Here I go, pissin' off Democrats again! But they make it so easy - and necessary. Please note - when I say Democrats (big "D"), I am speaking of Democrat Politicians. But democrat (small "d") voters are simply "useful pawns", as comrade Saul Alinsky so aptly put it.
Democrat politicians (not democrat voters) have a tendency to use a certain two-faced tactic to win elections, and it is incredible that democrat voters never catch on. Example:
Democrat politicians will pander to every minority group, making wonderful promises in order to get the votes. But they never actually come through - they never intended to. Unemployment is up in the black community, during the entire 8 year reign of a black Democrat president.
Take Hillary and the big banks and Wall Street as a specific example:
Hillary knows "the people" hate Wall Street and big banks (because Democrat politicians have poisoned that well). She campaigns that she will "take them down, beat 'em up", which makes voters happy. But what the voters haven't caught onto is that in just two years, Hillary has been paid $21 million by these same banks and Wall Street. Democrat voters never seem to bother asking the question, "Why would the big money give so much to the candidate that wants to destroy them?"
It's because they know Hillary will NOT harm them. And they give the money because they want her to be elected. And if that happens, the democrat voters will once again get screwed - and will forgive her, because Democrats keep pumping out the "freebies".
The point: when giving $225,000 speeches to Wall Street, Hillary lets them know she'll look out for them. She has to, because they have the money Democrats need. But then she turns around and promises voters she will take down those fat cats, because she needs their votes. And while she speaks from both sides of her mouth, the big money guys chuckle under their breath because once again they have succeeded in staying on top.
If you doubt the close relationship the Clintons have with the banks, you might want to recall Clinton's "Dream Act" - using the power of the presidency and the Attorney General to force banks to make risky loans (Bliley bill) which resulted in the crash of 2007-08. You might think that hurt the banks, but it actually made them wealthier as they packaged up those risky loans and sold them off as derivatives and stuck Fannie Mae with the problems. And then it was Democrats who BAILED OUT those banks with taxpayer money.
A THINKING voter would at least ask the question, "Does it make sense for Hillary to say she'll put the screws to fat cats, while all the while those same fat cats are funding her?"
/
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Even When Hillary Is Right, She's Wrong
Today Hillary made the very dumb comment that Trump's immigration policy would not have saved a single life in Orlando. To that the response would be, "So what?"
Two important points: Trump's immigration policy WOULD have saved the 3000 lives on 9-11. It WOULD have saved the lives and crippling that occured at the Boston Marathon. And it might have saved the lives in San Bernardino. And therefore it can be expected to save lives in the future if implemented.
The point that Mrs Clinton is apparently oblivious to - no policy will prevent ALL terrorist attacks, but that should not prevent us from initiating a policy the can prevent many of them.
No person who is so obviously short-sighted should ever be considered presidential material. Especially when that same person has been proved to be a liar of pathological proportion.
Trump is no prize, but he sure beats Clinton.
And while we are on the topic, Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, both of who recoil at using the phrase "radical Islam", should, by the same token, refrain from using the term "right wing extremist".
/
Two important points: Trump's immigration policy WOULD have saved the 3000 lives on 9-11. It WOULD have saved the lives and crippling that occured at the Boston Marathon. And it might have saved the lives in San Bernardino. And therefore it can be expected to save lives in the future if implemented.
The point that Mrs Clinton is apparently oblivious to - no policy will prevent ALL terrorist attacks, but that should not prevent us from initiating a policy the can prevent many of them.
No person who is so obviously short-sighted should ever be considered presidential material. Especially when that same person has been proved to be a liar of pathological proportion.
Trump is no prize, but he sure beats Clinton.
And while we are on the topic, Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, both of who recoil at using the phrase "radical Islam", should, by the same token, refrain from using the term "right wing extremist".
/
Monday, June 13, 2016
Bill O'Reilly Off The Rails Again
Normally, I'm a big O'Reilly fan. Since 2001. But tonight he once again ran off the rails, this time on the issue of guns and the 2nd Amendment.
Bill stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us "the right to OWN guns, but not a right to CARRY them". That is actually diametrically opposed to what the Constitution clearly states:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Mr. Bill should take note - we not only have a right to "keep", but also to "bear" arms. Perhaps Bill does not comprehend what "bearing" something means. It means to hold it. To carry it. To have it on our person. From the dictionary:
Having a gun tucked away in a safe, in your home, miles away - that is not "bearing arms", nor does it allow you to defend yourself.
More to the point - and this should be obvious even to Mr. Bill, we have not only a God-given right to defend ourselves, but the obligation to do so. Not just in our homes, but anywhere, any time. You cannot defend yourself from a maniac if your means of defense is miles away.
And now to the other important part of the 2nd Amendment that Mr. O'Reilly seems to miss - the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. To infringe is defined in the dictionary as "to limit; encroach on". When anyone passes any law that limits or encroaches on the right to keep AND bear arms, they are violating the Constitution. No interpretation necessary.
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. They spent many months debating the precise language that would say exactly what they intended, in such a way as to require no interpretation, as they wanted to make sure that every school child could read and understand the Constitution, and their rights. That is the only way to preserve them.
Bill, you should be ashamed of yourself, promoting such hogwash on "The Factor". It's supposed to be a "no spin zone". But you certainly did spin the 2nd Amendment. Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary could not have done it better.
We have a God-given right to keep and carry arms, and that right cannot be infringed upon. Period!
/
Bill stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us "the right to OWN guns, but not a right to CARRY them". That is actually diametrically opposed to what the Constitution clearly states:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Mr. Bill should take note - we not only have a right to "keep", but also to "bear" arms. Perhaps Bill does not comprehend what "bearing" something means. It means to hold it. To carry it. To have it on our person. From the dictionary:
"(of a person) carry: "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry · bring · transport · move · convey" Having a gun tucked away in a safe, in your home, miles away - that is not "bearing arms", nor does it allow you to defend yourself.
More to the point - and this should be obvious even to Mr. Bill, we have not only a God-given right to defend ourselves, but the obligation to do so. Not just in our homes, but anywhere, any time. You cannot defend yourself from a maniac if your means of defense is miles away.
And now to the other important part of the 2nd Amendment that Mr. O'Reilly seems to miss - the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. To infringe is defined in the dictionary as "to limit; encroach on". When anyone passes any law that limits or encroaches on the right to keep AND bear arms, they are violating the Constitution. No interpretation necessary.
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. They spent many months debating the precise language that would say exactly what they intended, in such a way as to require no interpretation, as they wanted to make sure that every school child could read and understand the Constitution, and their rights. That is the only way to preserve them.
Bill, you should be ashamed of yourself, promoting such hogwash on "The Factor". It's supposed to be a "no spin zone". But you certainly did spin the 2nd Amendment. Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary could not have done it better.
We have a God-given right to keep and carry arms, and that right cannot be infringed upon. Period!
/
Is Hillary's Support of LGBT's Phony?
It is understood by this writer that most liberals, if they read this at all, will find excuses, or even ignore the facts. That's okay - we have come to expect that. But for people with open minds, the truth becomes obvious.
Hillary Clinton insists she is a great supporter of the LGBT community. But that is nothing more than political bluster. She supports the LGBT community only because it is politically expedient, so she can garnish their votes. How do we know this?
The Clinton Foundation has raked in over $25,000,000 from countries where there is a death penalty for being gay or lesbian. Those countries do not give that kind of money unless they expect something in return. If Hillary Clinton REALLY has the best interests of the LGBT community at heart, she would not be cozying up to governments that actively murder gays.
I ask you - if you held a principle that was solid, and heartfelt, would you cozy up to those who want to destroy those principles? If you are truly opposed to drug use, for example, would you be friendly with drug dealers, and simply look away while they ply their trade, then have them over for dinner?
We're talking about actual PRINCIPLES here, not just buddying up to someone for the sole purpose of self indulgence, greed or diatribe designed to get votes.
If Hillary really believed in her phony support for the LGBT community, she would refuse money from those governments, and would at least call them out for their savage, uncivilized treatment of fellow human beings. But I am not hearing a peep from her on that.
The only thing ANY Clinton believes in is raking in the bucks. Of course, Bill also has other dubious hobbies...
/
Hillary Clinton insists she is a great supporter of the LGBT community. But that is nothing more than political bluster. She supports the LGBT community only because it is politically expedient, so she can garnish their votes. How do we know this?
The Clinton Foundation has raked in over $25,000,000 from countries where there is a death penalty for being gay or lesbian. Those countries do not give that kind of money unless they expect something in return. If Hillary Clinton REALLY has the best interests of the LGBT community at heart, she would not be cozying up to governments that actively murder gays.
I ask you - if you held a principle that was solid, and heartfelt, would you cozy up to those who want to destroy those principles? If you are truly opposed to drug use, for example, would you be friendly with drug dealers, and simply look away while they ply their trade, then have them over for dinner?
We're talking about actual PRINCIPLES here, not just buddying up to someone for the sole purpose of self indulgence, greed or diatribe designed to get votes.
If Hillary really believed in her phony support for the LGBT community, she would refuse money from those governments, and would at least call them out for their savage, uncivilized treatment of fellow human beings. But I am not hearing a peep from her on that.
The only thing ANY Clinton believes in is raking in the bucks. Of course, Bill also has other dubious hobbies...
/
Friday, June 3, 2016
Make California Mexico Again?
Just when I thought some people could not possibly be any dumber, I am proven wrong. At the Trump Rally in San Jose, rioters (NOT protesters), most of whom were illegals, SEIU trouble-makers, La Raza and assorted Soros instigators, you could hear the chant "Make California Mexico Again."
Really? Let me get this straight...
These people LEAVE Mexico because it is not such a great place to live, and they illegally enter California because it IS a nice place to live, with all the wonderful benefits America has to offer - including free everything. And now they want California to be given back to Mexico?
If they want to live in Mexico so badly, why didn't they STAY there? And if they would actually THINK (which they rarely ever do), they would realize that if California was to revert to Mexico, all those great benefits would go away - Mexico does not provide such things, and America would not continue providing them - they would no longer be part of the United States.
The only thing that would be accomplished by making California Mexico again would be to automatically put 5 million illegals who live there back into Mexico. Then they would have to steal across the Nevada border (illegally) to again be in the States. And then what? Make Nevada Mexico? They crap in their own nest, and when they can no longer tolerate the stink they move to another nest, and crap in that.
These people are complete morons! And they had nothing to do with protesting Trump. Their only purpose was to cause trouble, and the Trump Rally was a good venue for doing just that. They were criminally violent, and in another time they would have been shot.
America needs to stop enabling these thugs by calling them "protesters" or "demonstrators". They are neither. They are criminal thugs, trying to subvert the rule of law, and the United States. And according to the Constitution, that is SEDITION, punishable by death. But I would settle for seeing them all go to prison for 20 years. Or Mexico!
/
Really? Let me get this straight...
These people LEAVE Mexico because it is not such a great place to live, and they illegally enter California because it IS a nice place to live, with all the wonderful benefits America has to offer - including free everything. And now they want California to be given back to Mexico?
If they want to live in Mexico so badly, why didn't they STAY there? And if they would actually THINK (which they rarely ever do), they would realize that if California was to revert to Mexico, all those great benefits would go away - Mexico does not provide such things, and America would not continue providing them - they would no longer be part of the United States.
The only thing that would be accomplished by making California Mexico again would be to automatically put 5 million illegals who live there back into Mexico. Then they would have to steal across the Nevada border (illegally) to again be in the States. And then what? Make Nevada Mexico? They crap in their own nest, and when they can no longer tolerate the stink they move to another nest, and crap in that.
These people are complete morons! And they had nothing to do with protesting Trump. Their only purpose was to cause trouble, and the Trump Rally was a good venue for doing just that. They were criminally violent, and in another time they would have been shot.
America needs to stop enabling these thugs by calling them "protesters" or "demonstrators". They are neither. They are criminal thugs, trying to subvert the rule of law, and the United States. And according to the Constitution, that is SEDITION, punishable by death. But I would settle for seeing them all go to prison for 20 years. Or Mexico!
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)