The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “scams”

Control Liberals, Not Guns

In the aftermath of the Colorado massacre that left a dozen people dead during a midnight showing of  “The Dark Knight Rises”, liberals from under every rock are emerging, as they always do during such devastating moments of violence, and demanding more gun control laws to keep guns away from, and out of the hands of, those of us who are responsible, law-abiding American citizens.  The big plot hole in their story, of course, that makes it so unbelievable, is that the people killed in this massacre were not killed by a responsible, law-abiding American citizen – were they?

In other words, if murder by guns in America really were carried out by responsible, law-abiding American citizens, liberals would have an unbreakable argument.  The fact that gun violence and murder is carried out exclusively by irresponsible, law-breaking  American citizens (and sometimes by illegal aliens) shows that liberals have another, more diabolical, mischievous, dangerous and anti-American agenda they are attempting to pull on the American public.

Taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding American citizens will not save one person from becoming another murder statistic by a gun.   But – allowing responsible, law-abiding American citizens to carry/conceal may very well help to prevent some murders.  Certainly, guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens, can do more to hinder and thwart and halt a potential criminal with a gun from carrying out a cold-blooded murder.

Are liberals really concerned about the level of gun violence in America and the murders committed by guns?  The reason why the answer to that question is emphatically and resoundingly “No” is due to the fact that liberals only concentrate on removing guns from the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens.  Whenever cold-blooded murder occurs (which is every day in America), and in particular when it is gangs carrying out the murder, liberals never call for more gun control laws to prohibit gang-bangers and other criminals from obtaining and using guns.

Of course, it is much easier to prevent a responsible, law-abiding American citizen from obtaining and using a gun, and perhaps that is one reason why liberals shy and cower away from demanding more gun control, restrictions and penalties on and for criminals who use guns.  The only response we hear from liberals on this issue is for more tax-payer funded police to patrol the streets; more tax-payer funded government programs and services to curb, “assist”, those in so-called poverty from being led down a path to criminal behavior.  In other words, while liberals blame conservatives for gun violence, liberals never actually blame the criminals themselves who use guns to commit their crimes.  And when criminals do commit crimes, liberals blame conservatives.  Make sense?

Never once do liberals demand that criminals own up to their own mistakes, or demand criminals take responsibility for their own criminal actions and criminal behavior, or even acknowledge that criminals are capable of knowing right from wrong.  Liberals say it’s society’s fault for why someone becomes a criminal and uses a gun to commit a cold-blooded murder; thus, more tax-payer dollars needs to be invested to find out why people turn to criminal activity and to prevent criminals from “being born”.  It’s all a sham, and conservatives need to keep up a very aggressive fight against this anti-American insanity.

Owning guns is an American right, and one in which our founding fathers were committed to ensuring for at least two extremely important reasons.  First, they were concerned, rightly, about America being attacked again by Britain or from another enemy and it was absolutely imperative that Americans be ready at a moment’s notice to take up arms in defense of American interests.  Hence, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Obviously if one did not own a gun, there was a very good chance that “one” probably didn’t know how to use a gun either, which would have made them absolutely useless “at a moment’s notice”.  People who own guns, at least back it the time of our founding, know, and knew, how to use them.

Secondly, the right to bear arms was heavily influenced by the fact that some English kings, like James II, attempted to disarms his Protestant citizens, which would have made those citizens far more vulnerable to being attacked and killed by an over zealous King and his army.  The founding fathers wanted to ensure American citizens would not only be ready to defend America from its enemies, but also for American citizens to protect themselves, their families and their property.

Obviously, the “well-regulated Militia” part is somewhat obsolete.  However, the ability, and the right, for each American citizen to be able to protect themselves, their families and their property is not obsolete.  When liberals get their way and, by law, are able to keep guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who would use their guns to defend themselves, their families and their property from criminals who would seek to harm and kill them, liberals will have successfully made every American citizen that much more vulnerable to being attacked by criminals, who will not have any fear of retribution when attacking them because a criminal with a gun in his hand will always have the upper hand against a responsible, law-abiding American citizen who has no way to defend himself.  How does that make sense?

Liberals who demand gun control are the real threat to America, to American sovereignty and to American independence, to us, our families and our property.  Control them; muzzle them; make liberals and liberalism in America illegal, not guns.  A gun in the hand of a responsible, law-abiding American citizen wields an enormous and awesome power which has resulted in America remaining as independent as it has since its founding.  If and when we lose that right, how does that make us more secure and more independent?  And, how on Earth does confiscating guns from responsible, law-abiding American citizens take away even one gun from one criminal?  When liberals can answer that, maybe they will have a legitimate argument.  Until then – stand your ground against the criminals, and against the liberals who would seek to make you and your family more vulnerable to the criminals.

