Elections
Firewall Videos (Bill Whittle)
Feb 20th
Two videos from Bill Whittle’s youtube channel…The first concerning Obama’s massive spending to get reelected to a second term and the second on the whole notion of class warfare.
Despite Sinking Ratings, Obama Still Enjoys 97% Approval Among Blacks- Isn’t that a Problem?
Jul 22nd
The most recent Rasmussen data shows Obama, though his ratings are sinking among both dems and republicans, he still enjoys a 97% approval rating from black Americans. Doesn’t this fact sort of prove the theory that they are, in large majority, a monolithic voting bloc who are almost surely obsessing over the man’s skin tone and nothing else? Whites have never supported other whites simply because they’re white…was MLK’s dream of looking to the content of ones character a pipe dream?
Are the pundits right when they say that blacks are stuck on the plantation of the Democratic party? How do we counteract this subculture among many in this country where skin tone is the first thing that comes to mind in any issue, to hell with character, actions, and other items that are actually important?
In His Zeal to Attack Fox News and Worship Obama, Jon Stewart Reveals His Baseball Ignorance
Jul 16th
Jon Stewart hates Fox News with a passion. He’s also a liberal who adores Barack Obama. With these two traits in mind, he makes a fool of himself by confusing his baseball terminology and bogusly attacking Fox News (again).
Fox and Friends’ hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy both mentioned that Obama threw out the first pitch and that the catcher “dug it out of the dirt.” Stewart takes exception with this, and then proceeds to claim the two are merely bald-faced liars by saying this (in the video below):
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Obama’s All-Star Pitch | ||||
|
||||
“If you’re just going to make shit up about what happened, maybe you shouldn’t do it while the videotape that contradicts you is playing.”
A rational person does research…usually a good idea in order to not make a fool of yourself.
I’m a rational person, so I took a second to check out the video myself and to do a teeny tiny bit of research. When your hatred of Fox News is ever-present, chances are you’re about to make an ass of yourself, and Stewart didn’t disappoint.
According to Wikipedia’s list of baseball jargon, one can, with a quick 30 second google search find this:
dig it out
* To field a ball on or near the ground. Usually a first baseman taking a low throw from another infielder. To “dig it out of the dirt.”
* To run hard through first base on a close ground ball play in an attempt to beat the throw.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I can take less than a minute to do a quick search to discover the meaning of the jargon “dig it out of the dirt,” then Stewart, who hosts a popular television show to an international audience should be able to do the same. I guess that’s what happens when your hatred consumes and overtakes your ability to do an ounce of research on any topic, or for that matter even put forth an ounce of brain power to decide an issue.
The Egomaniac In Chief Compares Himself to FDR
May 28th
Wow. I didn’t see this before. Obama, at a glitzy Hollywood fundraiser, compared himself to FDR.
“I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR,” Obama said. “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.”
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. This guy has all the classic traits of an egomaniac. The faux presidential seal he brought out during the campaign for himself was ludicrous, his talk of women fainting at his rallies was embarassing…now this stuff is just absurd.
What a joke. FDR took on a brutal fascist regime and took it down. Obama has…well, he’s spent us into the largest deficits we’ve seen in our history, and he seems to have no plans to end the spending spree. I’m having a hard time pointing to anything Obama has accomplished thus far, outside of lifting restrictions on abortions at home and abroad (with taxpayer money going to fund abortions outside the US) and racking up massive, crushing debt. I guess when you have the ego Obama does, you don’t need actual accomplishments. Just as he ran for the highest office in the land, he claimed that merely campaigning well made him qualified to lead the nation, I guess merely being the wonderful messiah-like person he is (with the world’s biggest heart, if you ask Harry Reid), is enough to be considered a success. Go figure. With Obama, nothing shocks me anymore.
So-Called “Tolerant” Liberals at DailyKos Unsurprisingly Not at All Tolerant
Jan 15th
The crazy Kos kids prove they’re not at all tolerant liberals they claim to be, and in fact they’re quite hateful and repugnant.
Fortunately, most of these idiots have ten brain cells in their heads, and sane, rational, and logical Americans have a more balanced view of the president.
The Awkward Co-dependence of Blacks and Liberal Democrats
Dec 29th
I was browsing GOP USA a bit ago and saw this from Star Parker. One does seriously have to wonder why so many blacks (90% sounds about right according to all the polls I’ve seen) associate themselves with an ideology that most of them disagree with. It’s not the history that matters, it’s the fictional story of that history that seems to make the most difference.
Polling data suggests most blacks are very conservative when it comes to morality and fiscal responsibility, but these same shows tend to show that blacks are much more willing to desire (and accept) free government money as part of the welfare state. Which is why liberal Democrats are obsessed with big government, welfare, and the like. Check the numbers- without 90% of the black vote and a large percentage of the hispanic vote, the Democratic party wouldn’t be able to win a single seat in the senate, let alone the White House. Unfortunately, perception is king, and the media (along with liberals in congress) has successfully convinced most black Americans that the party’s values are their values, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Working on changing the welfare mentality would be, in my mind, one of the biggest steps in balancing out what is now an absurd tipping of the scales toward the liberal side of things…Correcting the record of history on civil rights would be a step in the right direction as well, as the narrative from the liberal elite that Democrats were the lovers of civil rights for blacks won out, despite the fact that most of the story is bogus.
—————————————-
The awkward co-dependence of blacks and liberal Democrats
By Star Parker
December 29, 2008
What does Caroline Kennedy have in common with black America? If your answer is not much, I’d tend to agree with you.
When I think of Caroline, I think of Manhattan and Park Avenue, not the Bronx and Brooklyn. I think of Brentwood and Beverly Hills, not Watts and South Central Los Angeles.
But there is something that Caroline and black America do have in common. The Democratic Party.
Whether Kennedy succeeds in her effo rt to slide into Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat will have little to do with her Democratic Party bona fides. Per her policy positions ticked off the other day, she is in perfect and predictable liberal alignment with party boilerplate. If she fails, it will be for reasons other than her views.
So what exactly is the common political ground that Kennedy bluebloods share with the 90 percent of America’s blacks who vote for Democrats?
A careful look shows the deep internal contradictions of the Democratic Party and the complexity of the political psyche of black Americans.
Ironically, despite Democratic Party rhetoric about economic inequities and wealth and income gaps in America, those gaps are more pronounced inside the Democratic tent than inside the Republican one.
According to exit polls from November’s election, Barack Obama captured the vote of America’ richest and America’s poorest. Fifty-two percent of those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Obama and more than 60 percent of those earning under $30,000 did.
Our wealthiest senator, John Kerry, is a Democrat, as is our wealthiest House member, Jane Harman.
The nation’s two wealthiest men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both, by all indication, Democrats.
What political aspirations can black Americans, whose median income lags the nation’s share with these multimillionaires and billionaires?
Is Obama an Egomaniac?
Nov 28th
So, Obama is still using his change.gov URL to try to make it look as if the “office of the president elect” is, ya know, an actual office…or that it’s part of the US government. It is not, and he is not actually the president elect until December. Right now, Barack Obama is a US Senator from Illinois and nothing more.
But, that’s not stopping him from posting weekly addresses to his people complete with his change.gov website listed and his official looking “office of the president elect” logo he had created, complete with bald eagle carrying arrows and olive branch.
The guy is an egomaniac who simply adores himself, and there’s little denying that plain fact. Let’s look at his record. Obama claims to be a post-partisan politician who just wants to serve, yet he won his first election by forcing every single one of his opponents off the ballot through sneaky moves based on technicalities. He won his US Senate seat by accident, because the current senator resigned after the Tribune demanded his divorce records unsealed and splashed across the front pages of newspapers nationwide. After this accidental election, he promised he would not seek the presidency, because he believed in being qualified and prepared for a job before you applied for it, and he was neither qualified nor prepared. Two weeks later he took back his promise and decided he would, in fact, run for the job he said he was not qualified nor prepared for.
He served a mere 143 days in his accidental senate seat before starting his run for presidency. He spent the next 2 years (read that, TWO YEARS) running for this office (not doing much of the ol’ senate job he left behind).
He had his people create an Obama presidential seal before he won the election, as you will recall, complete with the latin for “yes we can” slogan on the bottom. He had the eagle there too to make it look like the presidential seal. When this was reported, the campaign stopped using the seal out of embarassment.
Now, he’s taken to using an official government sounding website, though the site is basically his campaign website pasted onto the new URL…and he’s taken to using a brand new seal on his podium for “office of the president elect.” There is, of course, no such office in the federal government, and the fancy logo created is fictional as well.
Why run for an office you promised not to…an office you said you were not qualified for? Who runs for president after a mere 143 days in the senate, only to be elected to that senate seat on a fluke divorce disaster with the embarassed former senator??
Everything Obama does screams “ego!” I always thought Bill Clinton based all of his moves on his simple desire not to help, but for the sake of power and glory…Obama has Billo beat ten times over.
The guy is…frankly, he’s just embarassing to watch at this point. I’m just waiting for him to declare the president to be in charge of the official unofficial crown and throne. He’ll wear it as he sits behind a lectern plastered with eagles holding arrows, holding placards shouting “yes we can!” and “changenhope!” I can see it now…
Yet his cult keeps following like blind sheep. No clue what he truly stands for, no idea what his basic core values are. “Who cares what he stands for?” they say. “He’s cool and hip, and gosh darn it, that dude in his late 40′s undertands us 18 year olds. Besides, that other guy was wayyyy old, tehehe xoxoxo.”
Obama’s Non-Christian Christianity
Nov 27th
Like I always say, liberal Christianity is no Christianity at all. Liberal Christianity that embraces abortion and homosexuality has no place with Biblical Christianity, as it denies the very basic tenants of the faith for some merry all-inclusive sort of religion that bears no resemblance to the Christianity of the Bible.
Barack Obama comes clean in a recent interview that even he denies that Christ is the only way to God.
- Obama: There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.
Falsani: You don’t believe that?
Obama: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”
As any Christian who, ya know, actually follows the basic core tenants of the religion will tell you- Obama is completely wrong. God will INDEED consign four-fifths of the world to hell for not following Christianity. The OT and NT both make that abundantly clear. Christ himself made it clear more times than I could even count.
Christianity teaches that there is ONE way to God and ONLY ONE way. Through Jesus Christ. A personal relationship with Christ as your savior is the only way possible to God. Obama doesn’t like that, so he, like many others, forms his own religious beliefs. One thing that’s clear though, whatever his true religious beliefs, it isn’t Christianity.
Unfortunately, many share Obama’s twisted view of Christianity, and the polls show that Obama voters REALLY confuse Christianity (only 17% of Obama voters think the Bible is the word of God.) It’s disappointing that so many people who claim the faith as their own have no idea what they’re talking about on even the most fundamental aspects of the religion.
Kathleen Parker Attacks Evangelicals, Runs for Office of Dumbest “Conservative” Columnist in America
Nov 20th
Kathleen Parker seems to get dumber as the weeks go by. She wrote a column a while back claiming that part of the reason McCain picked Palin was because he was somehow a dirty old man and thought Palin sexy. Then, she went on an obsessive spree of articles attacking Palin and basically demanding she resign from the ticket because she was so unqualified and clueless (in Parker’s eyes).
Realizing she hadn’t done enough to make American conservatives despise her, she wrote an article Wednesday attacking evangelical Christians. The special strain of evaneglicals that, ya know, actually back up their core values and ideals with actions. Those silly bastards that claim to be Christian then actually, get this, practice the values outlined in the Bible (madness, I tell ya. Madness!):
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.
…Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.
Armband religion?? I never understood this argument. What good does religion do if you pretend you’re not a believer when you leave the house of worship? What shall a good Christian who isn’t “oogedy-boogedy” (yes, this inane being writes for a major newspaper using phrases like “oogedy-boogedy!”) do, Ms. Parker? Pretend he or she isn’t a Christian unless they’re in the confines of a pew? Do folks like Parker really believe that Christians should confess belief in the Lord, the truthfulness of scripture, but then publicly support all forms of immoral acts in public? Don’t wear your religion as an armband! Hide in when in public!
Parker goes on, and this is when I knew she had truly and completely lost her friggin mind:
It isn’t that culture doesn’t matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party — and conservatism with it — eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one’s heart where it belongs.
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Parker suggests that Christians should, when speaking or writing or even thinking in any form where any other human could deduce their Christian values, should actually pretend not to be Christians and take on some set of new values that go against their core belief system? Religion belongs in “the privacy of one’s heart”??!!!! That has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time from either side of the political spectrum!
What good is religion if you don’t live it daily, but instead lock it up inside, a private little lockbox where no one can see it. Refusing to let your core beliefs show, let alone putting them into practice and urging lawmakers to base their decisions on these core values (the values most of them share as well).
The Vapid Parker finishes:
“Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She’s not entirely wrong, but she’s also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
“I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. … And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it’s something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plow through that door.”
Let’s do pray that God shows Alaska’s governor the door.”
We get it, Kathleen, you hate hate hate Sarah Palin. How dare this ignorant slut pray for guidance. You keep that locked away in the privacy of your heart where religion belongs, little lady!
Let’s face it- Parker is clueless on religion, and worse- she’s a bigot. She dislikes religious people who actually practice their religion. In fact, Parker is just clueless in general. The left surely isn’t going to embrace her, and the right…well, I’m going out on a limb and guessing she’s lost most support there. Is it okay if I pray that the nation closes the door on Kathleen Parker’s career, or is that allowing too much religion outside of the private lockbox of my heart where religion should stay trapped?
ADDENDUM: Also note that Parker has taken to just making things up, when she says:
“Meanwhile, it isn’t necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world’s architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.”
First off, I don’t even know what she’s talking about when she says the change Obama promised has already occurred, linking it to whites and Christianity. I don’t recall Obama running to bring a change in the whiteness of Christian nature of the country. Not to mention, her statement is wholly inaccurate. The most recent surveys show around 85% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the most recent census numbers show that the US is somewhere around 75% white. So, the nation IS predominantly white AND Christian. So, why claim otherwise? Maybe she’s stating the way she wishes the country would be, without all those “low brows” and their damned religion, perhaps?
FactCheck.Org Working for Obama Campaign Now?
Nov 13th
Looks like FactCheck.Org has decided to join the Obama campaign. They posted a new item Nov 11 claiming that when Obama spoke in support of a civilian security force that he was really talking about the peace corps and the foreign service.
Here’s the relevant section of their article:
I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the “Gestapo” or the Nazi Brownshirts…
Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a “civilian national security force” in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama’s detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.Obama was not talking about a “security force” with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding
AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
That’d be great and all, except that’s not at all what Obama said. Speaking in Colorado, he said:
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
[emphasis added by FactCheck]
That argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Obama was merely wanting to double the peace corps and expand the number of people in the foreign service? Neither groups are security forces in ANY sense of the word. None of these groups are “as strong” as the military in any way. Certainly, none of these groups are as well funded.
The Peace Corps is a waste of money where volunteers go around the world helping with agricultural projects, land management projects, clean water, etc. It’s not a security force. The annulal budget is under $350 million.
Foreign Service is part of the State Dept and is a diplomatic service overseas at US embassies and consulates. I can’t find the exact budget for this orgaization, but the state dept as a whole is under $20 billion.
The US military budget for FY 2009 is over $600 billion.
Clearly none of the organizations Obama mentioned are anywhere near as well funded or as strong as the military. Unless the peace corps members are now carrying rocket launchers and driving tanks. Worse, neither peace corps or foreign service could be considered national security, as both groups are overseas and neither deal with national security.
FactCheck argues the quotes mentioned by most were taken out of context, and they lump them with Obama’s comments about the peace corps and such, but the fact is he was talking about several organizations together, and this civilian security force was a separate group.
There is simply no way to argue that when Obama said he supported a civilian security force as strong and well-funded as the US military he was actually talking about the peace corps. That argument is ridiculous.
Just like Obama’s mandatory requirement that kids do 100 hours of community service a year (which he suddenly changed to a voluntary system), this is the sort of creepy comment that Obama doesn’t have to answer for. FactCheck is supposed to be a fair and objective source keeping politicians and the media accountable. Unless you’re the messiah, then they’ll clearly support your version of things, no matter how preposterous the claim.
Recent Comments