd talks about all those “evil” and “greedy one percenters” they have also included, probably unknowingly, all the millionaires who have gotten rich off the manufacturing and sale of birth control and contraception consumed by tens of millions of Americans, including nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke, every year; and, according to “The Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, 98% of Catholic women.  For the sake of Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, Occupy Wall Street protesters ought to go to the White House and sit upon the lawn and refuse not to budge until Obama lowers taxes on American businesses so that Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, can go back to living the only lifestyle they know.

If American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, cannot afford the cost of birth control and contraception now, how can they afford it after Obama has raised taxes on the manufacturers of birth control and contraception even higher.than it is now?  It’s imperative that the word be spread to all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, across America – vote Republican in 2012.  It’s your only option for seeing the cost of birth control and contraception coming back down to more affordable levels.

What will happen, should Obama be reelected, and he raise taxes on American businesses, as he has firmly stated he would?  What becomes of Sandra Fluke, after Obama is reelected?  How can Sandra Fluke lead a normal life as a nymphomaniac if she is being deprived her wanton desires by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party?

We, as Americans, cannot allow this to happen.  Vote Republican.  Will we do that, at least, for Sandra Fluke?

Finally! The Law That Let’s You Kill Your Baby – After It’s Born

Infanticide!  Margaret Sanger may have dreamed of such a law which allowed for the killing of babies after they had been born, days, even weeks, perhaps as long as months.  It is certainly a dream, a concept, and a passion, rooted in bowels of liberalism.  The law that allows the parents of a child born, say with Down Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia, which has been championed and rigorously fought for, albeit deceptively, quietly, under the radar of most people who might have a complaint of two about it, is here – almost, anyway.  But such a law is nigh on to becoming reality sooner than it has ever been.  We are now in the penultimate stage of seeing that law created.  So near to becoming a law is it, people are openly discussing the idea without regret or remorse, without fear of repudiation, without any part of their conscience telling them (getting in they way of telling them) just how immoral such a law would be.  Even Barack Obama supports it.  They call it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.  But infanticide is still what it is.

Just who is proposing a law which allows for the killing of a baby after it has been born?  Why, “ethicists” of course.  Two, in fact, by the names of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who have written an article detailing their modest “proposal” in the Journal of Medical Ethics.  The only difference between this proposal, and the one made long, long ago by Jonathon Swift is that Swift was joking, using satire to illustrate his point.  As of yet, neither Alberto or Francesca have shouted “April Fools!”.

They argue, that for the good of the family, and of society, such babies which would become, and would have the potential to be, a burden, a drain, a never-ending cause of emotional distress for family members, neighbors and society at large, it must be acceptable to kill the baby after it has been born.

They argue babies born with malady’s, diseases, incurable inflictions and where the quality of life is diminished, even slightly, there is justification and warrant for killing the baby.  The cost to treat whatever ailment the baby might be born with is enough, these two “ethicists” insist to commit infanticide.

This all leads to an interesting, yet disturbing question.  If a baby born with some form of illness can legally be killed after its birth, why then, would the law not eventually come to include infants as young as two or three years of age who develop a condition that, although it is treatable, may be too costly for the parents?  Why not young kids at age five or six?  Can we kill kids at nine or ten?  How about killing kids who are going through puberty and who have become, to us, too much to handle?  What about all those kids who join gangs and sell drugs, bully other kids, kill other people in gang wars?  Why can’t we kill them too?

How about children who get below a “C” average in school.  They obviously are not going to grow up to be productive citizens.  Why not spare them, and society, from the inevitable.  How about the homeless?  There is your solution for that right there – infanticide for the homeless!  The elderly?  Killing the elderly has been a fantasy for generations of science fiction writers and readers.  Why not make the final leap into bold new territory.  In other words, if we can legally kill a baby after it has been born, where does it stop and where ought it to stop?

Alberto and Francesca argue that a new-born baby is not yet a person, and thus does not deserve to be recognizes as a person.  They say:

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

In other words, anyone, at any age, from birth up until the point of death – even at the ripe old age of 100 – who cannot care for themselves would be subject to an “ethical” disposal.  Both “ethicists” reject the term euthanasia:

As the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated.

Ladies and gentleman – do you grasp just how many millions of people cannot “properly take care of themselves” in this world we live in?  And if we leave the definition of what it means to “properly take care of ones self” in the hands of “ethicisits” like Alberto and Francesca, how many millions more will be subjected to “after-birth abortion”?  In other words, do we really think this move begins and ends with newborns?  Legally killing people who are a “detriment to society” is, and has been, a goal of liberalism for decades.  That includes the homeless, the poor, those with any infirmities; it includes runaways, kids and adults with any type of social disorder, alcoholics and drug addicts – the list is endless.  Well, by their standards, these “ethicists” would even consider illegal aliens a “detriment to society”.  And while conservatives would only have them deported, liberals would actually have them killed.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life.

So what happens if none of these “circumstances” develop in a child for a few years?  Is it the parents fault that the kid didn’t get sick quick enough so they could kill it as soon after birth as they might have wanted?  What happens when a child of any age develops something of a nature which “puts the well-being of the family at risk”?  Why should parents of a preteen, or a teen, be forced by law to suffer through their children’s maladies?

You know, it is a fact college tuition is expensive.   And getting those braces, “even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life” after their teeth had been straightened is still quite an expense.  What about all the unforeseen accidents, falling off ones bike, roller skates or skateboard, for instance?  How about all the sports injuries a child incurs throughout his or her life?  What happens if a child, a teen, is involved in a car accident and is paralyzed?  Don’t any of these “circumstances” quality to be “considered acceptable instances where” regardless of at what age, they are “putting the well-being of the family at risk”?  Money is tight, Obama’s economy is in utter chaos and the “food stamp President” has no idea how to turn it around.  Obama supports abortion; he supports infanticide; he supports euthanasia.  What else, what other “methods” of disposing of living human beings would he support?

The idea of killing babies after they have been born is not a new one.  Such practices had been in use thousands of years ago.  The Romans used to put their babies on a hill-top and leave them there, exposed to the harsh weather conditions and animals that would eat them.  Margaret Sanger, pride of Planned Parenthood, and its founder, supported eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, any method to “get rid of” the unsavory, the people who were a drain on society and who were ruining society, from her point of view, and for everyone else.

What these two “ethicists” in Australia have proposed is nothing new.  What is new is that their proposal has been published at all, and has been published in a magazine which purportedly deals in “medical ethics”.  What is new is that anyone would take these two seriously.  What is new is that many people do take them seriously.   Do you want to venture a guess as to how many people who take them seriously are liberal, as opposed to conservative?

Ladies and gentleman – this 2012 election is really about life versus death.  Democrats and liberals support ideas like abortion, euthanasia, and what these two “ethicists” call “after-birth abortion”, but which we know to be infanticide.  Barack Obama himself supports infanticide.  Conservatives value life and fight for it, which is why we are so vilified by the MSM and the Left.  We accept their criticism because we know what we are doing is right.  Either life has value or it doesn’t.  Liberals don’t value life.

Do you need any more proof that Democrats are trying to kill you, all of us?  Conservatives are working hard to save lives, at all ages, from pre-birth through death.  We are working just as hard to save lives as liberals are working to kill lives.  The more Democrats we elect to congress the harder we must work – because the more Democrats we elect to congress the more lives that are put in danger.  Democrats would support an “after-birth abortion” law.  They support abortion and infanticide; they support euthanasia and mercy killing.  Why would anyone disagree Democrats would be opposed to a law that lets parents kill their child after it has been born?

Which is why the apt slogan for this 2012 election really is – Vote Democrat and Die!

It’s The Econ, Er, Birth Control, Stupid?

At least Democrats, and Barack Obama, are hoping the 2012 election will be more about birth control and contraception, and less about the economy, taxes, higher and higher gas prices, and all the important issues the majority of Americans, men and women, deal with on a daily bases.  Which is why the Left is focusing in on the Right’s “obsession” with matters of life and death – literally.  Indeed, conservatives are very much concerned with life (as in unborn life), and we are very much concerned at how much in peril that unborn life is at every step of its development.  However, are we really trying to ban birth control, and is that our main, our one and only, political issue going into the 2012 election?