Owning Guns Is A Constitutional Right. And Now, More Than Ever, It Is Every American Citizens Duty To Own Guns

Can one be a pro-American patriot, but anti-gun?  No.  Or, to put it another way – how can anyone support less personal independence and more government dependence, oversight and control over all Americans and still call themselves a patriot?

For those of us who are American citizens, responsible, law-abiding and of legal age and do not now own a gun – now is the perfect opportunity to go out and buy one.  For those of us who already do own one or more guns – now would be the ideal time to buy another.  Buy guns for yourself, first, and then, in spirit, for your family, your friends, your neighbors; for America; for our American Constitution; for the love of America and for our deep-rooted patriotism in America.

Do this – before sniveling, cowardly, entirely wrongheaded, and dangerously so, liberals, sinister in all things malevolent, begin to sway the ignorant masses of Americans that, sadly, do exist, and are not at all knowledgeable in our Constitution or our history, and through this ignorance are able to brainwash enough Americans into believing that the only way to prevent another Colorado massacre is to tighten gun control and to pass laws than further restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Says the irrational liberal – “How is buying more guns going to help prevent another massacre?”  Says the rational conservative – “How is removing every last gun from every last responsible, law-abiding, American citizen of legal age going to prevent another massacre?”

When anti-American, anti-second Amendments Rights liberals purposely, by law, remove guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens, or make it much more difficult for us to obtain guns, what they are saying by their actions is that all Americans, regardless of facts, are criminals.  As gun laws become more stringent, making not only owning a gun more arduous, but going through the process of obtaining one, there becomes fewer and fewer gun owners.  Is that a good thing?

Well, as there becomes fewer and fewer responsible American citizens of legal age owning guns, how does that affect the criminal element in America?  The answer?  It doesn’t.  In the sense of obtaining guns, criminals will always have plenty of pathways, avenues and opportunities to illegally obtain weapons and to use those weapons on law-abiding American citizens who are now not armed themselves because, as law-abiding citizens they follow the law, whether they agree with it or not.

Liberals hate the Second Amendment because it provides direct power to the people, rather than to government.  The second Amendment allows every American citizen to take the law into their own hands and to defend themselves, their families, their property, etc, in a legal manner, in the event they are being threatened from someone else who means to do them serious harm.  Liberals, by their very grotesque nature, despise any type of independence among the people, believing instead that people ought to be ruled by government; that when trouble looms, they ought to simply call 911 and wait for government to come to their rescue.

As we, who are true patriots know, this is absolute BS.  Isn’t it ironic – and isn’t it utterly pathetic – that liberals will always use massacres, like the one in Colorado, to push their anti-American, anti-Second Amendment Rights fringe agenda, while at the same time, for all the thousands of murders that occur in our nation every year, committed by ruthless, deviant, evil criminals who have no respect for law or for humanity, this same liberal trash never once demands that guns be removed from their hands, or to make owning or possessing a gun, if one is a criminal, much more difficult, and punishable by steeper fines, etc.?

In fact, whenever a criminal murders someone in cold blood, liberals blame the NRA, conservatives, the Tea Party, Republicans and anyone who supports the Second Amendment.  But liberals never blame the actual criminal.  Nor do liberals blame the criminal for their actions, but rather they blame society at large for somehow having forced or compelled a criminal to use a gun in an irresponsible way that wound up taking the life of another human being in cold blood.

It’s all a charade, however.  Liberals need to get guns out of the hands of every American citizen.  How they accomplish that is irrelevant to them.  If they can succeed by frightening people into believing that guns kills people, and that guns themselves are the issue; that if guns were removed from society, that would end the problem of gun violence in America – if liberals see that angle working, they will continue to run with it.

Again, since we know that is all BS, and since we know that liberals have an agenda, which is not hidden, but which is rife will evil intent, to remove every last gun from the hands of every last responsible, law-abiding America citizen of legal age, we, as pro-Second Amendment Rights, pro-American patriots must have the courage to stand our ground.  We who love our country, our Constitution, our freedom, our way of life (still unique to anywhere else in this world) must hold firm and not allow liberals any ground to trample us or our rights.  Don’t tread on us!  Don’t tread on the U.S.!

The best way to thwart liberals in their anti-Second Amendment Rights agenda, and to prevent more unnecessary cold-blooded murders is to increase the amount of guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens of legal age.  What are we waiting for?

Obamacare – Robert Reich Wants SCOTUS To Commit Treason (It’s What He Would Do, Anyway!)

UPDATESupreme Court Commits Treason!!!!

With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict.  Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM.  Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage.  But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes!  Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said.  And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been.  Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings!  So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety.  That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing.  And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court.  What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc.,  In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings.  The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt.  The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld.  Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”.  What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.  Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down.  We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare.  And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense.  It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out.   Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt .  We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail.   Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it?  Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare?  We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans.  Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves.  It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous.  We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly.  How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us?  As stupid as Robert Reich?

