Tag Archives: liberals

Reagan-Obama Debate

Someone did a great job of splicing together speeches from Ronald Reagan, the greatest president in my lifetime, with those of Barack Obama, the least qualified candidate in American history.

A couple of things struck me as I listened to this audio.  First, the striking and chilling gulf of separation between the liberty espoused by Reagan and the tyranny shilled by Obama.  President Reagan spoke eloquently about American freedoms and their danger from statists almost as if he was addressing Barack Obama specifically.  Second, the audio of Reagan reminded me of the contrast between his brilliance and the manner in which the media painted him as an idiot when he was in office.  Interestingly, when President Reagan died in 2004 those very same people gushed at his foresight and intellect.  Not just the same type of statism-loving talking head gasbags, mind you, but the same people.  The American media talking heads were biased and dishonest when they said Reagan was dumb just as they are when they gush over Obama’s alleged brilliance.  The cold truth is that without his teleprompter, Barack Obama is just another lawyer who answers every question like a high schooler answering an essay question, spewing a random assortment of flowery words simply to fill space.

What I have noticed in my many years of political observation is that liberals display an inverted logic when they choose a candidate.  Conservatives will seek out someone who displays the positive attributes that they believe are necessary for succeeding in a political office, but liberals will find a candidate that they like first, then assign positive qualities to that person after the fact in order to make them more attractive.  This explains a lot, for example the way that shallow myrmidons like Joy Behar can get all hot and bothered by a hillbilly like Bill Clinton, insisting that he is remarkably handsome.  This backwards thinking also explains how they can take a mental lightweight like Al “Forrest” Gore and build him up to be an intellectual, or turn a backstabbing coward like John Kerry into a war hero.

Ronald Wilson Reagan spoke with a genuine love for his country and an appreciation of liberty and our founding principles.  Barack Hussein Obama consistently denigrates America and pushes a false-freedom tyranny of statism and class warfare.  The contrast is stark and chilling.

What the hell were you people thinking?  Are Americans really that gullible?  Many of us clearly saw the real Barack Obama before he was elected.  I will never understand how the least qualified candidate in US History managed to fool enough of the dumb and gullible to get elected.  It perplexes me.

I printed out the following quote from Ronald Reagan and taped it to the bottom of my computer monitor.  These words are as true today as when he uttered them:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Contrasting Views – Liberal vs. Conservative

[Original Source Unknown]

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life..
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

(Author Unknown)

Okay, Jimmy, since you brought up racism…

The first rule of Democrat politics: never be surprised by their rank hypocrisy.

Jimmy Carter, the worst President in my lifetime*, had the gall to come out and claim that opposition to Obama’s unprecedented government takeovers was because of racism.  The idiot peanut farmer, who only got elected because America was Nixoned-out and wanted something akin to Andy Griffith as a replacement, had this to say:

“I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.

“It’s a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States,” Carter said.

Jimmy CarterHow very interesting, Jimmy.  Like so many southern Democrats you somehow went from being a racist redneck to being a civil rights supporter… I remind the readers that it was the Democrat party that filibustered against the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960s.  They are all for racist politics when it works for them, which in Carter’s case was both in his 1970 gubernatorial race and now again to shill for the most radical President in US History.

Writing over at The Washington Examiner, David Freddoso points out some details that neither Carter nor our incredibly biased media want you to consider when you hear Carter’s baseless rant:

Readers should refer to Stephen Hayward’s The Real Jimmy Carter if they want a taste of the out-and-out racism that Carter employed in order to defeat moderate former Gov. Carl Sanders for the Democratic nomination that year. As Hayward’s book points out:

  • Carter’s top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter’s leaflet was intended to depress Sanders’s white vote.
  • “The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.”
  • Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. “I don’t think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state,” said Carter.
  • “‘I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,’ Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, ‘I can win this election without a single black vote.'”
  • Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: “He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor’s office, and I hope to live up to his standard.” Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
  • “The campaign paid for radio ads for a fringe black candidate, C.B. King, in an effort to siphon black votes away from Sanders.”
  • “Then there was the radio commercial in which Carter said he would never be the tool of any ‘block’ vote, slurring over the word ‘block’ so that it could be mistaken for ‘black.’

Carter won the Democratic nomination and the governorship — unsurprisingly, with almost no black support. He famously did not carry the racism of his 1970 campaign into his governorship. That is laudable, but his campaign was not. Nor is it laudable for him today to attribute his own racial cynicism to others who have ample reasons for legitimate political disagreement with this president.

Given the former POTUS’ own utilization of racial tactics, perhaps he should simply shut the hell up.  I am from Georgia myself and Jimmy Carter has been nothing but an embarassment almost from the moment that he left office. Imagine what a pathetic, anti-American former President Mr. Obama will be, full of resentment over being a one-termer like Carter.

[*I fully expect President Obama to screw up the country worse than Carter did, so this is a temporary crown for Jimmy.]

California Democrat loves Castro, Che Guevara

I blogged about this on my other blog:

California Democrat Loves Castro and Guevara

All it seems to take is a friendly crowd and some hard-lefties are ready to pull out their secret copy of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, metaphorically speaking.

Hard Left continues boycott of Beck

Too bad for them that their boycotts only really affect outlets like Whole Foods.  I think that the Left already hates Wal Mart so I am not sure what they think that they are accomplishing with this.  Having said that I do not understand why some of the advertisers are caving given that the WTO-hating hard left crowd does not have a lot of disposable income.

In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I am not a big fan of Glenn Beck.  We likely agree on a majority of positions but his personality and the “Aw Shucks” sorta routine irritates me too much to watch him.

Writing over at the always-vacuous Huffington Post, James Rucker belches out an attack on Beck which includes an implicit acceptance of the president’s bigotry:

Twenty companies have pulled their ads from Beck’s show in just the last two weeks. The moves come after the Fox News host called President Obama a “racist” who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people” during an appearance on Fox & Friends.

Beck’s mistake was in misusing the language in exactly the same way as the Left.  Perhaps they claim ownership of redefining words to corrupt their meanings – I refer to their constant redefininition and misuse of the words racist and

President Obama
President Obama

liberal and nazi and fascist and, perhaps most egregious, the self-congratulatory progressive.  Beck used the word racist to describe President Obama when he should have more correctly used the word bigoted.  I have no evidence that President Obama believes in the inherent genetic superiority of one race over another (racism) but it is obvious to me from his long association with his race-obsessed preacher Jeremiah Wright that he is an outright race-hustling bigot.  His ignorant taking of sides in the Crowley-Gates confrontation just proves his default perspective on race.  He is a bigot.  Beck is completely right.

The other quote from HuffPo’s Beck hit piece, that Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people”, can be easily defended (unless you are still drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid).  Everyone reading this knows that if we had a white politician who attended a church for 20 years where the redneck preacher ranted about black people being the devil and a hatred of America everyone would agree that it reflects on, and in many way defines, that white politician’s ideology.  The same is true if the potential bigot is black and Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright puts him squarely in the same ideological camp with David Duke, his bigoted counterpart.

Barack Obama is a race-hustling bigot.  He is no more post-racial than Bull Conner was.

Barbara Boxer is a typical liberal bigot

Let me set the stage for you… during hearings in the House of Representatives on the CapAndTrade bill Ms. Barbara Boxer (the same miscreant who disrespectfully insisted that a US Army General refer to her as Senator instead of ma’am) was questioning a man named Harry Alford, who is President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. Alford spoke against the CapAndTrade bill and pointed out the damage that it would cause to businesses and the economy.  Rather than responding to his points, Ms. Boxer immediately started stating for the record that the NAACP and “100 Black Men of Atlanta” both supported the bill.  Mr. Alford justifiably blew a gasket; watch the video:

Boxer’s (I will never refer to that statist as Senator) words speak volumes about her twisted thinking.  Only in the mind of a liberal are members of a race or ethnic group expected to be a mindless monolithic homogenous group free of any semblance of individuals.  We have seen this same bigoted thinking in discussions of [the unqualified activist] Sonia Sotomayor, with the liberals gleefully stating that conservatives cannot vote against her because it would turn all hispanics against the GOP.  These people are as bigoted as a David Duke or a Louis Farakhan. 

Can you imagine them suggesting that all white people would respond to a given issue in the same way simply because they are white?  Apparently liberals like Boxer believe that white people are smart enough to have independent thoughts and positions but minorities are not.

Liberals’ incredible bigotry and intellectual dishonesty disgusts me.

Why people have Roe v. Wade completely backwards

Row v. Wade gets spun this way: there is some hidden and unwritten right to privacy in the US Constitution that says that a woman has the right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy.  An entire philosophy has sprung up around the disgusting idea that unfettered abortion rights are the pinnacle of American constitutional rights, the metaphorical canary in the coal mine of individual liberties.  Let me destroy that repugnant myth right now by providing another perspective on what that decision really means.

Anyone who pays attention knows that the majority pretty much reverse engineered that decision: they personally believed in abortion rights and they contorted the constitution as much as it took to ensure that their own agenda got “constitutionalized”.  Since this vacuous “right to privacy” only applies to women vacuuming out inconvenient babies it is pretty obvious that this is not a high minded vindication of individual rights but instead just another case of the statists using the courts to implement their own agenda on the rest of us, having failed to do so via the legitimate process of democracy.

Contrary to claims that Roe v Wade was a breakthrough decision that increased the rights of Americans, I submit that rather than granting rights to Americans this decision is more correctly described as one where the US Supreme Court stepped well over their constitutional powers in usurping states rights and implemented a new tyranny that chooses to dictate rather than allow democracy.  Roe v. Wade represents the Supremes elevating themselves to the status of gods who answer to nothing, not even the constitution, and they handed down a decision with no constitutional basis simply because it fit their agenda.  I like what William Rhenquist said in his dissent:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[

This is why judges who ignore the Constitution, like Sonia Sotomayor, should never be allowed on the highest court in the land.  She thinks that foreign law is relevant – but if her job is to judge laws against the US Constitution then foreign law is as relevant as fictional Klingon laws.  She thinks that race is relevant to her judgement of the constitution and most damningly she thinks that policy should be made in the courts.  She is a dangerous black-robed tyrant set on running every aspect of your life.  They cannot get their statist agenda through the messiness of representative democracy and have turned to the courts to implement their self-congratulatory tyranny.

POTUS only has a hammer

There is an old saying that if the only tool that you have is a hammer then every problem that you encounter starts to look like a nail.  I think that this phrase applies very well to President Obama: his only acceptable tool is Government.  Editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez made this point brilliantly in his 6-25-2009 cartoon:

If the only tool you have is a hammer...

If the only tool you have is a hammer...

Sonia Sotomayor: Wholly Unqualified

President Obama’s pick to fill the vacancy left by David Souter’s departure, Sonia Sotomayor, speaks volumes about our new president and resoundingly justifies the concerns of those of us who voted against him in the 2008 election.  Mr. Obama, allegedly once a professor of constitutional law, has come down solidly on the side of judges who use their position not to arbitrate the law but to advance a statist social agenda: judicial activists so properly labeled as tyrannical Men In Black by author Mark Levin.

There are a number of things that come up whenever any president nominates a justice for the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade being the most consistently and tediously mentioned example.  However, while Ms. Sotomayor undoubtedly holds a host of nutty positions, John McCain warned us: elections have consequences and one consequence of you idiots electing the empty-suit community organizer is that he gets to pick left wing statist lunatics to fill judicial vacancies.  Not only did the discussion about the feasibility of putting left wing ideologues on the court end on election night but history shows that it is pointless to talk about specific cases for a Democratic nominee, only Republican nominees get that treatment.  The public discussion that we need to have revolves around the following critical questions:

  • Does Ms. Sotomayor have the intellectual power and reasonable temperament to sit on our nation’s highest court?
  • What are Ms. Sotomayer’s views on the proper role of the judiciary in America?  More specifically, should she judge the law against the Constitution or should she simply strive to achieve the desired ideological results?
  • Does Ms. Sotomayer really believe that a judge’s gender or ethnicity should come into play when interpreting the US Constitution?  Does she hold ethnic and racial biases that would cloud her judgment?

Intellect and Temperament

A Supreme Court justice needs to be highly intelligent and must be a good listener and a thoughtful questioner.  There is compelling evidence that Sonia Sotomayor does not possess these attributes.

Continue reading

National Debt Road Trip

This is a great video showing the rate of increased debt under the new administration.  Just watch it.

Just damn.  Send that to your liberal friends.