Birth control – and it is that particular birth control which is intended to prevent and block a pregnancy from occurring when used correctly, has absolutely never been an issue within conservatism itself.  Perhaps certain circles of religious conservatives, but never, by any stretch of the imagination, a majority of conservatives.  In other words, nobody – and that includes conservatives – is trying to ban and outlaw birth control.  We would support removing the taxpayer obligation for paying the bill on birth control, and any contraception.  Title X is still in effect and that will still remain in effect with either a President Romney or President Santorum.

The reason why the Left continues its barrage of assaults on conservatives with the birth control issue is to deflect the weakness of Barack Obama’s leadership, to distract from his overall disastrous performance as President and his very low popularity numbers with the American people, including those that voted for him in 2008 – many of whom, including black Americans, are very dismayed and feel betrayed by him.  In other words, Democrats are obfuscating reality in the hopes Obama’s supporters will come back to him and his fantasy agenda.

What Romney and Santorum, the clear front-runners, need to do is come out and dismiss these attacks and convey what the real conservative message is with regards to birth control and contraception – without invoking religion, or making it sound like their religion, and their religious beliefs, are the only reasons why they don’t support Barack Obama or the Left’s demands for more access to birth control and contraception.  Something like:

Putting aside my religious beliefs, for a moment, is it right for the government to force any American to pay for someone’s birth control and contraception?  Take religion, and religious constructs, morals and tenets out of the equation.  Is it right for the government to force any institution, religious or otherwise, to provide services which it finds to be against their own beliefs?  Is that the proper role of government?  Is that a proper use of our tax dollars?  Ladies and gentleman – no serious conservative is for banning birth control, and no serious conservative would even make that an issue.  It is Democrats who want taxpayers – you – to pay for birth control and all forms of contraception, including abortion; and they want to force you and I, and all public and private institutions, to provide these services, at our expense.  Billions of dollars, our money.  The real question is – why can’t regular Americans, who engage in activities that require birth control and contraception, pay for it themselves?  Title X is there to provide family planning help for low-income men and women.  That won’t change when I am President.  What will change is the arrogant attitude of Washington style government with regards to the way it sees you and all American citizens – as an ATM machine for its own private use, to plunder at will any time it wants.  Birth control, any form of contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occurring, will not be infringed upon, tampered with or banned when I am president.  Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat party’s, demand for forcing you, the American citizen, and taxpayer, to pay for it, will be. 

Why can’t they say something like that?  Instead, they invoke their religion and their religious beliefs, (and do so in a muddled and incoherent manner which provides more fuel for liberals and Democrats to use to stoke the flames of hatred and mistrust against conservatives and religious Americans) and use religion as the basis for explaining their views on birth control and contraception.  Nobody likes to have religion, and religious beliefs, especially someone else’s, forced on them.  And there are millions of religious Americans who don’t feel comfortable with politicians using religion, even if it is their religion too, as a reason for shaping policy.

Religion absolutely has a right to be infused with politics, and religious politicians absolutely have a right to invoke and talk about their religion and how it has shaped their lives.  However, using religion to shape policy that affects the American people only antagonizes the American people.  The Left has captured that sentiment, albeit they have gone way overboard with it, and they are doing what they do best – disseminating lies and misinformation about religious conservatives and religious conservative politicians, saying they are trying to ban something, the result of which will hurt and harm women and endanger their “health” and their lives.

The lies the Left spreads about the Right are far more extreme than the actual position on birth control and contraception the Right takes.  The problem is that we, as conservatives, have not done as well a job in countering the Left’s nonsense.  And neither have Romney or Santorum.  If either intends to win the Presidency, and deny Obama a second term, they both need to be much clearer in their message and much stronger in the delivery of their message.

Talking about birth control and contraception, even as part of an election cycle, is worth it, because the lives of unborn children are at stake in this issue – and they are worth fighting for.  However, is it worth losing the election to Obama and the Democrat Party, and putting those unborn lives at even greater risk because we could not properly define what is birth control and contraception, and what the government’s, and taxpayers, role is in providing it?