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?

Defy! Defy! Defy! Florida Voter Purge Will Continue, Defying Federal Warning…

Let’s face it, there aren’t many states with enough gumption and courage to tell the federal government and Eric Holder to go stick it.  Arizona, and now Florida, are two diamonds in the ruff when it comes to having the guts to stand their ground, stand on principles, morals, ethics and clearly a solid Constitutional footing.  In fact, it is the federal government, led by the very corrupt Eric Holder, who is usurping their power and acting un-Constitutionally.  Case in point, Florida’s determination to purge its voting records of individuals who have no legal right to vote.  Why would the federal government demand Florida, any state, cease and desist from such a common sense idea as eliminating unregistered, and illegally registered, voters from the roll of legal, eligible voters?

The Democrat Party controls Washington right now.  They need votes to stay in power and control Washington.  There are simply not enough legally registered voters in Florida that are going to vote Democrat.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Hence, Democrats look for votes wherever they can obtain them, never mind the fact these voters are dead, animated, or illegal aliens.  But, with this warning, what exactly does the government think it can do, or has the legal and Constitutional right to do?  In other words, isn’t this warning just their way (the Obama Administration) of crying wolf?

This brazen, open and public tyranny by Democrats is a clear indication of just how desperate they are for votes, and how arrogant and smug they are to think they are above the law and the Constitution.  But Democrats always think they are above the law.  And as for the Constitution, they never liked it to begin with; never had a use for it, and always saw it as an obstacle to their socialist agenda.  Are any of us surprised that Democrats would stoop this low for votes?

And if you thought Democrats couldn’t stoop any lower (shame on you for not believing just how low Democrats can go) they brought out that old race card thing in their endeavor to paint Republicans as the villains.  Being black or Latino, or non-white (any “minority”) does not guarantee you the right to vote on that basis alone, nor does it grant you some special or unique extra-Constitutional privilege.

If you think you are “disenfranchised” because you can’t get off your lazy butt and go register to vote (which is free to you in most places) you’re only deluding yourself.  You will not delude the Constitution, nor will you delude the votes of legal and eligible voters by your sinister motives, your lack of initiative.  If you can’t legitimately make it out of your house on your own power to go register to vote – get help in doing so.  On the other hand, if you can’t legitimately get out of your house to vote, and you don’t register to vote – how do you defend yourself, and how do you still end up casting your vote?

There is, of course, no racism involved with this purge.  No disenfranchisement, except with those people who don’t have a right to vote in the first place.  Those are the people we want to disenfranchise from the voting process.  Florida has every right under the Constitution to purge unregistered voters.  That the federal government, under the direction of Eric Holder, at the behest of President Obama (who is undoubtedly being coerced by the Democrat Party) would make any attempt to tell Florida it can’t, means that either Democrats think they have enough power in the courts to threaten Florida with legal action or, at this point, being as desperate as they are, they just don’t care and are going for broke.

Either way, it shows how undeniably corrupt they are.  It also shows how shallow they are, how weak, feckless, pathetic and worthless they are having to resort to the race card and racism as their fundamental argument.  Democrats have no merits with which to stand upon, and their two left feet only have them traveling in circles.

In a sense, it’s both heartening and reassuring to see the Democrats so publicly excoriate Florida without warrant because their argument is so baseless, so off the wall, so patently juvenile and offensive it shows Americans for who the Democrats really are.  Aside from ultra die-hard liberals, Democrats have little actual support among Americans as a whole.

Florida’s defiance is breathtaking and encouraging.  And conservatives ought to rally behind Florida and any state that would uphold their Constitutional duties in light of an errant, deceitful, reprehensible government that is sorely mistaken if it thinks it can actually get away with such un-Constitutional behavior.  We sincerely hope Florida will stick to it guns and defy whatever nonsensical warnings from the federal government.  And if the federal government wants to sue Florida – if it thinks it has legal recourse and a case – it can always try.  However, with the election right around the corner, can they afford, can they risk, any more bad publicity?

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?

Mafia Style Unions Create Unemployment, Not Jobs: The “Right To Work” Is Solely Up To Business

Unions do not create jobs.  What do they create?  Unions create headaches for both business owners and their employees, and unions create unemployment for employees laid off from businesses who can no longer afford to keep them on because unions have muscled their way in, mafia style, and taken over a business owner’s right to run his/her business how they want.

S. S. blogger, Roger Bybee, doesn’t know business, and he doesn’t know Wisconsin.  In the Arianna Nation, he warns that Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, is waging a “War against Workers“, and that such a “war” is “crippling the activities of public employee unions”.  Well – isn’t that “crippling” effect among unions a good thing for the workers in Wisconsin, the businesses in Wisconsin and all Wisconsin citizens who now will not be forced to pay more for products and services?  Or – is it better for everyone if they are forced to pay higher and higher prices for products and services because business are forced to pay higher and higher wages to their employees?  The extra cost has to come from somewhere, and it is always passed down to the next person/business.  In the meantime, the unions rake in big bucks from unions dues, (protection money), mafia-style.

We all want higher paying jobs, better benefits, job and pay raise securities, medical and health insurance provisions, time off, etc.  For most businesses (predominately small business) this added burden causes businesses to either lay off employees to cover the extra expenditures of the remaining workforce, or to simply go out of business altogether after the unions have bled them dry, mafia style.

What liberals and otherwise pro-union supporters don’t talk about is that when businesses are forced, by unions, to pay more for an employee, and pay more into that employees overall benefit package, that money has to come from somewhere.  Where that “somewhere” is ought to be obvious, and is obvious to conservatives.  Businesses simply drive up the cost of their products and services and pass that cost onto their consumers, who can either pay the extra cost, if they can afford it, or find a competitor.  What in all likelihood happens to a business’s revenue when their customer goes to a competitor?

Now, what happens if a customer stays with a business who has raised their price to cover the mafia-style union enforced employee wage/salary increase?  The customer is left with that much less money for either their own business, or household.  When one business customer must pay more for a product or service it is receiving from another business, that business, likewise, must raise the price of its products and services to its customer base.  This causes an unnatural chain reaction, a domino effect, in that every business is forced to eventually raise its own prices for its own products and services to cover the additions costs they have had to incur to purchase the products and services they need to remain in business.

When that customer is a person – say a grocery shopper – who is paying more for a product which is now more expensive because the manufacturer of that product had to raise the cost to offset its union’s demands for higher employee wages/benefits; because the grocery store has to further raise the cost of that product to offset its loss incurred from having to pay more to put that product on its shelves, that shopper is also left with less money, which stretches their household budget, forcing them to reserve, conserve and spend less.  Everyone suffers when consumers, whether that is business to business transactions or a person grocery shopping, slows the flow of cash in an economy.  In very simple terms anyone ought to comprehend, the less money coming into a business, the more unhealthy that business is financially.  When a business is unhealthy, financially, how healthy are its employees, financially?

What happens when the customer refuses to pay the extra cost?  They find a competitor who can deliver the products and services they need, at a cheaper cost, obviously.  (And most likely this business is non-union.)  That business which has lost a customer to a competitor has less revenue, which means they have less money available to pay not only their employees, but the rest of their business related costs.  In the meantime, unions have made a killing on union dues, mafia-style.

When push comes to shove – is a business going to pay more money to save an employee their job, or is that business going to cut one or more employees from the workforce to save their own business?  And if a business, even one that is unionized, goes belly-up, what “protections” do those unions provide to the employees who are now out of work?

The inevitable result from this is that there is  “survival of the fittest” going on among all businesses.  Those business that have more capital, more cash flow and more investment in their business are better able to stay afloat, while other (small businesses in particular) are forced to fold because they cannot compete.  Non-union businesses, even in the small business sector, are better able to compete because they don’t have unions bearing down on them, pressuring them for more money, mafia-style.

There is no Constitutional demand that all, or any, business be unionized.  The only people who ever benefit from having unions in their business are the unions themselves.  How do unions benefit anyone when all they are really looking out for is themselves?  Employees might think their (union) jobs are more secure, and they will receive a higher wage, better benefits, etc, than a non-unionized business.  However – if a business goes under because of unions demanding they pay more to their employees, money which does not actually exist unless they raise the cost of their products and services, and those businesses lose customers to non-unionized competitors, how are those employees benefited by unions when they are laid off?

American businesses have a right to run their own businesses their own way.  When mafia-style unions barge in to a business, demanding that business pay more to their employees those unions are effectively taking the right to run a business away from the business owner.  And, by the way, it is understood that unions are not barging in for free.  They damn well expect to get their mafia-style “cut” and “tribute”.

Unions, and union pensions, also are directly responsible for many unbalanced state budgets, and the reason why your state’s Governor and legislature wants to raise taxes in your state.  Either abolish teachers, police, firefighters and hospital unions and all public unions – or begin having public union employees pay more into their own pensions that go towards balancing states budgets.  Good luck with that in Blue states.  Or – will teachers only teach, police only protect, firefighters only slide down those poles, hospital personnel only saves lives if they are being paid what they feel they are worth, depending on the salary they feel a mafia-style union can negotiate they feel they deserve?  And remember – whatever is negotiated is paid for by taxpayers, who don’t have any say in the matter.

Unions, just like any mafia, have destroyed the American economy and made hundreds of millions in “protection” dues.  Meanwhile, millions of people are still out of work, still hunting for a job, and still out of luck.  And unions in Wisconsin are doing everything they can to make finding a job even more difficult for Wisconsin citizens and business owners.

And Roger Bybee wants us to believe Governor Scott Walker, because he is fighting against mafia-style unions, is the problem?

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?

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?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Are You Getting, Or Hoping For, A Tax Refund? Why That Is Such A Terrible, Terrible Thought…

Everybody hates to pay taxes.  We curse, we scream, we yell, we rant, we put it off until the last-minute.  And then we do our taxes, crunch all the numbers, add up all the deductions, breaks and credits, and breathe a sigh of relief, let out a little laugh, a snide chuckle as it were, and smile when we see that we have a chunk of money that the federal/state government owes us.  Finally – our government is giving something back to us.  A few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars, on average.  What sweet satisfaction that is.  What sweet revenge on a government which has taken so much from us in that fiscal tax year.  What a – terrible, terrible place for any American taxpayer to find themselves in.  WTF!

You had such great plans for that tax refund, didn’t you?  You were going to pay off bills; take a vacation; buy a new car, a new computer,  a new something – but you were going to spend that money, splurge and go crazy on yourself, for yourself and have some fun.  You’ve been told for years, and perhaps for decades you’ve been under the tax refund delusion, that getting a tax refund is a positive, joyful, gratifying experience.  Now you are being told that is all a lie, a sham, a scam created by government itself no doubt.  You might be crestfallen, heartbroken, shattered.  And if you are receiving a refund this year, because you paid too much in taxes, all you can do now is suck it in, accept it, and rush to amend your filing status so that next year you OWE taxes to the government.  Wait, what?  Who is this crank?

Is this not making any sense at all to you.  Are you confused beyond belief?  Are you sitting there stumped, dumbfounded and seething with indignant rage because someone is telling you what a terrible, terrible mistake you are making in setting up your tax return in such a way as to OWE money, rather than receive a refund?  You still don’t understand how any of this all adds together, do you?

It’s elementary, really.  The tax refund you are hoping for, and hoping to be HUGE, is money that is sitting somewhere in a government fund, collecting interest for government, benefiting government, being used by government for whatever purpose government sees fit to use it.  That’s your money.  Why isn’t your money sitting in your bank account?  You have bills, debt to pay, and the refund you are hoping for, you are delaying paying off your debt on until you get that refund.  But you claimed ZERO, or ONE on your tax return, which means you are paying more in taxes to the government than if you claimed TWO or even THREE.  And if you had claimed a higher number, you would have paid less in taxes.  And if you were paying less in taxes, you could have paid off some or all of your debt before you filed your taxes, and certainly before the government got around to returning your money it owed you.  How much interest on that debt could you have avoided by doing it that way?  How much extra money, on the interest, could you have saved, if you could have had that extra money each month to pay down your debt and get it paid off sooner rather than later?

Maybe you don’t have debt.  (???? – Is anyone in that “predicament” these days?)  Well, you still wanted to buy that new car, new computer, new something – right?  You still wanted to take that vacation – right?  You still wanted to do something fun and exciting with all that money – right?  You still wanted to treat yourself, pamper yourself, indulge yourself, in yourself, for yourself – right?

Well – why the hell do you think you can’t do that unless you are OWED a refund?  In other words, by setting up your tax return so you keep more of your money, and in essence flip the finger to government, you could be setting aside your money each month and building up a nice pile for yourself, for when you do want to do that special thing for yourself, whatever that might be.  And – because it’s already in your bank account, and not sitting somewhere in a government account, you don’t have to wait for government to get around, which they are always sluggish about doing anyway, to returning your money to you.  Turn the tables on government and make government wait for the little bit you end up owing come tax time, just like they make you wait, and wait, and wait…

The dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is absolutely no reason for any taxpayer to hope for, or expect, or want a tax refund from the government.  It’s all been propaganda, a scheme, and a scam, devised and disseminated in such ways as to deceive you into believing you are better off with a refund rather than with another bill to pay.  As a taxpayer you actually want to OWE some money to government, not the other way around.  And until the federal income tax is abolished, (we can only hope) most of us who earn money from a job will have to pay a portion of those earnings to government.

How does it make sense to pay more up front and wait to get your money back on the government’s time (on government’s and your dime) when you could keep that money, your money, and make the government wait for the little bit you will end up owing it?  You’re not hurting government (you’re certainly not hurting its feelings) by paying less up front, and the rest at tax time.  You’re not hurting yourself by paying less up front.  You will not be penalized by government, or hunted down by a government official by not paying more up front.  So – why do it?

And, if you have always done it, hoping, expecting a refund, doing it for the refund, now that you know how futile, how fruitless, how non-beneficial to you that really is, will you still arrange your tax return for next year, and the years to follow so that you continue to pay more in taxes just to get a refund, when you now know how silly that is?  Why!

Of Course Liberals Will Welcome Any Call For Reparations For Trayvon Martin (As Long As There’s Lots Of Money In It)

An “ambulance chasing” civil rights group in Florida is overjoyed and elated to hear that at least one member of the United Nations, Navi Pillay, is calling for reparations for Trayvon Martin.  It is presumed that the “reparations” is monetary in nature, and that it would go to Martin’s family.  How much actual money it would amount to, or from whom (George Zimmerman?) it would come was not stipulated.  This is wise because it gives people enough time to look into Zimmerman’s finances and make certain he has enough money to be a worthwhile target for reparations.  After-all, it is only important that Zimmerman be a chump, not his change.

Of course, reparations could come from the state of Florida.  But, if from the state of Florida, where oh where does Florida (this is a tough one) get the, ahem, money it needs to, ahem, cough up to the, ahem, “victims”?  Ahem!  Yes, there certainly is a lot of sticky, gooey phlegm built up in this United Nations-civil rights partnership.  It’s awful sick, at any rate.  We all ought to wash our hands of it, with lots of anti-bacterial disinfectant.  But, you know –  once you get the United Nations on your hands, it’s almost impossible to get off of your hands.  (You thought Pontious Pilate had a tough time washing his hands.)  In fact it is almost as hard getting the United Nations off of your hands as it is in getting the United Nations off of American soil.  Yes, the United Nations is one of those stubborn stains on world history, and on American soil, that will not so easily disappear.  Or, to put it another way, the United Nations is a lot like mother-in laws.  (It’s just too bad this isn’t the 1970’s – that statement would have  been so much more relevant /or funny).

Said Pillay:  (Who, by the way, you will be happy to know has made her remarks about reparations for Trayvon Martin while on “a visit” to Barbados.  Oh?  That doesn’t make you happy to know that?  Well, forget about it, then.  Pretend she instead made her remarks from a cold, dank prison cell where we hope all United Nations members will ultimately be interred.  But, still – Barbados?  What do we have to do to get a trip to Barbados?  Oh, right – be in the United Nations.)

“Justice must be done for the victim.  It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.  In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case.  It shouldn’t be so.  The law should operate equally in respect of all violations.  So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

“And of course reparation for the victims”?  This is the United Nations.  These people have their heads up their asses – and they still can’t find their asses.  (At least now we know what we have to do to get a trip to Barbados – walk around with our head up our ass, if you couldn’t figure out where that was leading.)

By what right, what authority, has the United Nations in butting into American law like it butts into its own, well, never mind…

Barack Obama?  Their ego may be as inflated as Obama’s, and it is a wonder with all that helium filling Obama’s and the United Nations empty skulls why neither have not floated off into space.  For Obama, could it be the weight of the national debt that is keeping him grounded?  He ought to be grounded for all the trouble he has caused America, American business, American taxpayers, American citizens and especially American Idol.  The United Nations ought to be grounded too.  In fact, it ought to be underground – deep underground, like in China!

In the meantime, J. Willie David, President of the Florida Civil Rights Association (that’s the “ambulance chasing” civil right group aforementioned ) issued a statement:

“We believe that the United Nations involvement can help prevent another Trayvon Martin situation in other counties across the world.  The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color.”

Has there ever been a time when the United Nations butted into anything where that interference actually helped?  Where is the United nations in Egypt?  In Iran?  In Syria?  In North Korea?  In Afghanistan?  In Obama’s campaign for reelection?   Or, perhaps they are already there, and that is the reason for all the upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling.  (The upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling was more for Obama’s campaign than it was for the countries listed.)  If David thinks having the United Nations in his corner is a benefit, he ought to take a look at what the United Nations has done to all the other corners.  Like this corner, for example.

If the United Nations really wanted to help out somewhere, and do some good, it ought to butt into the one place in all the world that truly needs all the help it can get – namely the United Nations itself.  And since we know where the United Nations is not in, we rightfully ask where the United Nations is in.  But that just brings us back to the United Nations having its head up its ass, and we already covered that.

Yes, by all means, just throw money at the Trayvon Martin incident and see how many “victims of color” do not become “victims”, as if one life will be saved by this.  And since the United Nations thinks it has jurisdiction over the United States, and American citizens, and since thinking is all the United Nations does (it is not very good at it, by the way), the Florida Civil Rights Association (the “ambulance-chasers”) can at least be comforted knowing the United Nations is thinking about justice for “victims of color”.  Because there will be no actual reparations.  That is as much a scam as is the United Nations itself.

And while the United Nations, and the Florida Civil Rights Association think about reparations for Trayvon Martin, how much actual thought is being put into preventing another Trayvon Martin incident from happening?  How many murders have there been of  “victims of color” in the past few minutes?  Does that answer that question?

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?

Obama Administarion Allows Scummy Warren Buffett To Keep One Billion Dollars In Taxes

I'm Warren Buffett, And I'm Too Rich, Too Arrogant, Too Important To Pay Taxes - But That Doesn't Mean The Rest Of You Shouldn't. You See, There Are Two Kinds Of "Rules" My Friends - Those "Rules" For Peasants Like You Who Must Pay Their Fair Share In Taxes, And Those "Rules" For People, Like Myself, That Have Connections In High Places And Are Not Really Expected To Pay Their Fair Share, Or Any Share, Of Taxes. (And, Unlike The Rest Of You - I, Warren Buffett, Won't Go To Jail.) I'm Warren Buffett - Thank You For Letting Me Con You Into Believing I Really Give A Damn About You. It's Truly Been A Pleasure...

To date, Warren Buffett still owes the federal government over one billion dollars in back taxes, from his Berkshire Hathaway company going back to 2002, and Buffett is hell bent and determined not to pay it back.  This, at the same time he is promoting the his “Buffett Rule”, a scam which would raise taxes on millionaires up to 30%.  While Barack Obama supports this tax, and praises Buffett for his “generosity” and “humanitarianism”, Obama has not demanded Buffett pay back the one billions dollars.  Hmm…

Warren Buffett is one on the richest people in the world; one of the “evil” rich “one-percenters”.  Well, he is rich, and he certainly is evil.  But despise the fact that he owes so much money in back taxes, Obama will not push Buffet to pay it.  Instead, he will go after the rest of us who are not as influential, as important, as connected.

Warren Buffett is a con-artist.  What else do you call a man who, on the one hand owes so much in taxes and refuses to pay it, and on the other hand is cheer-leading for a new tax that would force millionaires (undoubtedly other than himself) to pay more in taxes?

What else is strange is that Buffett’s tax evasion is out in the open.  Buffett is not trying to hide the fact that he owes over one billions dollars.  What that ought to tell you is that Buffett is so arrogant, so conceited, so confident that he is, and will remain, protected and sheltered by Obama and his administration, he can have the audacity to publicly demand rich people, including himself, pay more in taxes, at the same time he refuses to pay his own taxes.  What happens if the “Buffett Rule” becomes law?  Is Buffett going to pay that tax?  Or will he find a way to “creatively” move around his money like so many rich people are able to do?

The “Buffett Rule” need to be rejected and Buffett’s “Rule” (his reign) needs to come to an end.  He is scum, a pretender, a faker, and represents true evil.  He is using his wealth, which he able to shelter in ways the rest of us cannot do, his prestige and notoriety, his influences and contacts to ensure that he will ultimately pay less in taxes than the rest of us, including his own secretary.  Nobody wants to pay taxes.  But most of us understand we need to pay a reasonable and fair portion.  Warren Buffett, as greedy and as unscrupulous as he is, did not get to where he is, did not acquire as much wealth as he has, by playing by the rules the rest of us must abide by.  What makes anyone believe he would play by his own “Buffett Rule”?  What makes anyone believe he would  – pay it?

Simple Solution: Fire Blacks, Replace Them With Whites. Problem Solved…

Chicken – it’s what’s for dinner…but only if you are white.  Some black Americans, it turns out, are up in arms over this commercial:

From the Hollywood Reporter:

In a blog post that went viral on Tuesday, Renay Alize, writing on the website Madame Noire, penned an open letter to Blige expressing her disappointment in the decision to participate.

“Having a black woman sing about chicken was no mistake,” Alize wrote. “They’re trying to reach the ‘urban’ (aka black) demographic and they used you. Because God knows black folk won’t buy anything unless there’s a song, and preferably a dance, attached to it… I know you know that was sarcasm, Mary.”

If blacks selling chicken is indeed racist and stereotypical, the best and only way to eradicate this “racism” is to ban and fire all blacks from selling chicken to the public, both in commercials and at all restaurant chains.  Every restaurant chain must fire its black staff and hire whites to replace them.

Remember this commercial?

Is it racist?  Should the black woman be replaced by a white woman? Would that look better?  Would that be racist?  Would people buy more chicken if it were being sold by whites than blacks?  Does anyone really care who it is selling the chicken, as much as they care about the quality of the product itself?  Would blacks be better off if they just stopped eating chicken altogether?

If it really is all that offensive to have a black person selling chicken, if that is such a “stereotype” – just fire blacks.  It’s that easy.  replace them with whites and all those “problems” go away, everyone’s happy, the Earth is back on its axis, the time continuum is back on its correct line and we can get on to more important things – like passing laws banning blacks from eating chicken, watermelon, ribs and anything else deemed “stereotypical” and “racist”.

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

URGENT: Barack Obama To Usurp Power, Declare Himself Dictator (At Least It Was “Urgent” When Liberals Thought George Bush Would)

Remember when liberals were all in a tizzy because they thought George Bush was trying to usurp the Presidency and stay on as a third-term President without an election?  Remember when liberals wanted to arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes?  Remember any of that?  Look here, here, here, here, this one’s interesting – But don’t forget to look at this video, and then reflect on who – Bush or Obama – is really trying to usurp power…

And it was Nancy Pelosi who said Obamacare was Constitutional.

Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, James Clyburn, and every other Democrat agrees with that assertion.  Who is really trying to usurp power?  Who is really abusing the privilege of elected office and of the Presidency?

Barack Obama and Democrats!  If you answered George Bush and Republicans – go back and review history.  If you answered Democrats could never usurp power – go back and review the videos.  What more does it take to convince liberals that Democrats have the greater thirst and the more ravenous and rapacious appetite for power and dictatorship?

Preschool Is An Over Rated, Over Glorified Baby Sitting Service – Abolish It!

Liberals are up in arms with the The Ryan plan, which passed the House yesterday, but will probably die in the Senate.  One of the provisions in the plan that so irks liberals is, in attempting to reduce overall spending by eliminating unnecessary budget items and government programs, it appears that preschool funding is, in part, on the “hit list”.

The House is preparing to pass a Republican budget that would slash funding for Head Start, a federally funded program that provides a wide range of services to a million young children living in poverty and their families.  The House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.

Regardless of ones income, preschool teaches children absolutely nothing that they can’t learn at home from their parents.  All preschool is, is a babysitting service which taxpayers, through government takeover of education, flip the bill for.   There are no complex learning skills being taught to three and four-year olds.  Only the alphabet, reading and writing skills, coloring, playtime, nap time, potty training skills, the “love your neighbor” concept without the religious additive, etc.  Nothing these small children learn in preschool cannot also be learned at home, where, if preschool is not mandated by local or state law already, parents can save a lot of money that goes into preschool funding and school their own children so they are ready for grade school.

But that is the point of preschool, and why states take a keen interest in getting their political arms around it.  It’s all about the extra money they get from forcing parents to enroll their children in unnecessary schooling, like preschool.  Now, in an effort to defeat the Ryan budget, and to boost more federal spending for preschool, the MSM, is pushing the idea that low-income families will be harmed if the Ryan plan passes because the cuts made will eliminate “slots” the federal government creates for children of low-income families to enroll in preschool through Head Start and other taxpayer subsidized programs.

Of Head Start, Yasmina Vinci, who heads the National Head Start Association says:

“It’s good not just for kids, it’s good for the whole community.”

Not only do we know this to be absolute nonsense and BS, but the article goes on to prove our case in the next paragraph.

But despite the enthusiasm for Head Start, recent audits have shown the system is far from flawless. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that half of all workers in the field of children’s services and a fifth of preschool teachers lacked high-school diplomas, for example. The survey counted workers for Head Start programs.

So not only is this another worthless government mandated program, but parents who send their children off to preschool to be taught their “ABC’s” and how to color and stay within the lines, but there is more than a fifty percent chance your children are being taught by someone who never graduated high school and probably not only has a hard time reciting their own “ABC’s” but probably cannot color within the lines themselves.

Whether or not parents wants to send their children off to preschool ought to be the parents decision, not government’s.  If parents find “value” in preschool – and the only real value preschool has is that it takes the kids off the hands of the parents for a few hours – if that is indeed your idea of “value”, that ought to be up to parents not government.  Maybe it’s good for families where both parents must work, but not so good for the children who are now being raised by teachers instead of their parents, which might just be the effect liberals in government had in mind from the beginning.

But unless these kids are learning trigonometry, Constitutional law, or something of a complex nature their own parents could not teach them, that only well-trained and professional educators could teach them (which takes more than the high school diploma more than half of these preschool teachers lack), it is a complete and absolute waste of tax dollars to be sending three and four-year old children to school where they learn nothing of any particular beneficial value, but do learn how bad and how evil our holidays are, like Valentine’s Day – which in some schools is known as “Caring and Kindness Day”, and St. Patrick’s Day, which in some schools is now known as “O’ Green Day”, (this is become of the religious nature of “saint” in both holidays) and other politically correct garbage as they are being baby-sat by people who haven’t a wit’s idea as to what they are doing.  Is it any wonder why nap time is such an integral part of preschool.  It’s not for the kids – it’s for the teachers.

No child ought to grow up in poverty.  But sending kids from low-income families off to preschool, instead of staying with their parents is the wrong approach.  It’s the wrong approach regardless of income.  Kids will do much better in grade school, and throughout their educational lives, and the rest of their lives, the more interaction they have with their parents early on in their lives, rather than being dumped into a government baby sitting program.

And if preschool was a private endeavor, instead of a public on, if government wasn’t seeing  penny of the money being made off these baby sitting services, is there any doubt they would find as many ways as they could to condemn them and shut them down?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: