Well, Der Commissar is at it again. I rarely get the chance to listen to Sean Hannity's radio show on KFBK, but tonight I was able to listen on the way home from work. Amongst all the usual stuff he talks about, mostly the latest Socialist meanderings of the man who calls himself our President, one of them caught my ear, as it concerns one of our allies whom the Commissar in Chief continually snubs as ,much as he possibly can.
I'm talking specifically about Israel. The Chosen People of God Himself are, as usual, under fire from Palestinians and Ahmedenijad, constantly under attack for nothing more than being Jews and living in Israel. Obama has continually snubbed Ben Netenyahu at every turn, most recently denying him access to a shipment of bunker buster missiles that would have no doubt assisted their ground forces in their continuing campaign against Palestine.
This newest venture I heard about, however, makes that one look mild by comparison. Apparently Obama thinks of himself as not only the leader of the free world, but also a sort of Vito Corleone. Now, he's from Chicago AND he's a politician, so this attitude must have been something he picked up along the way, but this is too far. What I mean by my previous comment is that Obama has basically made Netenyahu and offer that he (thought) Netenyahu wouldn't be able to refuse in the form of 13 DEMANDS on the Prime Minister.
Demands? From an ALLY? What the hell? And this is the guy who said continually "We cannot continue to impose our values on the rest of the world." What? Demanding something of Israel sure sounds like imposing values, Mr. President.
What happened next is even more revealing about Der Commissar. Apparently when Netenyahu decided to remind the president that he had balls and REFUSED the demands, Obama stood up and said "I'm going to go have dinner with Michelle and the kids." He then LEFT Netenyahu alone in the state room after counseling Benny-boy to see "the error of his ways."
What the hell? Did we put the Mob in charge of the country back in 2008? Oh, wait...Chicago politician...right. I guess we did.
Vote this guy OUT!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
What, Obama a Socialist? Hater!
So now it all comes down to the wire and the Progressive elite is finally showing their true colors. Not that they needed to reveal themselves much to those of us with the eyes to see them for what they truly were in the first place. They think they know best. They're going to "control the insurance companies" because they know how better to spend money that they haven't earned. Not only that, but they also are going to tell you what THEY think is a better health care plan, because you're just too stupid to figure it out for yourself.
Left Coast Rebel was the first I saw that finally found a piece in the Treasonous Times that details the truth of the Obama/Pelosi/Reed machine. It reads in part:
Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.
Oooh, sounds a little like this is more personal than Obama said it was in one of his many droning speeches about how he was going to take our freedoms away. Didn't he say in one of his speeches that it "wasn't about [him]" or politics? I'm just sayin'...
Another tell tale sign that this is just a cover for redistribution of wealth is this:
healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have.
Healthy families will be picking up most of the bill? Premiums will be "somewhat higher than it otherwise would have?" Someone's been lying to us this whole time. Dammit, who the hell could that have been? It couldn't have been the Savior, could it? No! He wanted to bring premiums DOWN, not up. He just wanted to do the right thing for our own good! How could he possibly have been lying?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Left Coast Rebel was the first I saw that finally found a piece in the Treasonous Times that details the truth of the Obama/Pelosi/Reed machine. It reads in part:
Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.
Oooh, sounds a little like this is more personal than Obama said it was in one of his many droning speeches about how he was going to take our freedoms away. Didn't he say in one of his speeches that it "wasn't about [him]" or politics? I'm just sayin'...
Another tell tale sign that this is just a cover for redistribution of wealth is this:
healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have.
Healthy families will be picking up most of the bill? Premiums will be "somewhat higher than it otherwise would have?" Someone's been lying to us this whole time. Dammit, who the hell could that have been? It couldn't have been the Savior, could it? No! He wanted to bring premiums DOWN, not up. He just wanted to do the right thing for our own good! How could he possibly have been lying?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Monday, March 22, 2010
When the Going gets Tough, Americans Show Up.
To my readers, I have to apologize to all of you. My last post was written as if the fight was over. As if because the bill we all hated was passed, that the America I knew and loved for my 29 years would cease to be. I underestimated the American will to live free, and for that I am sorry.
If you're wondering what sparked this apology, I have to tip my hat to the latest of my still-growing following, the Hyphenated American. I just read his latest post, which the link will guide you to. Appropriately, it was titled "Let's Win One for the Gipper." Reading it in full, I realized that I was being stupid and selfish, believing even for a second that the American people would DARE give up in the face of adversity. How could I even think to believe that for even the briefest of moments? We are the nation that defeated Nazism. We are the nation that defeated Communism. We are the nation who was first to walk on the moon. When everyone said it couldn't be done, we thumbed our noses at those people and went ahead and DID IT!
How then, could I possibly believe that true Americans would allow one defeat to set the tone for the entire war? Yes, make no mistake, it is a war we are fighting. A war for the soul of the country, and first blood was drawn this last Sunday, when an out-of-touch, overreaching governmental body dared to claim they were doing what we wanted when they shoved their little cyanide pill down our throats. Well, this bill may be stuck in our throats now, but we can easily spew it back up and into their faces if we only come up with a method of how to do it.
Some of the states, citing the Tenth Amendment, already are fighting back against what I shall henceforth refer to as the Scourge of Liberty. They're going to challenge the bill in court on grounds of constitutionality. This is, in my book, a slam dunk case. If this even gets within a few MILES of the Supreme Court, they'll strike it down. They'll have to. Not only will they have to, but I've a feeling they'll enjoy a little payback after how Obama treated them at the State of the Union Address.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight, with Renewed Vigor.
If you're wondering what sparked this apology, I have to tip my hat to the latest of my still-growing following, the Hyphenated American. I just read his latest post, which the link will guide you to. Appropriately, it was titled "Let's Win One for the Gipper." Reading it in full, I realized that I was being stupid and selfish, believing even for a second that the American people would DARE give up in the face of adversity. How could I even think to believe that for even the briefest of moments? We are the nation that defeated Nazism. We are the nation that defeated Communism. We are the nation who was first to walk on the moon. When everyone said it couldn't be done, we thumbed our noses at those people and went ahead and DID IT!
How then, could I possibly believe that true Americans would allow one defeat to set the tone for the entire war? Yes, make no mistake, it is a war we are fighting. A war for the soul of the country, and first blood was drawn this last Sunday, when an out-of-touch, overreaching governmental body dared to claim they were doing what we wanted when they shoved their little cyanide pill down our throats. Well, this bill may be stuck in our throats now, but we can easily spew it back up and into their faces if we only come up with a method of how to do it.
Some of the states, citing the Tenth Amendment, already are fighting back against what I shall henceforth refer to as the Scourge of Liberty. They're going to challenge the bill in court on grounds of constitutionality. This is, in my book, a slam dunk case. If this even gets within a few MILES of the Supreme Court, they'll strike it down. They'll have to. Not only will they have to, but I've a feeling they'll enjoy a little payback after how Obama treated them at the State of the Union Address.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight, with Renewed Vigor.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Rest in Peace, Personal Liberty. Born, July 4th, 1776. Died: March 21, 2010
As many of you no doubt know already, today has proven to be a dark day in our history. After every call, post, email, protest, and angry letter, the Commissar in Chief has been able to force through both houses of Congress his monstrous vision of the government's takeover of, all told, ONE HALF of the United States economy. More debt, more taxes, less freedom, more anger from the American people (Which in retrospect isn't a bad thing considering the circumstances).
I remember listening to Brit Hume during one of his appearances on The O'Reilly Factor, saying that if this bill passes, the anger over it will only grow. Well, I can at least speak for myself when I say that Brit was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
I have never been more furious, at any moment I can remember, than I am right now. My fingers now shake and shiver with pure rage even as I type this, largely because after all the effort put out by nearly two thirds of the American people, those people were completely ignored. And then Der Messiah has the cojones to get up in front of the people and tell us TO OUR FACES that this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Please. Can I just take a blue pill and slip off into na-na land? I'd like to visit the place where our politicians are getting the crazy idea that we've been FOR this Frankenstein's Monster when we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for them to KILL THE BILL!
If our Founders could see us now they would weep. Gone now are the days of personal responsibility, replaced by an entitlement mentality that has grown like a malevolent cancer ever since the passage of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. Or, rather, perhaps I should go further back to the days of Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first U.S. President to advocate for the mother of all entitlements, though thankfully never saw it come to fruition.
Yet it seems that the single most important wet dream of all liberals everywhere has come true. Now the government will be able to provide that customary efficiency we see at such pinnacles of progress as the Department of Motor Vehicles, the United States Post Office, and the Veterans Affairs hospitals. Not to mention the bang-up job they've done saving money for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...oh, wait, there's no money in any of those, is there...?
And as for Bart Stupak, the man who claimed to have GONE THROUGH HELL because of his oh-so-noble stance on abortion, I say go back to whatever slimy rock you climbed out from under and leave the real Americans in peace. You, sir, are exactly the type of politician we do not want in our buildings anymore. You stood up in front of the cameras and said exactly the right things that needed to be said to gain moral support from voters like myself, only to dash our hopes that the people of this country would retain the choices they've enjoyed for so long. Well, I hope you lose sleep every night for the rest of your life you degenerate sack of garbage! Also, I have to wonder, when you're voted out in November, will you enjoy congressional benefits as you've been enjoying them for your duration at Capitol Hill? I doubt it. Congress will be exempt from this monstrosity. Once you're gone, you no longer will be, as your time in congress will be over. You have been SNOWED BIG TIME, good sir.
On a final note, let me just say that those who think they deserve to have everything handed to them on a silver platter are living in a fantasy world. This country did not gain it's independence from the British by ASKING for it. We TOOK that freedom because it was ours by God-given RIGHT. Now it seems we must do so again. Only this time the enemy is from within. Well, soon enough they'll be OUT. Remember, libnuts: elections have consequences.
And, to rub salt in the wound I've just inflicted, allow me to quote John F. Kennedy, the only Democrat who understood what being an American really meant: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what YOU can do for YOUR COUNTRY". Emphasis mine.
Rant over. Must rest to begin battling anew upon the morrow.
I remember listening to Brit Hume during one of his appearances on The O'Reilly Factor, saying that if this bill passes, the anger over it will only grow. Well, I can at least speak for myself when I say that Brit was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
I have never been more furious, at any moment I can remember, than I am right now. My fingers now shake and shiver with pure rage even as I type this, largely because after all the effort put out by nearly two thirds of the American people, those people were completely ignored. And then Der Messiah has the cojones to get up in front of the people and tell us TO OUR FACES that this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Please. Can I just take a blue pill and slip off into na-na land? I'd like to visit the place where our politicians are getting the crazy idea that we've been FOR this Frankenstein's Monster when we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for them to KILL THE BILL!
If our Founders could see us now they would weep. Gone now are the days of personal responsibility, replaced by an entitlement mentality that has grown like a malevolent cancer ever since the passage of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. Or, rather, perhaps I should go further back to the days of Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first U.S. President to advocate for the mother of all entitlements, though thankfully never saw it come to fruition.
Yet it seems that the single most important wet dream of all liberals everywhere has come true. Now the government will be able to provide that customary efficiency we see at such pinnacles of progress as the Department of Motor Vehicles, the United States Post Office, and the Veterans Affairs hospitals. Not to mention the bang-up job they've done saving money for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...oh, wait, there's no money in any of those, is there...?
And as for Bart Stupak, the man who claimed to have GONE THROUGH HELL because of his oh-so-noble stance on abortion, I say go back to whatever slimy rock you climbed out from under and leave the real Americans in peace. You, sir, are exactly the type of politician we do not want in our buildings anymore. You stood up in front of the cameras and said exactly the right things that needed to be said to gain moral support from voters like myself, only to dash our hopes that the people of this country would retain the choices they've enjoyed for so long. Well, I hope you lose sleep every night for the rest of your life you degenerate sack of garbage! Also, I have to wonder, when you're voted out in November, will you enjoy congressional benefits as you've been enjoying them for your duration at Capitol Hill? I doubt it. Congress will be exempt from this monstrosity. Once you're gone, you no longer will be, as your time in congress will be over. You have been SNOWED BIG TIME, good sir.
On a final note, let me just say that those who think they deserve to have everything handed to them on a silver platter are living in a fantasy world. This country did not gain it's independence from the British by ASKING for it. We TOOK that freedom because it was ours by God-given RIGHT. Now it seems we must do so again. Only this time the enemy is from within. Well, soon enough they'll be OUT. Remember, libnuts: elections have consequences.
And, to rub salt in the wound I've just inflicted, allow me to quote John F. Kennedy, the only Democrat who understood what being an American really meant: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what YOU can do for YOUR COUNTRY". Emphasis mine.
Rant over. Must rest to begin battling anew upon the morrow.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
In Need of a Reminder
I am, as the post says, in need of a reminder. Of what, you ask? Of the fact that I'm not alone in the universe.
This request comes because I have delved into the belly of the beast recently, visiting the left wing side of the blogosphere in an attempt to "stir the pot" as it were. One such blog is called J. Miller Rampant, and I am beginning to regret ever going there. Not that I didn't understand what I was getting into. I did. To a point.
When I first visited this blog it was actually completely by accident. I was randomly searching for other conservative blogs to plug my own site on to grow my following, when I happened across J. Miller. I decided to give him a read in an attempt to see what the other side was saying. Well, as you might have guessed, this guy didn't have much to say beyond the usual liberal talking points of "Bush failed", "trickle down doesn't work", and the like.
Well, I did what anyone does when faced with illogical conclusions. I asked questions. J. didn't like that too much, apparently, as he and his followers attacked me personally for daring to bring to light the fallacies in liberal thinking.
I'm not sure what possessed me. I thought that maybe I could reach a civil discourse with SOMEONE out there on the other side, for I know there are level-headed lefties out there if you know where to look for them. I know one of them lives in San Fran here in California, but so far he's the only one I know. Well, him and my fiancee's aunt Susan. My own family has their share of misguided left-wingers, but only one of them as far as I know is of the Kool-Aid drinking variety.
Another reason I'm putting out the call for a reminder that others think the way I do is because one jackwad decided to attack not me, but my fiancee personally for daring to express her views on everyone's least favorite lunatic Michael Newdow, who was so enthused about the Supreme Court ruling he was waiting for that when he heard said "Hmm. Bummer." and moved on with his life.
This is all I have to say to people who would dare spew hatred at my family for exercising their God-given right to speak their mind: Judge not, lest ye be judged. The left is always touting tolerance and inclusion, but did you ever notice how they never have to be the inclusive ones? They can exclude whoever they want from whatever they want, and nobody on the left bats an eye. But when a right-winger DARES discriminate against ANYTHING, it's national news. I would try to wrap my brain around it but if the tissue ruptures I'll have an aneurysm.
If you would like to know how the above incident went down in full, feel free to visit "Musings of a Bored Mind" by Daphne of Argos. It was quite the heated argument for a while, and I regret allowing the dingus who started things to drag me to his level.
Continuing to fight the good fight, despite fatigue...
The Constitutional Crusader.
This request comes because I have delved into the belly of the beast recently, visiting the left wing side of the blogosphere in an attempt to "stir the pot" as it were. One such blog is called J. Miller Rampant, and I am beginning to regret ever going there. Not that I didn't understand what I was getting into. I did. To a point.
When I first visited this blog it was actually completely by accident. I was randomly searching for other conservative blogs to plug my own site on to grow my following, when I happened across J. Miller. I decided to give him a read in an attempt to see what the other side was saying. Well, as you might have guessed, this guy didn't have much to say beyond the usual liberal talking points of "Bush failed", "trickle down doesn't work", and the like.
Well, I did what anyone does when faced with illogical conclusions. I asked questions. J. didn't like that too much, apparently, as he and his followers attacked me personally for daring to bring to light the fallacies in liberal thinking.
I'm not sure what possessed me. I thought that maybe I could reach a civil discourse with SOMEONE out there on the other side, for I know there are level-headed lefties out there if you know where to look for them. I know one of them lives in San Fran here in California, but so far he's the only one I know. Well, him and my fiancee's aunt Susan. My own family has their share of misguided left-wingers, but only one of them as far as I know is of the Kool-Aid drinking variety.
Another reason I'm putting out the call for a reminder that others think the way I do is because one jackwad decided to attack not me, but my fiancee personally for daring to express her views on everyone's least favorite lunatic Michael Newdow, who was so enthused about the Supreme Court ruling he was waiting for that when he heard said "Hmm. Bummer." and moved on with his life.
This is all I have to say to people who would dare spew hatred at my family for exercising their God-given right to speak their mind: Judge not, lest ye be judged. The left is always touting tolerance and inclusion, but did you ever notice how they never have to be the inclusive ones? They can exclude whoever they want from whatever they want, and nobody on the left bats an eye. But when a right-winger DARES discriminate against ANYTHING, it's national news. I would try to wrap my brain around it but if the tissue ruptures I'll have an aneurysm.
If you would like to know how the above incident went down in full, feel free to visit "Musings of a Bored Mind" by Daphne of Argos. It was quite the heated argument for a while, and I regret allowing the dingus who started things to drag me to his level.
Continuing to fight the good fight, despite fatigue...
The Constitutional Crusader.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Some People Just Don't Know When to Quit
Well, I have some stories to share today, boys and girls. One in particular sticks in my mind and craw because it affects me personally as well as my better half.
I'll get that one out of the way first:
My fiancee recently posted about the recent California Supreme Court ruling regarding the pledge of allegiance, and disappointingly lamented the fact that Michael Newdow was back in the news once again trying to subvert the majority with his frivolous attempts at changing the pledge. Read her post here.
Apparently as a result of this post, some atheist calling himself A. Zoaraster, has decided to take offense at the idea that my wife-to-be and her friends have a different view than he, and that we are all drug addicted racists who need to see past "the fog and distortions of [our] childhood[s].*
After she left a comment defending herself, war was apparently declared between myself, her, and this guy with his panties in a wad.
She is in need of some support from us fellow conservative Christians, and I would appreciate if all who read this would do two things: Pass it along to all of your followings, no matter how small, and head over to that post and show your support for my girl. She needs to be reminded by someone other than me that she's not alone.
Thank you all and God bless.
The Constitutional Crusader
I'll get that one out of the way first:
My fiancee recently posted about the recent California Supreme Court ruling regarding the pledge of allegiance, and disappointingly lamented the fact that Michael Newdow was back in the news once again trying to subvert the majority with his frivolous attempts at changing the pledge. Read her post here.
Apparently as a result of this post, some atheist calling himself A. Zoaraster, has decided to take offense at the idea that my wife-to-be and her friends have a different view than he, and that we are all drug addicted racists who need to see past "the fog and distortions of [our] childhood[s].*
After she left a comment defending herself, war was apparently declared between myself, her, and this guy with his panties in a wad.
She is in need of some support from us fellow conservative Christians, and I would appreciate if all who read this would do two things: Pass it along to all of your followings, no matter how small, and head over to that post and show your support for my girl. She needs to be reminded by someone other than me that she's not alone.
Thank you all and God bless.
The Constitutional Crusader
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Conservative Porn at it's Finest!
The NY Times finally reported something worth reading.
Pardon me while I go search for a cigarette...
Pardon me while I go search for a cigarette...
What Part of UNDER GOD do you not Understand!?
That's the question I would love to ask Micheal Newdow. Why is this weirdo still in the news? When is he going to realize that 98.4% of this country want to keep the pledge the way it is and just go away and leave the rest of us alone? Back in 2002 he tried once before, and failed. Now he tried again in '10, and this time by a 3-0 vote, they slapped him down. Has it sunk in yet, Micheal? the people of this country believe in God, and they want the pledge to remind them of that fact. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Oh, and for all you liberal whiners out there that cry "separation of church and state", TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS THOSE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE YOU GO SCREAMING THEM IN MY FACE!!!
Here is a comment I left on a blog that lauded the lone dissenting opinion in one of the decisions rendered in the court. What do you want to bet the blogger won't bother reading it?
This judge's reasoning is all over the map. I have a few questions about this opinion he rendered:
1. What does Roe v. Wade have to do with taking "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance?
2. How can something be unconstitutional if it's not covered in the constitution? There is no mention of any kind of pledge of allegiance there.
3. Given that the majority of the country believes in God, it stands to reason that most of their children also believe in God. Who exactly are we offending by professing our faith openly in public? The Founding Fathers never discouraged the expression of faith in the public square. As Thomas Jefferson himself once said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
6. Who exactly is forcing you to say Under God in the pledge? Is someone holding a gun to the head of every atheist in the country and threatening them to say it? I doubt that very much.
7. The "under God" change was not the only change that the pledge has undergone over the years. And I quote: "In 1942 the pledge received official recognition by congress when it was included into the U.S. flag code. Congress added the phrase 'under God' in 1954" Again, no mention of being forced to acknowledge God. If you as an individual choose not to say under God, you may do so.
If we take "under God" out of the pledge, what's next? Not being able to lay flags over caskets? Not being able to display the flag behind podiums while speaking if the venue happens to be a church or religious institution?
And on a more personal note, I read your comment over at "Musings of a Bored Mind." Exactly who did the blogger of that site insult? You or Newdow? And if it was you, why were you insulted?
Finally, the pledge is to the FLAG and THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. The pledge is not made to any God at all. By placing "under God" in the pledge, congress acknowledged what the majority already had assumed. That the government was not the final moral authority. Nowhere in the pledge does it force you to acknowledge the belief in any sort of God, be it the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, or the Old Testament God of Abraham. God is used strictly as a generic term meaning "higher power."
Oh, and for all you liberal whiners out there that cry "separation of church and state", TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS THOSE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE YOU GO SCREAMING THEM IN MY FACE!!!
Here is a comment I left on a blog that lauded the lone dissenting opinion in one of the decisions rendered in the court. What do you want to bet the blogger won't bother reading it?
This judge's reasoning is all over the map. I have a few questions about this opinion he rendered:
1. What does Roe v. Wade have to do with taking "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance?
2. How can something be unconstitutional if it's not covered in the constitution? There is no mention of any kind of pledge of allegiance there.
3. Given that the majority of the country believes in God, it stands to reason that most of their children also believe in God. Who exactly are we offending by professing our faith openly in public? The Founding Fathers never discouraged the expression of faith in the public square. As Thomas Jefferson himself once said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
6. Who exactly is forcing you to say Under God in the pledge? Is someone holding a gun to the head of every atheist in the country and threatening them to say it? I doubt that very much.
7. The "under God" change was not the only change that the pledge has undergone over the years. And I quote: "In 1942 the pledge received official recognition by congress when it was included into the U.S. flag code. Congress added the phrase 'under God' in 1954" Again, no mention of being forced to acknowledge God. If you as an individual choose not to say under God, you may do so.
If we take "under God" out of the pledge, what's next? Not being able to lay flags over caskets? Not being able to display the flag behind podiums while speaking if the venue happens to be a church or religious institution?
And on a more personal note, I read your comment over at "Musings of a Bored Mind." Exactly who did the blogger of that site insult? You or Newdow? And if it was you, why were you insulted?
Finally, the pledge is to the FLAG and THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. The pledge is not made to any God at all. By placing "under God" in the pledge, congress acknowledged what the majority already had assumed. That the government was not the final moral authority. Nowhere in the pledge does it force you to acknowledge the belief in any sort of God, be it the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, or the Old Testament God of Abraham. God is used strictly as a generic term meaning "higher power."
Friday, March 12, 2010
What a Difference a Year Makes
It was one year ago that conservatives finally realized that they were not alone in this country. One year ago, the left's favorite anurism inducing commentator, Glenn Beck, called on Americans to send in photographs of themselves to remind each of them that they were not, in fact, alone in their beliefs about this great country called America. From those photos, Glenn was able to produce the now famous image of a flag being held by a hand and the words "We The People" prominent at the bottom center of the mural.
Did I mention that each viewer only sent in one photo? That's right. One photo. Millions of those singular photos are what make up that now famous image.
In the last year, it's been absolutely amazing. Since Beck made that plea, the 9/12 project has been growing faster than a kudzu vine. Last I knew it was 600,000 strong and growing. How do I know this? Because I'm one of them. I joined the 9/12 project because, like many God-fearing conservatives, felt completely alone and powerless to stop what was happening to the country that I love.
Before 9/11, I was one of the many who were not aware of what was truly going on. I was aware that a black man, for the second time in our history, was running for president. The difference that allowed me to take notice was that Barack Obama, as opposed to the Reverend, might actually win. Once I realized that he had a chance, I started paying attention to him. I went to his website, fightthesmears.com, and watched and read each entry on the site to give myself a balance of information between the conservative point of view vs. the liberal.
Then the allegations began to erupt about his Marxist ties and other such things that have become more and more true each and every day since he landed the nomination, and in some cases before. My first thought when I realized what was happening was...what do I do?
Then I started watching Beck. I heard about the 9/12 project courtesy of that show and my fiancee. I joined up immediately and perused the message boards and video clips. I was amazed. This came about because people were sick and tired of the massive government spending and entitlement programs that were blossoming from this bloated, overbearing federal government that we the people allowed to come into being.
From the 9/12 project sprung the TEA party movement, which I also support wholeheartedly. I remember the 9/12 march on Washington back in 09, and being filled with pride at seeing over one million people swarm capitol hill with signs and banners protesting the blatant confiscation of our rights and civil liberties.
Here's to another year!
Continuing to fight the good fight!
Did I mention that each viewer only sent in one photo? That's right. One photo. Millions of those singular photos are what make up that now famous image.
In the last year, it's been absolutely amazing. Since Beck made that plea, the 9/12 project has been growing faster than a kudzu vine. Last I knew it was 600,000 strong and growing. How do I know this? Because I'm one of them. I joined the 9/12 project because, like many God-fearing conservatives, felt completely alone and powerless to stop what was happening to the country that I love.
Before 9/11, I was one of the many who were not aware of what was truly going on. I was aware that a black man, for the second time in our history, was running for president. The difference that allowed me to take notice was that Barack Obama, as opposed to the Reverend, might actually win. Once I realized that he had a chance, I started paying attention to him. I went to his website, fightthesmears.com, and watched and read each entry on the site to give myself a balance of information between the conservative point of view vs. the liberal.
Then the allegations began to erupt about his Marxist ties and other such things that have become more and more true each and every day since he landed the nomination, and in some cases before. My first thought when I realized what was happening was...what do I do?
Then I started watching Beck. I heard about the 9/12 project courtesy of that show and my fiancee. I joined up immediately and perused the message boards and video clips. I was amazed. This came about because people were sick and tired of the massive government spending and entitlement programs that were blossoming from this bloated, overbearing federal government that we the people allowed to come into being.
From the 9/12 project sprung the TEA party movement, which I also support wholeheartedly. I remember the 9/12 march on Washington back in 09, and being filled with pride at seeing over one million people swarm capitol hill with signs and banners protesting the blatant confiscation of our rights and civil liberties.
Here's to another year!
Continuing to fight the good fight!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Palin for President! Ray Stevens Should Head up her ad Campaign
This video is a masterpiece by that great satirist, Ray Stevens:
Obama shelved in 2012. Sounds like music to my ears. Oh wait...it is!
Obama shelved in 2012. Sounds like music to my ears. Oh wait...it is!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Prohibition, Obamacare, and Glenn Beck's Waste of Americans' Time
So I watched Glenn's much anticipated interview with Eric Massa. It was...anticlimactic, to put it mildly. I cannot believe I sat through that. Massa said almost nothing coherent or worth hearing. Nothing new was divulged except for the declaration by Massa that he was "tired of fighting." I can understand being tired of fighting. I'm tired of fighting. Yet fight I must, because if I don't I can't be sure that someone else will. Granted my role as a dispenser of information can only do so much, but I keep at it because at least I'm doing SOMETHING!
Massa is, apparently, tired of doing something. Now, granted, the man has terminal cancer. Perhaps he isn't surrendering so much as retreating to fight on another front. He's going back to his family as well, and I respect. Glenn apologized to his audience for wasting our time, and I agree that it was a waste. As much sympathy as I have for Massa, he could have been a lot more effective in the interview than he was.
On another front, I was turned to The American Spectator website by my mother, who told me about an article there that compares Obamacare to the infamous Prohibition Act of the 1920's and 30's. If indeed Obamacare is the new Prohibition, someone had better repeal that sucker FAST, because given how much crime escalated in the 30's, with such gangsters as Dillinger and Capone running the show, one can only imagine the chaos that will stem from Obama's deathcare reform bill. Read the full story here.
I can only hope that Obamacare is as easy to repeal as Prohibition was. If not, we're in for a bumpy ride.
Massa is, apparently, tired of doing something. Now, granted, the man has terminal cancer. Perhaps he isn't surrendering so much as retreating to fight on another front. He's going back to his family as well, and I respect. Glenn apologized to his audience for wasting our time, and I agree that it was a waste. As much sympathy as I have for Massa, he could have been a lot more effective in the interview than he was.
On another front, I was turned to The American Spectator website by my mother, who told me about an article there that compares Obamacare to the infamous Prohibition Act of the 1920's and 30's. If indeed Obamacare is the new Prohibition, someone had better repeal that sucker FAST, because given how much crime escalated in the 30's, with such gangsters as Dillinger and Capone running the show, one can only imagine the chaos that will stem from Obama's deathcare reform bill. Read the full story here.
I can only hope that Obamacare is as easy to repeal as Prohibition was. If not, we're in for a bumpy ride.
Another Attempt at Stirring the Pot Part 2: More Facts About Steve Poizner
Hello again, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearing, racist, terrorist hicks! Once more I must regale you with information about the so-called Conservative Republican candidate for governor named Steve Poizner. For those of you who saw it, this post detailed much about his dismal conservative voting record and his outright disgust for the GOP. Well, it doesn't end there, Zombiecons. Here are the highlights of the second part of the memo. I would give you all of it, but as it's so late, I would like to avoid cramping my fingers, as well as making sure my readers' heads do not explode from the constant influx of stupidity that is about to grace these pages:
Steve Poizner gave $10000 to the Gore recount. Not the Gore CAMPAIGN, mind you, but the Gore RECOUNT! The UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNNECESSARY, completely contrived RECOUNT of votes that would have given the Goracle four years to run this country into the ground with his asinine glo-bull warming shtick! His reasoning? His WIFE wanted Gore to be President. Guess we know who wears the pants in that family, huh?
Poizner's stance on abortion is equally dismal, though apparently all three candidates are pro choice to some degree. However, in his campaign for governor, Poizner has been quoted as saying "I've pretty much been an opponent of abortion all my life." Pretty much? Sounds pretty "fair weather" to me, Poizner. And then there's this quote from 2004:
"I've been pro choice my whole life. He knows that...in fact, when Planned Parenthood heard his allegation on TV, they did an instant investigation because this is important to Planned Parenthood. And they were so angry that this was a distortion that they instantly a few days ago issued a 100% rating for me, the highest rating that they give. And so I have been pro-choice my whole life."
What is this man thinking? Are we really stupid enough to believe that you can have it both ways? Not this conservative.
Last but not least, his opposition to tax cuts. he spoke out against the Bush tax cuts of 2004, which caused us to have several dozen months of unrestricted economic growth.
To cap off the post, let's end with a return to the abortion issue. It seems that Piozner was FOR publicly funded abortions before he was AGAINST them. Sounds a little like a certain would-be president, don't you think? John Kerry, you have left your legacy since you were FOR the Iraq War before you were AGAINST it. Sheesh.
Do we REALLY want Poizner in the governor's mansion? I sure don't. Those who read this please link to this post, especially if you know someone who votes here in CA. We need to get the word out!
Steve Poizner gave $10000 to the Gore recount. Not the Gore CAMPAIGN, mind you, but the Gore RECOUNT! The UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNNECESSARY, completely contrived RECOUNT of votes that would have given the Goracle four years to run this country into the ground with his asinine glo-bull warming shtick! His reasoning? His WIFE wanted Gore to be President. Guess we know who wears the pants in that family, huh?
Poizner's stance on abortion is equally dismal, though apparently all three candidates are pro choice to some degree. However, in his campaign for governor, Poizner has been quoted as saying "I've pretty much been an opponent of abortion all my life." Pretty much? Sounds pretty "fair weather" to me, Poizner. And then there's this quote from 2004:
"I've been pro choice my whole life. He knows that...in fact, when Planned Parenthood heard his allegation on TV, they did an instant investigation because this is important to Planned Parenthood. And they were so angry that this was a distortion that they instantly a few days ago issued a 100% rating for me, the highest rating that they give. And so I have been pro-choice my whole life."
What is this man thinking? Are we really stupid enough to believe that you can have it both ways? Not this conservative.
Last but not least, his opposition to tax cuts. he spoke out against the Bush tax cuts of 2004, which caused us to have several dozen months of unrestricted economic growth.
To cap off the post, let's end with a return to the abortion issue. It seems that Piozner was FOR publicly funded abortions before he was AGAINST them. Sounds a little like a certain would-be president, don't you think? John Kerry, you have left your legacy since you were FOR the Iraq War before you were AGAINST it. Sheesh.
Do we REALLY want Poizner in the governor's mansion? I sure don't. Those who read this please link to this post, especially if you know someone who votes here in CA. We need to get the word out!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Honey, I Shrunk the Base: Disorganized Green Party may be Fading into Obscurity
The group of environmental wackos known as the Green Party seems to be getting smaller by the year. In an article by Mercury News, there are signs that we may no longer have to deal with the radical environmental agenda that is being put forth by these so-called environmental crusaders.
Does anyone else feel sympathy? No? I didn't think so.
Does anyone else feel sympathy? No? I didn't think so.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Beck Talks, I Listen
Yes, I know some of those who might read this will think that that title means I've drunk the proverbial kool-aid and have spent my days drooling in front of Glenn Beck like a 12 year old in a Victoria's Secret store. Oops, think I just threw up in my mouth a little there. Anyway...
I just watched a video off of his website, Glennbeck.com, wherein a supposed "intellectual" decided to conduct what he laughingly calls a "study" about how liberal atheists are smarter than conservative religious people.
Shocker, right? Anyway, the study basically claims that religious people are not as monogamous as liberal atheists...what? Excuse me, but that whole "no pre-marital sex" thing was STARTED by religious people! Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Ring a bell, anyone? Well, I guess it might not with a liberal atheist but it sure rings a bell with this dumb Bible-thumping hick.
Also, he had a disclaimer at the end of the study that basically said that despite the results, this does not mean that we are moving away from conservative religious attitudes. Well...duh? Only 20 percent of the freaking country is liberal, you dim-bulb! At least, they're the only ones with the guts to actually say they're liberal. The rest are either conservative, or haven't figured out where they stand on the issues.
Watch the full video here.
I just watched a video off of his website, Glennbeck.com, wherein a supposed "intellectual" decided to conduct what he laughingly calls a "study" about how liberal atheists are smarter than conservative religious people.
Shocker, right? Anyway, the study basically claims that religious people are not as monogamous as liberal atheists...what? Excuse me, but that whole "no pre-marital sex" thing was STARTED by religious people! Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Ring a bell, anyone? Well, I guess it might not with a liberal atheist but it sure rings a bell with this dumb Bible-thumping hick.
Also, he had a disclaimer at the end of the study that basically said that despite the results, this does not mean that we are moving away from conservative religious attitudes. Well...duh? Only 20 percent of the freaking country is liberal, you dim-bulb! At least, they're the only ones with the guts to actually say they're liberal. The rest are either conservative, or haven't figured out where they stand on the issues.
Watch the full video here.
Jay Leno is Apparently so Full of Free Time That he has to Fake Audience Reactions;
Yeah, right, but according to Mediaite some dillhole thinks that Sarah Palin's welcome may not have been as enthusiastic as it sounded to all of us watching at home.
He says that he "knows sound" and it's "his opinion" that they added laughter where there was none, among other things.
His opinion? When did he become the be all end all for genuine audience responses? Screw this joker. Palin was a riot.
He says that he "knows sound" and it's "his opinion" that they added laughter where there was none, among other things.
His opinion? When did he become the be all end all for genuine audience responses? Screw this joker. Palin was a riot.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Another Attempt at Stirring the Pot Part 1
I rarely have "hot diggety dog" moments in my life, but today I had one and it was just too incredible to pass up. I headed into work today in a great mood, knowing that today would be the last day before my usual three days of freedom began. I work a rather humdrum job at the local Staples Office Supply Store in Auburn here in Northern California, and to top that off I work in a closed off area that prohibits interaction with customers and co-workers with the exception of the ones who work in that area with me. Nevertheless, we are privy to work that does not go through the other channels of the job and so we have unique opportunities if one knows how, where, and when to look for them.
Today I had such an opportunity.
As many across the state and nation know, the 2010 midterm elections are coming up in November, and many of those races are gubernatorial in nature. Republicans expect to make huge gains after the laughingstock that is the current congress finally falls off the cliff with all their lemming friends.
One such candidate is Steve Poizner, who styles himself a conservative Republican and is hoping to take over Schwarzenegger's spot. First, however, he must contend with challenger Meg Whitman in a primary race.
Notice I said "styles himself" a conservative Republican. The reason for this is because I have incontrovertable proof that what Meg Whitman says about Poizner is absolutely true.
At my job we make copies. Thousands of copies on a daily basis, in fact. Well, this time a few thousand of those copies just happened to be a campaign memo written by Steve Poizner's people about how they are going to "reinvent" Poizner to appear more Conservative than Whitman is.
Here is the Memo:
POIZNER 2010 CAMPAIGN MEMO
To: Campaign Insiders
From: Research and Strategy Department
Re: Early Prep for Gubernatorial Race
Date: September 17, 2007
Given our candidate's long record of supporting higher taxes, defying the conservative branch of the GOP, and defending high paid government bureucrats, it's pretty clear that we are going to have to go to great lengths in the months to come to "re-define" him in the eyes of Republican activists and voters. Without such and "about turn" there is virtually no way we will be able to survive a primary election.
We are not exaggerating the problem's we will have with the candidate's record. For example, in 2000, he funded an effort to raise property taxes for all Californians by more than $40 billion to the tune of $200,000. In 2004, he supported increasing local sales taxes in order to pay for transportation improvement. Then, in 2006, a group he co-founded, fought to raise property taxes by $500 million per year.
This is just the tip of the iceberg...and if we don't "recreate" the candidate (have him show up at some GOP organizations, give them some red meat, maybe spread some money around to start over the next year or so) our man is looking more and more like the Titanic. I mean this guy actually gave $10,000 to the GORE RECOUNT! Can you imagine how ANY Republican is going to react to that? I nearly fell off my stool when I read it.
Another little problem is that when he ran for the Assembly the newspapers covered his race pretty good. There is article after article , column after column, where the candidate stresses his disgust for the conservative wing of the GOP, his liberal social positions, and his desire to increase taxes. It won't just be the other Gubernatorial candidates calling our guy a liberal, it will be the newspapers reporting his own views. Not sure what to do about that right off the bat.
Frankly, and this is confidential, if he wasn't such a good paying client we'd argue that an attempt by the client to run statewide as a conservative would be laughable. But, as we all know, you can fool most of the people most of the time if you tell them what they want to hear, and spend enough money. Let's get to work over the next week coming up with a new ideology for the client. We can probably just poll it out, find out what conservatives want, and go with that. He sounds like he'll say just about anything we tell him, so that makes it easy.
We've attached some of the problems we are going to have to overcome for your review. It's quite a stack, and there is more coming via mail tomorrow. Hold your nose, it's not pretty.
IN 2000, POIZNER SUPPORTED PROPOSITION 39
In 2000, Poizner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Approve School Bonds That Are Paid For By Increasing Taxes
In 2000, Piozner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Raise Taxes:
In October 2000, Poizner Contributed $100,000 In The Form Of A Loan, To "Taxpayers For Accountability & Better Schools (Tabs), Yes on Prop 39 A Coalition Of Teachers, Parents, Seniors, Taxpayers & Business." (California Secretary of State, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 8/6/09)
"[P]roposition 39 -- A Measure On The Nov. 7 Ballot -- Would Reduce The Threshold Needed To Pass A School Bond From Two-Thirds Of The Voters To 55 Percent." (Maria Saccheti, "Prop 39: Weighing Cost Vs. Need EDUCATION," Orange County Register, 10/22/00)
"Proposition 39: What It Would Do: Lower The Vote Required To Approve A Local School Bond From The Current Two-Thirds To 55 Percent. Bonds Are Repaid With Interest From Property Tax Increases Over Several Decades. The Money Would Be Used For School Construction And Remodeling Projects." ("Propositions 38 and 39 At-A-Glance," The Associated Press, 10/18/00)
Opponents of Prop 39 Said The New Law Would Impose A Property Tax On Poor Communities Disproportionately To That On Wealthy Districts. "Some poor communities, [Jon] Coupal, [President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association] said, would have to impose a property tax 20 times that of some rich districts to raise the same amount of revenue per pupil." (Lisa Schafer, "School Voucher Plan Divides State Voters," Contra Costa Times, 8/10/00)
The Legislative Analysis of Prop 39. Said It Would Raise Taxes:
"This Proposition Allows (1) School Facilities Bond Measures To Be Approved By 55 Percent (Rather Than Two-Thirds) Of The Voters In Local Elections And (2) Property Taxes To Exceed The Current 1 Percent Limit In Order To Repay The Bonds." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)
The Analysis Demonstrates That The Tax Increase Would be $3000 More In Paid Taxes Over 30 Years For Someone Who Owns A Piece Of Property Worth Only $170,000. "How Would the Proposition Affect the Average Homeowner? As noted in the text, this proposition would only have an impact on property owners in cases where a school bond issue is approved by less than two-thirds but at least 55 percent of the voters. In these instances, the impact on a property owner (business or homeowner) would depend on two factors: (1) the tax rate "add-on" needed to pay the debt on the bonds and (2) the assessed value of a particular property. The following illustrates the possible impact of the proposition. A homeowner lives in a unified school district that places a bond before the voters. The bond is approved by with a 58 percent vote and the size of the bond requres a tax levy of $60 per each $100,000 of assessed value. If the assessed value of the owner's home is the statewide average (about $170,000), the owner would pay about $100 in additional property taxes each year for the life of the bond (typically between 20 and 30 years)." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote 2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)
Estimates of How Much Prop 39 Raised Taxes Reached $40 billion:
In The Three Years After The Passage of Prop 39, Taxes in California Were Raised By At Least $20 Billion. "With the new 55% requirement, early all school bonds will pass easily. In the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, about 90% of local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard. Seeing this, school officials can be expected to confront taxpayers with even more bonds for higher amounts, saddling homeowners with billions of dollars of additional debt. In just the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, more than $20 Billion in local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard." (How to Defeat Prop 39. 39 Bonds In Your Area," Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, http://www.hjta.org/tools/how-to-defeat-prop-39-bonds-in-your-area, Accessed 8/11/09)
Jon Coupal Estimated That Prop 39 Would Raise Property Taxes By $40 Billion. "Proposition 39 is identical to Proposition 26, which taxpayers defeated in March, except that instead of replacing the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds with a simple majority, Proposition 39 would lower the requirement to 55 percent. This standards would provide little comfort to taxpayers because it would mean that, based on elections since 1996, more than nine out of 10 (94 percent) bonds would pass. Each of these bonds would burden property owners with additional taxes. The legislative analyst estimates the cost to taxpayers at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. But Proposition 39 promoters have stated that, if Proposition 39 passes, it will bring in $20 billion in new revenue. Counting intereston the new bonds, that's nearly $40 Billion in property taxes - on both businesses and homeowners." (Jon Coupal, "Proposition 39: Pro and Con Views," http://www.caltax.org, Cal-Tax Digest, Sept. 2000)
Between 1986 and 2000, If Prop 39 Had Been Law, Taxes Would Have Been Raised By $13 Billion. "Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues that more than 60 Percent of school bonds put before voters since 1996 have passed. The legislative analyst reports that since 1986, voters have approved $18 Billion in K-12 bonds, while an additional $13 billion in bonds 'received over 55 percent, but less than two-thirds of voter approval.'" (Debra J. Saunders, Op-Ed, "Prop 39 Lowers Bar To Raise Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 10/20/00
In November 2000, Prop 39 Passed:
Proposition 39 passed. "After twice rejecting similar proposals, voters Tuesday approved an initiative that his expected to put more money into school construction by making it easier to pass local bonds. Gov. Gray Davis led a drive financed by wealthy Silicon Valley busniessmen that resulted in the passage of proposition 39, which lowers the requriement for approving local school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent of the electorate." (Ed Mendel, "Threshold Lowered For School Bonds," The San Diego Union-Tribune, 11/9/00)
As A Result Of Prop 39, Taxpayers Across California Faced Tax Increases:
"Seventeen schoola nd three community college districts are hoping they can get teir voters to approve more than $2 billion in school bonds and parcel taxes on March 5. It is a task made easier by Proposition 39, which in 2000 lowered the majority voter approval needed from two-thirds to 55 percent, but some districts will still bee in for an uphill battle." ("$2 Billion At Stake In Bonds, Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 2/25/02)
Under Prop 39, Bakersfield Taxpayers Had to Pay For A $82.1 Million Tax Increase. "College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita passed an $82.1 million bond in November under Proposition 39 and had to go to Bakersfield to find its taxpayer member." (Karen Maeshiro, "Millions Stuck in Limbo," The Daily News of Los Angeles, 3/4/02)
Anti-Tax Group Was Strongly Against Prop 39:
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Strongly Against Prop 39. "According to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, their overwhelming wealth means these entrepreneurs are "out of touch" with the average California homeowner." (Emily Bazar, "Silicon Valley Adds Fuel To The Education Debate," Scripps Howard News Service, 9/24/00)
While Running for Assembly, Poizner Did Not Rule Out Increasing Taxes
Today I had such an opportunity.
As many across the state and nation know, the 2010 midterm elections are coming up in November, and many of those races are gubernatorial in nature. Republicans expect to make huge gains after the laughingstock that is the current congress finally falls off the cliff with all their lemming friends.
One such candidate is Steve Poizner, who styles himself a conservative Republican and is hoping to take over Schwarzenegger's spot. First, however, he must contend with challenger Meg Whitman in a primary race.
Notice I said "styles himself" a conservative Republican. The reason for this is because I have incontrovertable proof that what Meg Whitman says about Poizner is absolutely true.
At my job we make copies. Thousands of copies on a daily basis, in fact. Well, this time a few thousand of those copies just happened to be a campaign memo written by Steve Poizner's people about how they are going to "reinvent" Poizner to appear more Conservative than Whitman is.
Here is the Memo:
POIZNER 2010 CAMPAIGN MEMO
To: Campaign Insiders
From: Research and Strategy Department
Re: Early Prep for Gubernatorial Race
Date: September 17, 2007
Given our candidate's long record of supporting higher taxes, defying the conservative branch of the GOP, and defending high paid government bureucrats, it's pretty clear that we are going to have to go to great lengths in the months to come to "re-define" him in the eyes of Republican activists and voters. Without such and "about turn" there is virtually no way we will be able to survive a primary election.
We are not exaggerating the problem's we will have with the candidate's record. For example, in 2000, he funded an effort to raise property taxes for all Californians by more than $40 billion to the tune of $200,000. In 2004, he supported increasing local sales taxes in order to pay for transportation improvement. Then, in 2006, a group he co-founded, fought to raise property taxes by $500 million per year.
This is just the tip of the iceberg...and if we don't "recreate" the candidate (have him show up at some GOP organizations, give them some red meat, maybe spread some money around to start over the next year or so) our man is looking more and more like the Titanic. I mean this guy actually gave $10,000 to the GORE RECOUNT! Can you imagine how ANY Republican is going to react to that? I nearly fell off my stool when I read it.
Another little problem is that when he ran for the Assembly the newspapers covered his race pretty good. There is article after article , column after column, where the candidate stresses his disgust for the conservative wing of the GOP, his liberal social positions, and his desire to increase taxes. It won't just be the other Gubernatorial candidates calling our guy a liberal, it will be the newspapers reporting his own views. Not sure what to do about that right off the bat.
Frankly, and this is confidential, if he wasn't such a good paying client we'd argue that an attempt by the client to run statewide as a conservative would be laughable. But, as we all know, you can fool most of the people most of the time if you tell them what they want to hear, and spend enough money. Let's get to work over the next week coming up with a new ideology for the client. We can probably just poll it out, find out what conservatives want, and go with that. He sounds like he'll say just about anything we tell him, so that makes it easy.
We've attached some of the problems we are going to have to overcome for your review. It's quite a stack, and there is more coming via mail tomorrow. Hold your nose, it's not pretty.
IN 2000, POIZNER SUPPORTED PROPOSITION 39
In 2000, Poizner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Approve School Bonds That Are Paid For By Increasing Taxes
In 2000, Piozner Supported Lowering The Threshold To Raise Taxes:
In October 2000, Poizner Contributed $100,000 In The Form Of A Loan, To "Taxpayers For Accountability & Better Schools (Tabs), Yes on Prop 39 A Coalition Of Teachers, Parents, Seniors, Taxpayers & Business." (California Secretary of State, http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 8/6/09)
"[P]roposition 39 -- A Measure On The Nov. 7 Ballot -- Would Reduce The Threshold Needed To Pass A School Bond From Two-Thirds Of The Voters To 55 Percent." (Maria Saccheti, "Prop 39: Weighing Cost Vs. Need EDUCATION," Orange County Register, 10/22/00)
"Proposition 39: What It Would Do: Lower The Vote Required To Approve A Local School Bond From The Current Two-Thirds To 55 Percent. Bonds Are Repaid With Interest From Property Tax Increases Over Several Decades. The Money Would Be Used For School Construction And Remodeling Projects." ("Propositions 38 and 39 At-A-Glance," The Associated Press, 10/18/00)
Opponents of Prop 39 Said The New Law Would Impose A Property Tax On Poor Communities Disproportionately To That On Wealthy Districts. "Some poor communities, [Jon] Coupal, [President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association] said, would have to impose a property tax 20 times that of some rich districts to raise the same amount of revenue per pupil." (Lisa Schafer, "School Voucher Plan Divides State Voters," Contra Costa Times, 8/10/00)
The Legislative Analysis of Prop 39. Said It Would Raise Taxes:
"This Proposition Allows (1) School Facilities Bond Measures To Be Approved By 55 Percent (Rather Than Two-Thirds) Of The Voters In Local Elections And (2) Property Taxes To Exceed The Current 1 Percent Limit In Order To Repay The Bonds." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)
The Analysis Demonstrates That The Tax Increase Would be $3000 More In Paid Taxes Over 30 Years For Someone Who Owns A Piece Of Property Worth Only $170,000. "How Would the Proposition Affect the Average Homeowner? As noted in the text, this proposition would only have an impact on property owners in cases where a school bond issue is approved by less than two-thirds but at least 55 percent of the voters. In these instances, the impact on a property owner (business or homeowner) would depend on two factors: (1) the tax rate "add-on" needed to pay the debt on the bonds and (2) the assessed value of a particular property. The following illustrates the possible impact of the proposition. A homeowner lives in a unified school district that places a bond before the voters. The bond is approved by with a 58 percent vote and the size of the bond requres a tax levy of $60 per each $100,000 of assessed value. If the assessed value of the owner's home is the statewide average (about $170,000), the owner would pay about $100 in additional property taxes each year for the life of the bond (typically between 20 and 30 years)." (Proposition 39, "School Facilities. 55% local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements." http://vote 2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/39.pdf)
Estimates of How Much Prop 39 Raised Taxes Reached $40 billion:
In The Three Years After The Passage of Prop 39, Taxes in California Were Raised By At Least $20 Billion. "With the new 55% requirement, early all school bonds will pass easily. In the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, about 90% of local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard. Seeing this, school officials can be expected to confront taxpayers with even more bonds for higher amounts, saddling homeowners with billions of dollars of additional debt. In just the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, more than $20 Billion in local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard." (How to Defeat Prop 39. 39 Bonds In Your Area," Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, http://www.hjta.org/tools/how-to-defeat-prop-39-bonds-in-your-area, Accessed 8/11/09)
Jon Coupal Estimated That Prop 39 Would Raise Property Taxes By $40 Billion. "Proposition 39 is identical to Proposition 26, which taxpayers defeated in March, except that instead of replacing the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds with a simple majority, Proposition 39 would lower the requirement to 55 percent. This standards would provide little comfort to taxpayers because it would mean that, based on elections since 1996, more than nine out of 10 (94 percent) bonds would pass. Each of these bonds would burden property owners with additional taxes. The legislative analyst estimates the cost to taxpayers at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. But Proposition 39 promoters have stated that, if Proposition 39 passes, it will bring in $20 billion in new revenue. Counting intereston the new bonds, that's nearly $40 Billion in property taxes - on both businesses and homeowners." (Jon Coupal, "Proposition 39: Pro and Con Views," http://www.caltax.org, Cal-Tax Digest, Sept. 2000)
- "Proposition 39 Promoters Have Stated That If This Proposition Passes It Will Bring In $20 Billion In New Revenue. Counting Interest On The New Bonds, That's Nearly $40 Billion in New Property Taxes - On Both Business and Homeowners." (Jon Coupal, Op-Ed, "Proposition 39 - Con: Taxpayers Merit Protection," The Daily News of Los Angeles, 10/30/00)
Between 1986 and 2000, If Prop 39 Had Been Law, Taxes Would Have Been Raised By $13 Billion. "Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues that more than 60 Percent of school bonds put before voters since 1996 have passed. The legislative analyst reports that since 1986, voters have approved $18 Billion in K-12 bonds, while an additional $13 billion in bonds 'received over 55 percent, but less than two-thirds of voter approval.'" (Debra J. Saunders, Op-Ed, "Prop 39 Lowers Bar To Raise Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 10/20/00
In November 2000, Prop 39 Passed:
Proposition 39 passed. "After twice rejecting similar proposals, voters Tuesday approved an initiative that his expected to put more money into school construction by making it easier to pass local bonds. Gov. Gray Davis led a drive financed by wealthy Silicon Valley busniessmen that resulted in the passage of proposition 39, which lowers the requriement for approving local school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent of the electorate." (Ed Mendel, "Threshold Lowered For School Bonds," The San Diego Union-Tribune, 11/9/00)
As A Result Of Prop 39, Taxpayers Across California Faced Tax Increases:
"Seventeen schoola nd three community college districts are hoping they can get teir voters to approve more than $2 billion in school bonds and parcel taxes on March 5. It is a task made easier by Proposition 39, which in 2000 lowered the majority voter approval needed from two-thirds to 55 percent, but some districts will still bee in for an uphill battle." ("$2 Billion At Stake In Bonds, Taxes," San Francisco Chronicle, 2/25/02)
Under Prop 39, Bakersfield Taxpayers Had to Pay For A $82.1 Million Tax Increase. "College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita passed an $82.1 million bond in November under Proposition 39 and had to go to Bakersfield to find its taxpayer member." (Karen Maeshiro, "Millions Stuck in Limbo," The Daily News of Los Angeles, 3/4/02)
Anti-Tax Group Was Strongly Against Prop 39:
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Strongly Against Prop 39. "According to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, their overwhelming wealth means these entrepreneurs are "out of touch" with the average California homeowner." (Emily Bazar, "Silicon Valley Adds Fuel To The Education Debate," Scripps Howard News Service, 9/24/00)
- The Tax Payer's Group is the primary opponent of Proposition 39. Its leaders argue that taxes will increase should the initiative succeed, and the burden will fall unfairly upon homeowners who pay off school construction bonds through higher property taxes." (Emily Bazar, "Silicon Valley Adds Fuel To The Education Debate," Scripps Howard News Service, 9/24/00)
While Running for Assembly, Poizner Did Not Rule Out Increasing Taxes
In 2004, Poizner Did Not Rule Out Raising Taxes When Running For The Assembly:
During The State Assembly Campaign, Poizner Would Not Rule Out Voting For A Tax Increase. "Poizner, the Republican, would rule out voting for a tax increase, touted state programs to promote hybrid vehicles and 'clean energy' and calle dfor more spending on public schools. Ruskin, the Democrat, said he opposed raising taxes, played upon his bona fides as a fiscal conservative on the Redwood City Council, and called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance 'excellent'" (Poizner used the same adjective to describe the governor.)" ("Contention In Palo Alto," The San Jose Mercury News, 5/23/04)
"Mr. Poizner Said He Would Not Sign A 'No New Taxes' Pledge, But Said That Before Increasing Taxes, He Would Focus On Several Other Priorities." (David Boyce, "Voter Guide 2004: Assembly Candidates Square Off," http://www.almanacnews.com, 10/13/04)
Poizner said California would "certainly need to raise taxes to balance its massive budget deficit". "He has said the state will almost certainly need to raise taxes to balance its massive budget deficit -- an option even moderate GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has forsworn." ("Mayor Expected To Reveal Plans Soon," San Jose Mercury News, 7/25/04
POIZNER SUPPORTED A SALES TAX TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS
In his campaign for assembly, Poizner supported local sales taxes to pay for transportation. "I will support Santa Clara and San Mateo County efforts to seek local tax funds to pay for local transportation for operations and maintenance light-rail, buses and BART." (Real Solutions For A Better California," Steve Poizner State Assembly, 2004)
POIZNER'S GROUP SUPPORTED PROPOSITION 88 WHICH RAISED CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAXES
EdVoice, A group that Poizner co-founded, pushed for a $500 Million property tax per year.
In 2006, EdVoice sought to raise property taxes by $500 Million per year:
Edvoice Sought a "Statwide Property Tax" in California. "Two prominent Silicon Valley Executives are preparing to take on the near-sacred Proposition 13 anti-tax measure. They envision a new statewide property tax to raise money for schools." (Timothy Roberts, "Big Guns Take Aim At Prop 13," Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 3/27/06)
During The State Assembly Campaign, Poizner Would Not Rule Out Voting For A Tax Increase. "Poizner, the Republican, would rule out voting for a tax increase, touted state programs to promote hybrid vehicles and 'clean energy' and calle dfor more spending on public schools. Ruskin, the Democrat, said he opposed raising taxes, played upon his bona fides as a fiscal conservative on the Redwood City Council, and called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance 'excellent'" (Poizner used the same adjective to describe the governor.)" ("Contention In Palo Alto," The San Jose Mercury News, 5/23/04)
"Mr. Poizner Said He Would Not Sign A 'No New Taxes' Pledge, But Said That Before Increasing Taxes, He Would Focus On Several Other Priorities." (David Boyce, "Voter Guide 2004: Assembly Candidates Square Off," http://www.almanacnews.com, 10/13/04)
Poizner said California would "certainly need to raise taxes to balance its massive budget deficit". "He has said the state will almost certainly need to raise taxes to balance its massive budget deficit -- an option even moderate GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has forsworn." ("Mayor Expected To Reveal Plans Soon," San Jose Mercury News, 7/25/04
POIZNER SUPPORTED A SALES TAX TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS
In his campaign for assembly, Poizner supported local sales taxes to pay for transportation. "I will support Santa Clara and San Mateo County efforts to seek local tax funds to pay for local transportation for operations and maintenance light-rail, buses and BART." (Real Solutions For A Better California," Steve Poizner State Assembly, 2004)
POIZNER'S GROUP SUPPORTED PROPOSITION 88 WHICH RAISED CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAXES
EdVoice, A group that Poizner co-founded, pushed for a $500 Million property tax per year.
In 2006, EdVoice sought to raise property taxes by $500 Million per year:
Edvoice Sought a "Statwide Property Tax" in California. "Two prominent Silicon Valley Executives are preparing to take on the near-sacred Proposition 13 anti-tax measure. They envision a new statewide property tax to raise money for schools." (Timothy Roberts, "Big Guns Take Aim At Prop 13," Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 3/27/06)
- Proposition 88 was authored by Ed Voice. "Proponents of Proposition 88 - Authored by EdVoice, a coalition that includes backing from such wealthy philanthropists as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Silicon Valley investor John Doerr and SunAmerica Chairmain Eli Broad - say the state's schools are in dire need."
- Prop 88 is a statewide parcel tax -- the first such statewide tax in California since 1910. Every parcel in the state, no matter what the size, would pay $50 to fund statewide education programs, amounting to $450 million to $500 million a year. A car dealer or Costco would pay $50, the same as for a family home or small business." (Editorial, "Storming the Prop 13 Battlements", the Orange County Register, 8/27/06)
"Every property owner in California, No matter how big or small or valuable the parcel, faces paying a flat $50 tax to fund schools under a measure voters will be asked to approve in November." (Harrison Sheppard, "Prop 88 Could Bring $50 Tax To Your Door," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 7/29/06)
Prop 8 8 was an "Unprecedented Real Estate Parcel Tax." "Two of the boldest electoral initiatives yet to emerge from valley interests will be on November's ballot: NetFlix founder Reed Hastings and Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist John Doerr are backing Proposition 88, an unprecedented statewide real estate parcel tax to benefit education..." (Mary Anne Ostrom, "Tech Players Play Politics," San Jose Mercury News, 7/29/06)
NOTE: Taxpayer Groups opposed the Tax Hike. "Although it's still early in the election season, the move already is generating criticism from taxpayer groups and property owners who say it's a regressive tax and adds to the burden on average citizens who are already overtaxed." (Harrison Sheppard, "Prop 88 Could Bring $50 Tax To Your Door," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,, 7/29/06)
The Legislative Analyst Stated that the new tax would "result in teh vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes":
"The Measure Adds a new section to the state constitution that establishes an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California. (This dollar amount would not change over time.) For purposes of the measure, a "parcel" is defined as any unit of real property in the state that currentlyy receives a separate local property tax bill. This definition would result in the vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes being subject to the new parcel tax."
(Proposition 88, "Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute." http://www.sos.ca.gov)
Prop 88 would result in $450 million tax increase per year. "We Estimate the statewide parcel taxwould result in roughly 450 million in new tax revenue each year." (Proposition 88, "Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute." http://www.sos.ca.gov)
There was controversy on how the tax would be implemented if it became law:
The Tax Hike was proposition 88. "Proponents of Proposition 88 - authored by EdVoice, a coalition that includes backing from such wealthy philanthropists as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Silicon Valley investor John Doerr and SunAmerica Chairman Eli Broad - say the state's schools are in dire need." (Harrison Sheppard, "Prop 88 Could Bring Tax To Your Door," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 7/29/06)
- "Proposition 88 would seek to increase K-12 school funding by charging a $50 tax on each real property parcel in California. The measure, which would exempt certain elderly and disabled homeowners, would raise up to $500 Million annually for public school programs."
Prop 8 8 was an "Unprecedented Real Estate Parcel Tax." "Two of the boldest electoral initiatives yet to emerge from valley interests will be on November's ballot: NetFlix founder Reed Hastings and Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist John Doerr are backing Proposition 88, an unprecedented statewide real estate parcel tax to benefit education..." (Mary Anne Ostrom, "Tech Players Play Politics," San Jose Mercury News, 7/29/06)
NOTE: Taxpayer Groups opposed the Tax Hike. "Although it's still early in the election season, the move already is generating criticism from taxpayer groups and property owners who say it's a regressive tax and adds to the burden on average citizens who are already overtaxed." (Harrison Sheppard, "Prop 88 Could Bring $50 Tax To Your Door," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,, 7/29/06)
The Legislative Analyst Stated that the new tax would "result in teh vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes":
"The Measure Adds a new section to the state constitution that establishes an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California. (This dollar amount would not change over time.) For purposes of the measure, a "parcel" is defined as any unit of real property in the state that currentlyy receives a separate local property tax bill. This definition would result in the vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes being subject to the new parcel tax."
(Proposition 88, "Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute." http://www.sos.ca.gov)
Prop 88 would result in $450 million tax increase per year. "We Estimate the statewide parcel taxwould result in roughly 450 million in new tax revenue each year." (Proposition 88, "Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute." http://www.sos.ca.gov)
There was controversy on how the tax would be implemented if it became law:
The Tax Hike was proposition 88. "Proponents of Proposition 88 - authored by EdVoice, a coalition that includes backing from such wealthy philanthropists as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Silicon Valley investor John Doerr and SunAmerica Chairman Eli Broad - say the state's schools are in dire need." (Harrison Sheppard, "Prop 88 Could Bring Tax To Your Door," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 7/29/06)
- Depending on Local County Tax Laws, every individual owner of a timeshare could have to pay the $50, meaning a s7/30/ingle unit could be taxed up to 52 times." (Harrison Sheppard, "Mansion or Cottage, $50 Flat Tax Sought For Schools," Contra Costa Times, 7/30/06)
- The Timeshare Provision varies according to an individual county's tax policies, according to officials in the timeshare industry." (Harrison Sheppard, "Mansion or Cottage, $50 Flat Tax Sought For Schools," Contra Costa Times, 7/30/06)
- If the county sends separate tax bills to each individual owner of a timeshare, those individuals are likely to each have to pay $50." (Harrison Sheppard, "Mansion or Cottage, $50 Flat Tax Sought For Schools, Contra Costa Times, 7/30/06
- But if the county sends a single bill to the timeshare association or management company, which typically then sends its own bills to the individual owner, it is more likely they would only have to split a single $50 payment among all the owners." (Harrison Sheppard, Mansion or Cottage, $50 Flat Tax Sought For Schools," Contra Costa Times, 7/3/06)
- "That Means in some counties, if a timeshare is divided among 52 weekly owners, the total new tax bill is on that unit would amount to $2600. In other counties, it would total $50." (Harrison Sheppard, Mansion or Cottage, $50 Flat Tax Sought For Schools," Contra Costa Times, 7/30/06)
And that's just HALF of the damning document in question. Stay tuned for Part 2, coming to a blog site near you.
Part 2 will include:
Hypocrisy on the abortion issue
Steve Poizner's donations to Al Gore (I THOUGHT he was a Republican!)
And last but not least, his opposition to the furlough program instituted by Ah-Nuld to help curb California spending and close the budget deficit.
Bring the duct tape, kiddies. It's going to be a gory read.
Part 2 will include:
Hypocrisy on the abortion issue
Steve Poizner's donations to Al Gore (I THOUGHT he was a Republican!)
And last but not least, his opposition to the furlough program instituted by Ah-Nuld to help curb California spending and close the budget deficit.
Bring the duct tape, kiddies. It's going to be a gory read.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
First Joe Stack, then Amy Bishop...
Fox News has a report on a story that has apparently gone national in it's coverage. I only saw the tail end of a report being made about a shooting a the Pentagon as I was coming home from work. The article, however, filled in most of the details that I believed I missed. The shooter was apparently angry at the supposed "cover up" of the government's alleged involvement in 9/11.
The man, I believe based on the article, was mentally unbalanced. No one in their right mind walks up to a security guard at the freaking PENTAGON and shoots him at point blank range unless he's batshit crazy and has a death wish. Well, this guy may not have had a death wish but he certainly paid the ultimate price at the end. As tragic as this event was, I don't think I'll be shedding a tear for this guy, given that he murdered in cold blood.
How long do you think it'll be before the Lame-Stream Media gets ahold of this story and tries to link it to the TEA Party movement? My prediction is that by tomorrow the racist morons at PMSNBC and the Communist News Network will be all over this like flies on dog poo.
The man, I believe based on the article, was mentally unbalanced. No one in their right mind walks up to a security guard at the freaking PENTAGON and shoots him at point blank range unless he's batshit crazy and has a death wish. Well, this guy may not have had a death wish but he certainly paid the ultimate price at the end. As tragic as this event was, I don't think I'll be shedding a tear for this guy, given that he murdered in cold blood.
How long do you think it'll be before the Lame-Stream Media gets ahold of this story and tries to link it to the TEA Party movement? My prediction is that by tomorrow the racist morons at PMSNBC and the Communist News Network will be all over this like flies on dog poo.
Those Who do not Know our Past are Doomed to Repeat It!
Truer words were never spoken, and will never again be spoken in my opinion. I just read a great post on a sight called American Thinker entitled "You Can't Take God out of American History." So true, so true. Apparently a math teacher had several phrases posted on her walls mentioning god, such as In God We Trust and God Bless America. The school sued the teacher in an attempt to get her to take it down but the judge ruled in favor of the math teacher on the grounds that his rights under the first amendment had been violated. Hallelujah! Sanity from the judges bench! I was beginning to think it was an endangered species.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Ghost of Senator McCarthy Lives On
Liz Cheney is probably one of the most sensible people I've ever seen. She is very level headed when it comes to her opinions, articulate, and rational. Her beliefs include, and indeed very likely prioritize keeping American safe from those who would do her harm.
So it's no surprise that the Left hates her ever loving guts with as much passion as she hates those who would destroy this great nation. The latest bull being flung around by screaming lefties is via memeorandum.
McCarthyism? Please. The only older trick in the Allinsky playbook is the race card, which has been thrown around more times than I can count, to the point where the liberals are all sounding like the boy who cried "wolf". Somewhere, old Joe is laughing.
Also, I just read another piece on Memeorandum that details that the Supreme Court may be "ready to make gun ownership a national right" What the hell? It's ALREADY a national right you NIMRODS!!!! It's called the Second Amendment! What, did you miss that while you were getting stoned during your constitutional law courses? Yeesh!
For those of you who are complete dullards and don't know, the 2nd Amendment goes something like this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me, I think. The people are the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. Not the people of certain states, or certain cities, or certain congressional districts. Who in their bloody right mind doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is a national right? At least four judges on the Supreme Court seem to think that it's not, at least.
I will give the court props, though, in that the majority is finally made up of people who seem to realize that the constitution is actually important. After years of left wing judges actively using their power of judicial review to legislate from the bench, there seems to be a turn around happening right now. I'm all for it. Here's to hoping it continues.
Continuing to fight the good fight.
So it's no surprise that the Left hates her ever loving guts with as much passion as she hates those who would destroy this great nation. The latest bull being flung around by screaming lefties is via memeorandum.
McCarthyism? Please. The only older trick in the Allinsky playbook is the race card, which has been thrown around more times than I can count, to the point where the liberals are all sounding like the boy who cried "wolf". Somewhere, old Joe is laughing.
Also, I just read another piece on Memeorandum that details that the Supreme Court may be "ready to make gun ownership a national right" What the hell? It's ALREADY a national right you NIMRODS!!!! It's called the Second Amendment! What, did you miss that while you were getting stoned during your constitutional law courses? Yeesh!
For those of you who are complete dullards and don't know, the 2nd Amendment goes something like this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me, I think. The people are the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. Not the people of certain states, or certain cities, or certain congressional districts. Who in their bloody right mind doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is a national right? At least four judges on the Supreme Court seem to think that it's not, at least.
I will give the court props, though, in that the majority is finally made up of people who seem to realize that the constitution is actually important. After years of left wing judges actively using their power of judicial review to legislate from the bench, there seems to be a turn around happening right now. I'm all for it. Here's to hoping it continues.
Continuing to fight the good fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)