Rick Santorum’s Theology Trumps Barack Obama’s

President Obama does not miss an opportunity to proclaim his “Christianity” and use that as a basis for why taxes ought to be raised.  And while the Left is comfortable with that, they wither into blithering idiots and truly sick and disgusting sycophants, like Obama, when someone with real values, and real Christian values, like Rick Santorum, dares to use that as a basis for his theology and how he would shape policy and legislation in Washington.

The Arianna Nation calls Santorum’s “religious superiority complex” a “new low”.  Santorum, who is pro-life and who opposes the Obama contraception mandate against Catholic hospitals and institutions, uses his Christianity as the explanation for being pro-life and his conservatism for opposing government intrusion on religion.

Said Santorum:

“He [Obama] is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to.”

Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that go against their moral and religious conviction; Obama using, and abusing, religion, to further his socialist agenda is, to the Arianna Nation, to all liberals and Leftists, somehow a “progressive” position, but Santorum – extolling his Christian values – has reached a “new low”.  How does that make sense?

Said Obama, in a speech at a the National Prayer Breakfast:

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

Phony, counterfeit Christians, like Obama, because he is a liberal and a socialist, always get away with invoking religion and their particular religious values.  And they always get a pass from the MSM.  But when religious frauds, like Obama, invoke religion, it is always done to advance their socialist, and ironically, anti-religious agenda on the American people.  In other words, liberals have no objection with pro-abortion “Christian” politicians – take the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, for example – using religion to justify why contraception ought to be mandated a right by government.  But when Santorum, and others, profess their religion, and their conservative religious values, openly, as the basis for why religious institutions ought to be exempt and protected from government intrusion, they are roundly mocked, viciously satirized and ridiculed, called “ring-wing aggressors” and anti-women.

Of Santorum’s position, The Arianna Nation quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt:

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Don’t buy into his garbage.  The Left hates, despises and loathes religion with a passion, which is why they ridicule Santorum and anyone with conservative religious values, and why they give a pass to counterfeit Christians, like Obama, who use religion in ways that water it down and make it more salable but less meaningful.

There is nothing Christian, or religious, about being pro-abortion.  There is nothing in the Christian Bible, in any Bible, that supports the killing of unborn life.  Neither is there anything religious, Christian or Biblical based about forcing religious institutions to provide contraception and abortion services to anyone against their moral and religious beliefs – and to do so is also unconstitutional.  Nor is there anything in the Christian Bible that supports taxes, and raising taxes on the rich, at such high levels and percentages as Obama and the “Demon-cratic” Party have fought so hard for.  Other than a 10% tithing, to one’s church, or charity, and certainly no more than that amount to government itself, what Obama is professing is not only a lie, but slander against the Bible and Christianity itself.

Why is it that those liberals who profess themselves to be Christian, who despise anyone else invoking their religious values on the American people – especially in the public square –  routinely forget to follow their own rules and freely talk about their religious values and background?  If the Left is that uncomfortable with religion in the public square, and hearing politicians and their election officials talking about religion, why don’t they do more to dissuade and to persecute Obama, and any of their own ilk, who do freely and openly talk about religion, and their so-called religious values?

Whether the Left supports or rejects religion, Rick Santorum not only has a right to discuss, openly and freely, his Christian values, but to, freely and openly, challenge Obama’s “Christian” values.  If the Left has a problem with that, if Obama himself has a problem with that, they and Obama can meet Santorum head on in open debate where they can both lay out their religious differences and defend their brand of Christianity.

But Santorum has nothing to worry about.  His Christianity does trump Obama’s.  Or – does life, and unborn life, really have no meaning and value?  Is enslaving taxpayers to their government by raising taxes sixty, seventy, eighty percent sound, rational Christian teaching?  Is forcing religious institutions to help in the killing of unborn children, or in aiding and abetting sexual immorality, one of the tenets of Christianity, or any religion?

Is Christianity merely a prop politicians use to sway more religious Americans to elect them?  And even if both Obama and Santorum are using Christianity to further their political careers, regardless of that – whose religious values make more sense?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: