Tag Archives: Democrats

If Conservatives Want to Restore America, Stop Allowing the GOP to Compromise The Constitution and America to the Democrats!

GOP Ass Kiss

 

 

 GOP Ass Kiss

 

Republicans voters keep wallowing in chaos while repeating mistakes that put America on the road to progressivism: Compromise to the Left for fear of alienating the Left.

Conservatives keep voting for candidates the GOP insists will beat Democrat candidates, and the GOP continues losing to the Democrats!

That makes us conservatives just as guilty as the GOP Machine we’ve allowed to dupe us twice, into voting for two men conservatives did not want: John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

McCain up GOP Ass

Basically, the GOP Machine is telling conservatives that paying a Democrat hooker for sex is no different than taking your conservative Tea Party girlfriend out to dinner: “Hey, you paid for the tab!” Yes, but the piece of meat in Blue spandex is not Red Prime Rib! And you don’t pay your girlfriend for sex unless she’s a money-grubbing mistress your wife has a right to stick a fork in!

Good grief! Have we conservatives learned nothing? Maybe, because the GOP keeps pimping out votes and we conservatives keep “hooking” ourselves to the political prostitution.

Our founders must be looking down on America and thinking: “Why did we sign the Constitution if these idiots are so desperate to return their rights to kings?”

I know one thing: If Andrew Jackson were alive today, he would shoot the Democrat Party, run the Republicans through, and join the Tea Party!

The Founders, like today’s leaders, fought endlessly and nonsensically over bills on the House floor (to the point that Andrew Jackson demanded if leaders could not give an up or down vote they should duel each other), but one thing they never compromised on was framing the United States Constitution.

Many readers will insist the founders indeed compromised before signing the document. Yes, they debated how to frame a document providing The Rights of Man. They revised constantly so as not to leave out any God-given liberties, but they never compromised those liberties. That’s what modern-day Washington leaders and kings do.

The Constitution is not a compromise, it is in fact a provision of evidence upholding the laws of liberties that exist from mankind’s creation.

The Framers did not formulate what we see inside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, God created those liberties—Natures Laws.

Federalist and Anti-Federalist were in one accordance: The Laws of Nature are laws no man or government has rights to trample, that these God-given liberties, given unto us at creation, must be upheld, promoted and provided for, sustained and protected by a limited government reined in by the people.

That’s not compromising, negotiating, or meeting halfway, as leaders of the modern-day GOP do when coping with Democrats for settlements designed only to gain votes for life-termed power versus promoting the American Experiment and individualism that made this country great. The framing and signing the Constitution was a coming together as one people to buttress the foundations of liberty on paper so all would see their rights are God-given, not government provided.

Why is that difficult for conservatives to hold onto and believe in? Are we afraid of taking care of ourselves, of making our own money we spend and save as we individually choose? Are we afraid to control of an out of control monster called government?

Furthermore, when it came to separate parties, the Founders did not believe both parties should work together. Today’s dysfunctional leadership has become one incestuous family party.

Unfortunately John Beohner and Harry Reid came together to breed Nancy Pelosi’s Flying Monkeys.  

The Founders fought each other rabidly. They did not get along or live peacefully together. They bickered, debated policies and philosophies, and tried to undermine one another, with Andrew Jackson going so far as to challenge fellow leaders to duels.

The fighting by anti-Federalists was the refusal to break the Constitution’s laws.

Here is an example of refusal to trample the Constitution: The anti-Federalists considered the President’s annual address to Congress a parliamentary act of the King of England and wanted the address abolished abolished.

Next: Congress decided to fashion and hold annual addresses! Andrew Jackson, in righteous indignation, stood up in the House of Congress, demanding both actions cease. Jackson told President Washington and Congress they were not communicating the British wrongs perpetrated against America—hijacking American ships. Washington had disregarded addressing Britain’s actions toward America trading on the high seas. Jackson insisted President Washington was acting like the British king. Thomas Jefferson and Congress sided with Jackson’s demands to abolish the annual address. Republicans agreed with the Democrat Jackson: America must never revert backward! Congress took a vote and ended the Presidential Annual Address to Congress. It would not be heard again until the Progressive Woodrow Wilson enacted it back into law.[1]

If only Modern-day GOP leaders would make uncompromising demands and stop acting like the House of Lords!

More often than not Republicans surrender and agree to whatever terms Democrats demand so the GOP won’t look bad in the eyes of the people they desperately want voting Republican. That compromise has destroyed the Republican Party and given Democrats the upper hand in pushing the country into socialism.

GOP Elephant Beaten

Compromise has made America lose her way on a progressive path leading to destruction.

Parties’ working together as one disbands competition and disallows each party to branch out individual ideas.

Compromise creates one big government party that overreaches its power into the states and thrusts tyranny upon the people.

It is one thing to work together to create a free country based on liberty for all and another to sell out the people’s independence for political power and control over individuals.

It is one thing for leaders to work together to trade America’s manufactured goods for prosperity and quite another to sell out American manufacturing to enemies profiting off America’s economic decline.

It is one thing for the GOP to work together with the Tea Party to tear down the progressive ideologies of the Democrat Party (as they should be doing versus trashing conservatives) and entirely another to sell out traditional conservative values for Democrat votes.

Compromise is what people are forced to do under monarchy. Is that any different than two parties working together as one? No, that simply creates a large aristocracy of government elites controlling the amount of liberty the people are allowed.

If we conservatives continue compromising to whatever the GOP tells us and we vote for whomever the GOP tells us to vote for in the 2014 and 2016 elections, its our fault if America goes down.

Sometimes I wonder why we outlawed dueling!

 

[1] H. W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 80.

The End Of Policy Revisited

us_map_flag

us_map_flagNote from Taylor: My buddy, William K, sent me an email last week in reply to this article from Reason Magazine. I don’t 100% agree with him, especially on foreign policy where I think he’s dead wrong, but he brings up some excellent points.

Hi Taylor,

I almost agree with what he’s saying. I do agree that the GOP has an almost non-existent public policy. I disagree with the idea that the Democrat party has no public policy. It may be that there is nothing distinctly new about their policy, but I believe their policy is to chisel in the public a new dependence upon the types of central planning (efficient government or some other euphemism) which provides the essentials (food, health, transportation, even jobs). Most of the impactful parts of Obamacare have not actually been implemented and can, in theory, still be brought down. What I do agree about is the sort of dishwater leadership we currently have in both chambers and the party at large.

Furthermore, there’s nothing “wrong” with the Democrat policy agenda. It’s working as long as they can tie their failings to the nebulous “other” which is the source of all wrongs. Were it not for the “other,” we might have found the philosopher’s stone of governance. In any case, true scandals (intelligences leaks, Ambassador Stevens killed in the Islamist attack on Benghazi and the subsequent obfuscation of what happened and why, the IRS targeting conservative oriented non-profits which faced scrutiny at a rate of almost 15:1, etc.) have yet to stick or gain traction. There are three more years and no sign that any of these will actually matter.

Regardless of the legality or the propriety of their actions, what the Democrat party is doing is working, even if it is slower than what they prefer. This incremental approach works, even if it is frustrating for them. If a conservative compromises on a law over a conviction, he moves further away than where his ideals state he should be. If a liberal compromises the same way, his march is simply a little slower.

Finally, I want to point out one thing that bothers me about libertarians, especially the more fiscally conscious ones – the ones with whom I am probably the most aligned. There seems to be a streak of isolationism in them and a aversion to defense spending. While a lot of energy based problems are self-inflicted, one cannot deny that the American Navy has kept the seas safe for international commerce. Our Navy basically guarantees that the crude petroleum produced in the Levant is able to make it to America as well as the mostly free Western Europe. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. If our Navy shrinks too much, we risk conceding important trade routes and strategic seas. China has recently published a map which claims Philippine territory de facto and de jure controlled by the Philippines which is slowly being consumed by Chinese soft invasions (invasions which we are, by treaty, supposed to repel, but for which we do nothing).  Without defense spending, we have no ships, no fuel, no sailors to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. I honestly even hate the euphemism “interest” because it makes it sound like protecting commerce on the seas and protecting territorial integrity of allies is just a hobby, like knitting or bird watching. These are not pedestrian dawdlings – this is impactful for not only our way of life, but for the mostly democratic and free way of life that is genuinely threatened by the Communists in China and the Oligarchs in Russia.

Sincerely,

William K.

“I Don’t Give A S–T”: Finally!!! Truth From Washington

Eagle Storm Coming

Markwayne Mullin Well, Folks, that just about sums it up!!!!!! Rep. Markwayne Mulllin (R OK-2) made this famous statement when confronted at a townhall meeting in Afton, Oklahoma on August 8, 2013.  Activist Miki Booth, also of Oklahoma, tried to present Mullin with a 71 page affidavit from the Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America.   Mullin said we lost that argument Nov. 6, 2012 and “testily” refused to accept the document.  The left is going nuts because they say he has “come out” as a “birther”. That is nonsense, as he clearly stated, more than once, that he doesn’t care, to put it more politely.  I think the “birthers” are the ones who do care.

I witnessed the same kind of attitude the next day in Oolagah regarding the TEA Party members of Congress who are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of our liberty.  I told him I wanted him to join with the reformers but he has jumped in bed with Boehner and the party establishment.  He didn’t take that very well.  Another man insisted the House could refuse to fund anything they desired to defund.  Mullin said they couldn’t do that because the Senate and Obama would stop such a bill.  If the House sends an appropriations bill without funding for Obamacare they can’t force the money to be there.  Mullin doesn’t seem to understand that part of the Constitution very well either.  Doing John Boehner’s bidding seems to be the only answer Mullin has to our problems. The idea of governing according to the Constitution and the wishes of his constituents seems to evade his radar!!!

His curt attitude to Ms. Booth, and his following attitude, pretty much sums up the general attitude of members of Congress towards the Constitution and We the People.  The most serious issue here isn’t that the member ranked 408th in seniority in the House of Representatives showed this kind of callous disregard for the Constitution in public.  Mullin is just following the dictates of the Republican Party “leadership”.  He is merely following the instructions and example of his mentors, Sen. Tom Coburn and Speaker of the House, Rep. John “the Traitor” Boehner. Jim Bridenstine

How many members of Congress actually care what the Constitution says????? Jim Bridenstine, Louie Gohmert, Justin Amash, Tim Huelskamp, and a few others are standing up for the Constitution, and We the People, in the House. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few others are doing the same in the Senate. Other than that we have the Markwayne Mullin attitude from the rest of them towards the very basis of our Republic of the United States of America.

Mullin told those of us gathered in Oolagah that the TEA Party congressmen are busy grandstanding for their own personal gain and hurting the “co-operation needed” to get anything done in the House.  He mentioned them losing a $10 billion cut in some program because of their insistence on cutting more.  While that cut would probably be a good thing, it won’t matter much if we don’t Eagle- America Deserves Betterpreserve our nation as it was left to us by our founders.  The Republican Party is not preserving, protecting, or defending the Constitution, they are subverting it.  We have already lost so much that we are on the precipice of a Nazi Germany future.

Obama, and those in control of both political parties in both houses of Congress, are systematically destroying our very way of life and it is pretty apparent that “I don’t give a s**t” is the prevailing attitude among nearly everyone we elected to “preserve, protect, uphold, and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America.

In a related incident last week, Oklahoma State School Superintendent Janet Barresi, a Republikrat, took the same attitude towards people meeting to discuss education with her, the topic being Common Core. She can’t seem to make up her mind if citizens were split on the matter or if it is lopsided in opposition to Common Core.  She seems to change her story to match the latest facts that she can’t be bothered with. She told one attendee that she doesn’t answer to We the People, but rather that she answers to the state legislature. That is true in the sense that the legislature passes the guidelines but she is elected by We the People to provide our children with the best possible education. Common Core isn’t the best possible education and she isn’t doing any better than the lame Democrat we tossed out in 2010.

I seem to remember the big ballyhoo from the Republikrat Party when they swept the statewide elections, including the school superintendent post in 2012.  Now she has the attitude that We the People don’t matter and she evidently “doesn’t give a s**t” what the citizens say either.

Mullin isn’t an aberration; he is the norm from the Republikrat Party.  Both political parties are owned by big money, and the big money is on “K” Street in Washington D C (De Cesspool).  Legislators at both state and federal level give their allegiance to the political party because that is where their money for campaigns comes from. We the People are merely peasants who should sit down and shut up because weThe Patriot Duty aren’t intelligent enough “to know what is good for us or what is in our best interests”.

This is the general attitude of the Republican Party establishment.  We the People don’t matter and merely need to sit down and shut up while they attend to the business we are too ignorant to understand.  Our government is no longer OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People.  We now see a government that sees itself as the final arbiter of what is and is not legal, what is and is not moral, and what is and is not acceptable.

The ruling class political thugs do not consider We the People to be their superiors.  We are peasants who lack the intelligence or ability to decide what is what.  The worst of it is that they don’t recognize the RIGHT of We the People to have any input into what goes on in government.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

August 13, 2012

 

 

Dispensing with the ‘It’s the Law’ Rhetoric

Over the past few months, Progressives and Democrats who favor the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – both elected and not – have insisted that the new and expanding entitlement will go forward as planned because, after all, it is “the law of the land.” When I ponder this statement I find myself less inclined to laugh and more inclined to succumb to sadness. That a faction that holds the Constitution in such disregard would so disingenuously foist the hypocrisy of this statement in defense of what is arguably an unconstitutional law, defies humor.

A cursory recollection of how this horrific, economy-killing piece of legislation came to be, not only illustrates a fundamental transgression of the spirit of American government, it shows how the Progressive movement executes an “ends justifies the means” political game plan. Because Progressives believe that the United States should provide socialized healthcare to every living being existing legally in the United States (and some who do not), they purposefully circumvented the legislative process, crafting the legislation with special interest groups – including labor unions, Progressive think tank operatives and foreign aligned special interest groups, behind closed doors and excluding members of the minority party. They then moved the legislation forward – at times threatening to “deem it passed” – along party lines, ignoring the protests of the minority party and howls of discontent from the American citizenry, and into law.

Today, as Republicans in the US House, which has the constitutionally mandated power of the purse, threaten to exclude any aspect of Obamacare from the funding of government operations – which is their constitutional right to do, Progressives and toady Democrats protest that the ACA is “the law of the land.” The proclamation would have even the slightest bit of weight if these same hypocrites always acquiesced to “the law of the land.” The fact is that they transgress the “law of the land” as a matter of policy; to advance an agenda that is often times anathema to the American system of government and the rule of law.

One can look back to the first Obama Administration’s abdication of the rule of law when newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder approved of political appointees at the Justice Department quashing the prosecution of New Black Panther Party members who executed one of the most egregious instances of voter intimidation in modern history. The “law of the land” mandated that the DoJ prosecute these constitutional transgressors to “the fullest extent” of the law. If “the law of the land” was so precious to these Obama-ite Progressives and Democrats, they would have been exploring ways to include charges of racial discrimination (as the perpetrators were Black and targeting White voters) and hate crimes. But, “the law of the land” wasn’t so important as to be followed in this instance.

One could look into the non-enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama Administration to evidence their selective support of “the law of the land.” For the entire tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency we have witnessed border patrol members and their union representatives catalog a litany of directives emanating from DHS obfuscating efforts to secure our nation’s borders and hold to justice those who have broken our laws to exist here. Yet, in a post-911 world, when we hold proof-positive in our hands that Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda are working with Mexican and South American drug cartels, the “law of the land” isn’t so important to the Progressives and their sycophant Democrats so as to be honored.

The several Congressional investigations into operational and political malfeasance executed under the Obama Administration provide ample evidence that the Executive Branch Progressives have little use for “the law of the land” when it does not suit their need or the advancement of their ideological, globalist or social justice agendas. The US Constitution gives the power of oversight – including subpoena powers – to Congress. Yet today the Obama Administration routinely obstructs congressional investigators, usurping “the law of the land”:

▪ Fast & Furious saw the Holder Justice Department illegally facilitating the movement of banned weapons across the Mexican border. And even in the face of the deaths of US Border Patrol Agents, the Obama Administration – to this day – thwarts efforts to fully investigate the program.

▪ The politically motivated use of the Internal Revenue Service to target what can only be described as opposition groups, i.e. TEA Party, Conservative and Libertarian advocacy groups, stands as one of the more serious misuses of a federal agency to affect politics in the history of the country. In fact, it was the second count in the impeachment indictment leveled against former-Pres. Richard Nixon. Yet, the Obama Administration shows little interest in assisting congressional investigators in their pursuit of protecting the American citizenry from their own government’s unlawful actions. (Note to Mr. Obama…President Nixon at least had the nobility to resign).

▪ The expansion – not just the continuation – of the NSA domestic surveillance program arguably usurps the Fourth Amendment protections provided the citizenry, but under the guise of protecting the country, even some members of Congress who have Top Secret clearances are kept in the dark on the program by members of the Obama Administration.

▪ And as four brave Americans – Amb. Christopher Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith & Glen Doherty – lay cold in their graves, exclusively because Mr. Obama and his Progressive crew couldn’t be exposed for their putting politics ahead of protecting American assets overseas; American soil in the form of Embassy grounds, the “most transparent” administration in American history hides behind anything that will give them cover so as not to act in the spirit of “the law of the land”; so as not to afford the justice “the law of the land” is owed those four dead Americans (Note to former-Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Yes, it does matter, to every American but the Progressive elected class, evidently).

But getting back to Obamacare being “the law of the land,” and the fact that these Progressive ideologues intend to inflict this economy-killing, divisive, wealth-redistributing program onto the American people, regardless of the fact that it has never – never – been popular with over half of the nation, and that it now falls well short of providing health insurance to “every American,” I have two questions:

1) If “the law of the land” is so very important to follow, then how is it that these same people ignore the fact that “the law of the land” allows the House of Representatives to refuse to fund the entitlement program?

2) If the “law of the land” is so sacrosanct then how can these Progressive elitist oligarchs decry any part of the US Constitution – the literal “law of the land” – as malleable; as subject to dictates of the day?

The truth be told, the only time “the law of the land” means anything to Progressives is when it serves their purpose. In any other case it is an edict to be scorned, rebuked, castigated and/or ignored. That Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the White House Communications Office and President Obama himself shamelessly hide behind the “It’s the law of the land” declaration in their defense of the legitimate House effort to save the country from this legislative mistake would be laughable if it weren’t so deadly serious.

So, let’s dispense with this rhetoric, shall we?

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Vote-Democrat_02

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

Pew proves that illegals really do lean left

Natasha Mayers (CC)

Natasha Mayers (CC)

Natasha Mayers (CC)


Conservatives have pointed out for what seems forever that illegal immigrants are just more Democratic party supporters. Now, Pew Research Center has come out and stated that they have run a poll that proves that point. Given the fact that there is still an argument going on the Hill about immigration reform, this information is something every conservative should be pointing out to any fence-pole sitting Republican lawmaker, or worse, any lawmaker talking about passing any form of amnesty (yes, we’re looking at you, John McCain).

Politico reports:

“…Latino immigrants who are likely unauthorized, 31 percent identify as Democrats while just 4 percent identify as Republicans. Of those who don’t identify with a party but lean one way or the other, 23 percent lean toward the Democratic Party while just 15 percent lean towards Republicans.

The study also found that the longer Hispanic immigrants of any legal status were in the U.S., the more likely they were to identify with one of the major parties, particularly Democrats. Of those in the U.S. for fewer than 10 years, 26 percent identified with Democrats and 9 percent with Republicans.”

Politics, as in war, is not the place to give aid to the enemy. While it’s generally counter-productive to suggest that there is never middle ground between the parties, in this case, there truly isn’t. Amnesty of any form will only serve to quicken the demise of conservative representation in Washington, period.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 20th

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: It’s time for another Saturday Night Cigar Lounge. This time Brandon Morse visits to talk Misfit Politics and #Merica. Plus an interview with Reason’s Shikha Dalmia on Detroit.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 6th

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor is back in Texas and loving it. Tonight he’s joined by Ashley Sewell (@TXTrendyChick) to talk the sport that is Texas politics, the abortion bills, Wendy Davis and David Murphy from the Texas Rangers.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor June 15th 2013

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 15th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Big, big week this week and we talk to Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks about it. Is Edward Snowden a hero, traitor or both? Is the US lying about what the NSA program goes? Are the companies allegedly tied to it doing the same thing?

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

 

 


Stop the Democrats’ unilateral cuts in the US nuclear deterrent!

71153.204510672745_09f77c4c23

The Left never ceases to attempt to weaken, sabotage, and undermine the US and its defenses. Its biggest target these days is the nuclear deterrent.

As the House moves to consider the annual defense authorization bill, the Democrats have filed a slew of amendments which, if they pass (God forbid), would deeply and unilaterally cut America’s already barely sufficient nuclear deterrent – at a time when no one else is cutting theirs and all adversaries of the US are GROWING and MODERNIZING their nuclear arsenals.

The Intercepts blog at DefenseNews.com reports that an entire slew of such amendments will be introduced by the Democrats during the floor debate; they’ll also attempt to cut the defense budget further, deeper than sequestration.

The Left absolutely must be stopped from cutting the (already barely adequate and aging) nuclear deterrent any further. By any means necessary. Here’s why.

Cutting the US nuclear deterrent – contrary to the Left’s lies – has not and will never make America and the world more secure. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence it will make America, its allies (including Israel), and the world much less secure, and the world will get much less peaceful.

Why? Because cutting America’s defenses makes the US, its allies, and the world less secure, not more. It is military strength that safeguards peace and security, and military weakness that jeopardizes them.

Nowhere is this more obvious tha in the nuclear deterrence realm. Cutting the US nuclear deterrent further will make it too small and thus much easier for America’s potential adversaries, like Russia and China, to destroy in a disarming first strike – which Russia reserves the right to conduct, and which China has refused to rule out.

ReaganPeaceQuote

Cutting America’s arsenal will also reduce the number of enemy assets (bases, units, stockpiles, industrial facilities, etc.) that the US can hold at risk and threaten to destroy in retaliation – thus precipitously reducing America’s retaliatory power. This is what the Dems’ treasonous policies would do.

Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals, militaries, and base infrastructure are so large and so reduntant and disperses that the US needs thousands, not mere hundreds, of nuclear warheads to deter them – especially to deter both of them. And both of them will have the ability to reduce the US arsenal in a preemptive first strike, if it’s cut as deeply as the Dems’ and their pacifist bankrollers like the Council for a Livable World want to.

Russia has 2,800 strategic and up to 4,000 tactical nuclear warheads, deployed and nondeployed. It has 434 ICBMs (most of them multiple/warhead/armed), 251 strategic bombers (each carrying up to 6 nuclear cruise missiles and many also carrying a nuclear freefall bomb), and 14 ballistic missile subs with 16-20 missiles each, and 4-12 warheads per missile, depending on its type (Sinyeva missiles carry only 4 warheads; Liner missiles carry 12). Russian boomer subs can launch their missiles while being homeported.

Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal is even larger. It consists of up to 4,000 warheads in various forms: nuclear depth charges, nuclear bombs, warheads for short-range missiles, nuclear artillery shells, etc. Russia can deliver them by many means: surface warships, submarines, cruise missiles, artillery pieces, SRBMs, etc.

What’s more, Russia and China are GROWING, not shrinking, their nuclear arsenals. Russia has been doing so since New START ratification – as allowed to do so by that one-sided treaty, which requires cuts only in the US arsenal. Russia is adding warheads as well as delivery systems. It has resumed Tu-160 bomber production from stockpiled parts.

China also has a large arsenal – contrary to the false claims of pacifist groups. It has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads according to General Viktor Yesin (former Russian missile force chief of staff) and Professor Philip Karber, respectively. It has recently built 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers for its nuclear missiles and warheads. You don’t build such a vast network for only a few hundred warheads.

China currently has 87 ICBMs (20 DF-4s, 36 DF-5s, at least 30 DF-31/31As, and at least one DF-41), over 1,600 SRBMs, hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles, at least 100 MRBMs (DF-21s and DF-3s), 6 ballistic missile submarines (5 Jin class, 1 Xia class, with at least 12 nuclear-armed missiles per boat), and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft (H-6, Q-5, JH-7).

Both Russia and China are also rapidly modernizing their entire arsenals of warheads and delivery systems. Russia is developing or producing several new ICBM types: the Yars silo-based and Yars-M road-mobile ICBM, a rail-mobile ICBM, the “Avangard” ICBM (little is known about it), a “pseudo-ICBM” with a 6,000 km range, and another ICBM recently mentioned by deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin. Plus the “Son of Satan” ICBM intended to replace the SS-18 heavy ICBM.

Russia is also developing a next-generation bomber and has recently fielded the Kalibr sub-launched cruise missile, the Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile, new warheads, and the Su-34 attack aircraft.

Moscow is not only growing its arsenal but also becoming more aggressive as well. In the last 12 months, Russia has practiced simulated nuclear bomber strikes on US missile defense facilities five times, each time flying dangerously close to US or allied airspace, and three times flying into Air Defense Identification Zones – forcing US or allied fighters to scramble. For more, see here and here.

“Who told you that the Cold War was ever over? It transforms; it is like a virus,” said Russian KGB/FSB defector Sergei Tretyakov in an interview with FOX News in 2009.

And yet, the Left wants America to disarm unilaterally in the face of such an aggressive Russia wielding thousands of nuclear weapons!

China is also modernizing by fielding new ICBMs (DF-31As, DF-41s), a new air-launched cruise missile (CJ-20), the new Jin class of SSBNs, improved variants of the JL-2 sub-launched ballistic missile with a 12,000 km range, and a sub-launched cruise missile. It’s also developing a new class of SSBNs (follow-on to the Jin class) and has ordered 36 Tu-22M bombers. Concurrently, both China and Russia are also developing missile defenses.

Moscow and Beijing aren’t the only nuclear threats to America, though. North Korea has 8-12 nuclear warheads, ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and – through its successful satellite test conducted last December – demonstrated capability to mate nuclear payloads to missiles, confirmed by the DIA and by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. North Korea has, since the last crisis, announced it will GROW, not give up, its nuclear arsenal – and has recently test-fired several SRBMs again. Meanwhile, Iran is racing towards nuclear weapons.

And yet, the Dems want America to dramatically and unilaterally cut America’s nuclear deterrent in the face of all of these nuclear threats! What’s more, they lie that cutting America’s deterrent unilaterally will make her and the world safer and more peaceful!

Do you see the idiocy of this, Dear Reader?

Meanwhile, America’s allies are slowly losing trust in America’s nuclear umbrella, which is being continually cut and undermined by the Dems. Already, 66.5% of South Koreans want their country to have nuclear weapons, and Japan has recently opened a facility that can produce enough plutonium for 3,600 warheads in several months if need be… that is, if the US cuts its nuclear umbrella further.

If the US continues doing so, America’s allies will have no choice but to develop their own arsenals, as they cannot afford to bet their security, and indeed their very existence, on the Democrats’ “unilateral disarmament will make us safer” fantasies – or on America breaking free of Democrat rule in 2016.

What’s more, the US needs to be able to deter nuclear threats not only today, but well into the future – decades from now. That cannot be done with a tiny nuclear deterrent, because the arsenals of America’s adversaries, already large, will only grow in the future. Thus, so must America’s arsenal.

Remember: in the nuclear deterrence business, there is zero allowable margin of risk and zero room for error.

Cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has only made her, her allies, and the world much less secure and peaceful. The US has reduced its arsenal by over 75% since the Cold War’s end; stopped designing, producing, or testing new warheads; hasn’t deployed a new ICBM since 1986 and a new bomber since the early 1990s; hasn’t modernized its nuclear warheads or facilities since the Cold War’s end; and is not seriously modernizing what arsenal it has left.

(This is a deliberate Obama administration policy: their Undesecretary of State for Arms Control has said, “We’re not modernizing. That has been one of the basic tenets and principles of our policy.”)

Meanwhile, Russia has begun rebuilding its nuclear arsenal, China has dramatically increased its, and two new states – Pakistan and North Korea – have joined the nuclear club. Iran is well on its way there, defying all international sanctions.

Judged by the results, “arms control” – cutting the US nuclear arsenal deeply – has been an utter failure which has made America, its allies, and the world dramatically less secure while encouraging nuclear proliferation.

The US should do the exact opposite of what the Democrats demand. It should modernize and grow, not cut, its nuclear arsenal.

UPDATE: The debate is now ongoing on the House floor. Liberal Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, one of the most vociferous Democrat opponents of America’s nuclear deterrent, has just made the ridiculous statement that

“What’s good for a missile base in Wyoming is not necessarily good for our country.”

The missile base he referred to is Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in WY. Do you believe, Congressman, that having a strong, large, and dispersed nuclear deterrent, consisting of three legs (ICBMs, bombers, submarines) is a bad thing? That having a large nuclear deterrent to dissuade Russia, China, and North Korea is a bad thing? Because that is exactly what you suggest when you make such claims.

This is not about one missile base in Wyoming. This is about preserving the nuclear deterrent – the part of our defenses which is responsible for protecting America and its allies against the gravest threats we face – Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And ICBMs are by far the cheapest, most ready, and most responsive part of that deterrent, costing only 1 bn dollars per year to maintain. No real savings can be achieved by cutting them. Congressman Cooper is a fool and needs to apologize to the folks in WY and to the Air Force.

UPDATE #2: The House has passed an amendment to preserve America’s current ICBMs in operational status, thus barring Obama from scrapping them. While 7 Democrats voted for it, 4 pseudoconservative “libertarian” Republicans voted against it: Justin Amash of MI, Mick Mulvaney of SC, Thomas Massie of KY, and Putin lover Dana Rohrabacher of CA.

In so doing, these 4 RINOs essentially voted to give Obama a free hand to scrap America’s ICBMs – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg of the nuclear triad, joining 185 liberal Democrats – their true ideological allies.

There is absolutely NO excuse – military, fiscal or other – for what they’ve done. The entire ICBM fleet costs only 1 billion per year to maintain, so even scrapping it completely would save only 1 bn dollars – not even a drop in the bucket that the budget deficit is.

In addition to being the cheapest, the ICBM leg of the triad is also the most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed one, deployed in 450 different (and hardened) siloes across North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming and with a 95-99% readiness rate at any moment. It could be launched minutes after the President giving the order.

And perhaps that’s why the Left – including leftist anti-defense Republicans like Amash, Massie, Mulvaney, and Rohrabacher have targeted it – because it’s so powerful, so ready, and so responsive at such a little fiscal cost.

The only good thing they’ve done by voting against maintaining America’s ICBMs is to show the entire nation that they are pseudoconservatives and are, in fact, strident anti-defense liberals/libertarians, and do not belong in the GOP or in the Congress.

There is NO excuse for voting AGAINST preserving ICBMs – the cheapest, most ready, and most responsive leg of the nuclear triad.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll223.xml

Liberals Cheer Over Dead Oklahoma Children!!!

Bible n Flag Picture

As bad as Democrats have been in the past I don’t think anything can top the Demomcrat Logosituation of their reaction to the Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma.  Lizz Winstead, creator of “The Daily Show” tweeted that the tornado was “ordered to target conservatives”, a comment she now says was done in jest.  How does anyone joke about anyone, and especially children, dying from a terrible natural disaster?  I wonder if she considered it just as funny when children of the same age were killed in Newtown, Ct.!!!  Other blooming idiots in the Democrat wing of the Vulture of Tyranny Party are blaming Republicans because they deny the “truth” of man-made global warming, including the venerable idiot, Barbara Boxer of California.

Is there no standard of decency at all anywhere in the Democrat Party?  Is there no one in the entire mass of the party who will stand up and say this is outrageous and unacceptable?? Apparently not!!!  Shouldn’t liberals be coming out with legislation to ban tornados since they indiscriminately kill innocent men, women, and children???  Is there no honor, no class, no soul in the party???  Is there no one to call these Neanderthals out for their lack of any kind of human decency at all????

America as a nation is lost if this is the best we can find to represent We the People in government and “media”.  Everything about them is agenda driven.  There is no feeling, no dignity, no honor, no honesty, no class, no decency anywhere in these obscene pronouncements.  These same people cheer for a professional no-name athlete “coming out” as gay and praise women who murder their unborn children, then protest the death penalty for convicted murderers as “cruel and unusual punishment”; they decry guns, inanimate objects, used by a nut to murder children in a school and cheer when children of the same age are killed by a tornado.  How does any human being do that???

These people are beyond despicable!!!  No one with this attitude should ever be allowed to sit in the seat of government, nor should anyone of this ilk be a member of the media.  Politicians swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America yet spend every breath looking for a way to destroy said document, and will use any event or any tragedy to further their control and their power over the citizens of this once-great nation.

Where are we to go if this is what We the People put in charge of our nation?  How can any nation or group of people survive if this is the kind of heartless trash that are in charge of government??  What does this say about the overall quality of American society???

This reminds me of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Democrats blamed George W. Bush despite the fact that the requests for help had to come from Democrats who were in charge of the city and state at the time.  They made as much political hay as they could from a tragedy that befell other Americans. Democrats allowed poor blacks to die rather than use available assets to save them. Conservatives didn’t gloat when most of the Katrina victims were black Democrats in New Orleans.  At that moment they were Americans beset by a tragedy they couldn’t stop, Americans that needed our help.  And help we did; with prayers, money, labor, supplies, and anything else we could do to help.

It also reminds me of the reaction in the Muslim world to Katrina. Remember the cries of joy and statements that their satanic “allah” had punished America for its evil ways?? Do you remember the earthquake a few weeks later in Pakistan/Afghanistan that killed over 200,000???   Did Americans gloat, laugh, and point fingers???  No, we jumped in to help those devastated and in need of help.  They were people in need of help and we did what we could to help because they were suffering.

America is the heartland of the world and Oklahoma is the heartland of America. Oklahomans are a resilient bunch and we will come back by the sweat of our brow and the love and help of our neighbors.  We believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that the right to cling to our faith and our guns comes from God not from government.  We believe in helping ourOklahoma map neighbors, not out of duty but out of kindness and love.  We don’t need bureaucrats and politicians to tell us how to look after those who suffer loss of property and life from any cause.  We don’t care who, what, when, where, why, or how; we are there to help in any way possible.

For anyone to make light of this tragedy and to use it for cheap political theatrics is beyond despicable.  We are either a nation or we are not.  For a group of people to gloat over the misfortune of others because their political opinions don’t match up is disgusting and perverted.

This kind of behavior, although typical of liberals, is not what our founders had in mind when they established this great nation.  They expected us to pull together and to help when help is needed, not play cheap parlor games with the pain and suffering of those we see as opponents.

Liberalism is a mental disorder highlighted by a total arrogant disdain for others, and the selfishness of an evil that lurks in the realm of Satan.  Our nation cannot survive the kind of vitriol we see in liberalism.  If this continues to be the rule rather than the exception we will lose what little bit of liberty we have left and find ourselves at the mercy of people who have no mercy in their hearts and no soul in their being.

And the ultimate insult will come Sunday May 26, 2013 when His Royal Highness King Barack I will honor us with his presence.  He will come forth from his mighty palace and say a few kind words to us “bitter clingers and Bible thumpers”.  He will pronounce the problems solved, pose for a few photographs, then jump back into his limousine or helicopter. In the meantime, all those who have been actually doing something trip over the media and Secret Service circus clowns.  We don’t need the federal government to “help”.  We don’t come with hat in hand begging for benevolence from government and We the People don’t want government here.

We don’t need Barack Obama and his henchmen in Oklahoma and we don’t want him here.  Gov. Mary Fallin should immediately stand up and tell him to stay where he is.  We have enough to do without him adding to the mess.

Barry, instead of coming to Oklahoma for a photo-op, spend your time telling the mental midgets who you call fellow Democrats that us “bitter clingers” don’t need them; and don’t Bible, flag, guns, Our rightswant them, you, or the money you so freely promise to borrow on our behalf.  We Oklahomans will cling to our God and our guns, not the “benevolence” of government bureaucrats and their red tape.  We will take care of each other and provide for the needs of those displaced by the tornado.  Keep your pathetic posturing in Washington, D C (De Cesspool) where it is appreciated because it won’t be appreciated in Oklahoma.  We don’t need, and we don’t want, your phony sympathy or your cheap promises.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

May 23, 2013

 

Where Are We Going and Why Are We in this Hand Basket?

transgender

transgenderI’m so old I remember the times where a man who expressed a desire to chop off his penis was something that invoked a mixture of sympathy and horror, for only a misfire in the brain could cause such a desire to manifest. I remember when we would have reached out to such a person and offered him the help he needed, as we do for anyone else who suffers from mental illness. Now, to say such a thing is anything but perfectly normal is “hateful” and “bigoted”.

This forced acceptance of “gender fluidity” has reached a point of lunacy now where it can no longer be ignored. While no one will convince me a person wanting to exchange his genitals is “normal”, if such a person is an adult and can find a doctor willing to indulge instead of treat him, fine. I have no interest in involving myself in that mess as long as my tax dollars aren’t funding it. Where I do involve myself, and indeed where we should all be getting involved, is when we’re seeing this nonsense affecting our children.

It’s happening all over; parents with a clear agenda they’ve pushed on minds too young to comprehend what’s happening claim their “transgender” children are entitled to use the restrooms and belong to the sports teams of the gender they “identify” with instead of the one they actually are. The latest state to promote the acceptance of boys using the little girls’ room because they say they “identify as female” is California.

Proponents claim this is about “rights” and “tolerance”, yet their definition of these concepts is so flawed, so narrow, that it would be laughable were it not so dangerous. My daughter has the right to walk into a ladies room secure in the knowledge there will be no boys in there, even if these boys like to wear dresses and curse their penises. My son has the right to use a locker room without worrying there’s a girl in there watching him undress, even if that girl says she wishes she had matching equipment. Kids who’ve been coached by adults with an agenda to believe they’re “transgendered” no more have the right to claim exclusivity with the opposite gender than I do to claim I’m the president and expect to take up residence in the White House. Saying something is so doesn’t make it true. A boy announcing he’s a girl doesn’t make it so.

The potential for abuse here is so obvious, even a leftist could see it. How many teenage boys will “identify as girls” in order to be free as they please to waltz into the girls’ locker room where girls are changing clothes, showering, and using the bathroom? How many girls will do the same? The simple fact is, these children – regardless of whether their gender confusion is legitimate – have no concept of the magnitude of identifying as “transgendered” and instead of encouraging it, parents should be stepping in and getting these children the help they need, not forcing everyone else’s kids to be placed in unacceptable situations.

I often say that I find a new reason every single day my children will never set foot in public school. This is certainly one of those reasons. While my kids are not subjected to this far left nonsense, I still get to fund it with my tax dollars in addition to the fortune I shell out in private school tuition. This is wrong. If I’m old enough to remember the days when “gender fluidity” wasn’t mainstream, I’m definitely old enough to remember when education was about reading, writing, history, and critical thinking and not a social experiment. We’ve abandoned that now in favor of this slouch toward Gomorrah. Enough is enough.

Bill Maher and Bob Russell Agree: Hell Has Just Frozen Over

Obama's Gestapo

I wrote a blog article  a while back pointing out how Barack Obama (Osama bin Obama) is putting the finishing touches on turning America into a police state. I have caught a lot of flak for my views, and have been called paranoid and a fear monger for pointing out the things I see happening to my America.   It seems pretty clear to me what is happening and I know many people agree with me on this while others disagree to varying degrees.

What really surprised me was to hear Bill Maher agree with me.  To me, Bill Maher has always been a left-wing pompous jerk, with no semblance of reality apparent in anything he had to say.  When I saw this video clip I was astonished to say the least.  Bill Maher saying the same things I have been saying???  Maher must have lost his marbles or my ears were playing tricks on me!!!  But as I watched the clip I began to see something in him that changed my perspective.

I saw Maher stick to his guns when he got pushback, undeniably on shaky ground but pushback none the less, from those trying to dismiss his premise.  I was also surprised that Maher actually got some support from a member of the panel.  The lady, Anna Smith, was right there with him and rightly pointed out that much of this has been happening for a long time, although on a smaller scale, such as the “stop and frisk” she mentioned.  Not beingAnna Deveare Smith from New York, I was not aware that this was a common practice.  It is wrong and should be stopped.

What didn’t surprise me was Robert Traynham from MSNBC supporting the police state.  Obama is at the top of the police state command and gets the support of an MSNBC liberal, no surprise there.  As a side note, I wonder if Traynham would be so supportive if George W. Bush was in charge right now and a brown-skinned Muslim was the target of this manhunt.  Maher, also a liberal through and through, was adamant about his point and showed pictures and a video of the state of a militarized police force that is not designed to write a traffic ticket.

This makes me wonder about Maher.  With his stand on this police state issue he brings a rationale that is normally missing from his “I hate everything about America” shtick.  The one thing I have learned over the years is that liberals, the true “died in the wool” liberals, have a utopian view of the world in general and in America in particular.  Maher appears to be one of these.  I have never thought of him as even remotely patriotic, or even a true American, but this gives me a different perspective on him.

The true liberal looks to an idealistic utopia that is impossible to obtain, but they have that goal and believe down deep in their hearts that it can be accomplished.  All that is needed is the right group of people to make it happen.  It seems Maher is one of those utopian true believers.  From this video I believe he really thinks his view of America can become a reality.  It can’t ever work because mankind is terribly flawed and those like Obama are beyond flawed, flawed to the point of being downright evil.  I believe Maher originally saw Obama as the person that could pull off the utopia he envisioned but is now seeing what Obama’s agenda entails, and it frightens him. He said this is “very troubling” to him.  It is beyond troubling to me but I get his point.

Many people make the mistake of looking at Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Napolitano, Holder, and their ilk as liberals.  They aren’t liberals, they are Marxists, and in Obama’s case a Muslim Marxist.  They aren’t looking for some kind of utopia where everyone benefits equally and contributes equally.  They are looking to establish a Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia style dictatorship with them in charge and everyone else bowing to them.  I believe this is the reality that Maher has finally seen for what it is.  I saw and heard disappointment and shock in Maher’s expression and voice.  He seems to have come to a realization that what he thought Obama would do isn’t what Obama is doing.

Maher made the same case I have been making, but didn’t get the same kind of backlash I have received, at least not yet.  He made point after point about the actions of the police and stayed the course when others tried to intimidate him into accepting the necessity of what they did in Boston.  I heard liberals defending a police state atmosphere and telling Maher that the police state tactic is for our own good.  Hearing liberals defend a dictatorship astounds me and Maher rightly rejected their premise outright.

He rightly pointed out the case of the gunfire aimed at the boat Tsarnaev was hiding in.  He commented that they wanted him alive yet fired a sustained volley of bullets in their zeal to “take this kid alive” so they could question him.  If they wanted him alive why did they fire so many shots, and how did they manage to miss him with that many shots fired?  Trigger happy cops seem to be the normal thing these days.  I have written about that also, pointing out the number of innocent civilians who have been killed by the police without just cause, with the explanation of “oh, it was a mistake”.  That isn’t very comforting that I could be killed “by mistake” and those who kill me go right on out to do it again without any concerns about their actions.  Maher also pointed out that Tsanraev was given his Miranda rights way too early, thereby losing valuable information that could lead to the arrest of co-conspirators.

He agreed Miranda rights should be given but the law says 48 hours and the Obama regime jumped right in to make sure no information would be forthcoming.  Maher found this to be irresponsible and dangerous.  Again, Bill and Bob are on the same page.

I found myself watching this clip and seeing myself sitting in Bill Maher’s chair, saying the exact same words and making the exact same case.  As scary as that is, I find it refreshing at the same time.  Maher is ultra-liberal and I am ultra-conservative.  I have always seen he and I as polar opposites politically yet we see this situation from exactly the same perspective.  That is frightening yet encouraging on a level that goes far beyond liberal/conservative ideology.  When two people as diametrically opposite as Maher and myself agree totally something is terribly wrong, or something is very right, in our nation.

If someone would have told me a week ago that I would be in agreement with Bill Maher I would have told them, “when that happens you will know Hell has frozen over”.  Well, I guess it must be cold in Hell today because I find myself standing side-by-side with Bill Maher on this Boston bombing situation.  As frightening as that is it gives me hope that America just might survive.  When two people like Maher and myself see what is happening and come to the exact same conclusion I know that I am not as far out in “tin foil hat” country as some would like to convince me I am.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility give to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

May 1, 2013

 

 

 

Marco Rubio and the Magic Beans

Immigration-CautionShortly after last year’s presidential defeat and at the beginning of the Great Republican Panic of 2013, I wrote here about what a bad idea morally and legally amnesty for illegal aliens is. Guess what? It still is.

In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.

But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.

Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.

During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.

Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.

In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.

But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.

Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.

We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.

The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.

You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.

And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”

You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.

Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.

This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »