Politics: Chelsea Clinton promises her mom’s Supreme Court will gut the 2nd Amendment

1 Comment

This is from CainTV. 

I want to address the Not Trump and the Not Cruz crowd.

You mental midget’s along with the Establishment Republicans are making a clear path to the White House for Hillary.

Wake Up and Grow Up get behind either Cruz or Trump so we can take back the White House.

It has been a DemocRat wet dream for as long as I can remember to gut the Second Amendment and disarm Americans.

I find it ironic that John F.Kennedy a Life Member of the NRA was killed by a Marxist/Socialist Lee Harvey Oswald.

The same Lee Harvey Oswald today would be a DemocRat voter.

Wave buh-bye to your rights.

Back in February, I argued that the death of Antonin Scalia instantly made the 2nd Amendment the biggest issue of the 2016 presidential election.  Since then, Republicans have been busy bickering about transgender bathrooms and who they hate more: Trump or Cruz. While they indulge in that incredible waste of time, the left is cruising toward a future where the Constitution is decimated by a statist Supreme Court pick.

Obama has already nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s position on the bench. He’s about as anti-2A as they come, and if he’s confirmed, you can be 100% certain that he’ll overturn 2008’s District of Columbia v Heller decision. That would eliminate the concept of gun ownership as an individual right, basically gutting the 2nd Amendment.

He may or may not make it through the nominating process, but rest assured.  If he doesn’t, Hillary can’t wait to appoint someone else who will eliminate your rights. As Chelsea Clinton is all too happy to admit; her mom has plans for Heller…

In other words, “With Scalia dead, we can finally destroy your 2nd Amendment protections the way we’ve always wanted to, and we’re pretty excited about that.”

Remember, these are the people who constantly promise you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, and that no one wants to destroy your ability to “hunt and protect your family.”

As we head toward November, never forget that Hillary views the Constitution as nothing more than an insignificant obstacle. At heart, she’s an authoritarian gun-grabber who, if it furthers her agenda and pleases her donors, will gleefully shred every single one of your rights.



Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.

Being a Black Christian Conservative College Professor will make you an outcast.

College Professors are most part full blown socialists and some are Godless.

Not towing the DemocRat party line and leaving the DemocRat Plantation will get you shunned by your fellow blacks.



A long-time friend and colleague of mine is a conservative college professor and part-time minister who also happens to be black. In terms of fitting in, my friend has three strikes against him: 1) As a conservative college professor he is an outcast among his colleagues in higher education, 2) As a conservative black man he is an outcast among many of his own race, and 3) As a minister he is an outcast in an increasingly Godless society. As you can imagine, with his political and Christian leanings there is much about contemporary American society this good man finds distasteful.

Today’s America can be a tough place for conservatives and Christians, but it is especially tough if you happen to be black in addition to being conservative and Christian. Of the many things that bother my friend about the current state of American society, the thing that bothers him most is seeing his fellow black Americans allowing themselves to be exploited for political gain by insincere Democrats and selected black leaders who are in positions of influence and authority.

What he would like to ask Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and leaders of the NAACP is one simple question: When did it become a crime for a black man to reject nanny government, strike out on his own initiative, and achieve the American dream? Good question.

Another good question my friend often asks his fellow black Americans is this: When will you open your eyes and see that liberal Democrats don’t want you to succeed and that they are just exploiting you for political gain? He follows this question up with another: Black Americans as a rule have been loyal to the Democrats for more than 50 years and what has it gotten us?

Then he answers his own question: With only a few notable exceptions, we are no better off than we were 50 years ago. Too many black Americans are still on welfare, still on food stamps, and still dependent on the government for our sustenance.

What’s worse is that those of us who have broken free of the bonds of government dependence are pariahs among our own race. We are vilified by charlatans like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and liberal politicians who are interested not in improving our lives but in improving their own and are willing to sell us down the river to do it.

My friend finds it particularly galling to hear liberal white politicians and so-called black leaders using the race card and engaging in race baiting in an attempt to further the one cause that is most dear to them: staying in office. I agree with him that any person who would foment racial animosity and turn the races against each other to retain a political office is not worthy of that office.

Bill Murchison wrote about this phenomenon in in an article dated April 15, 2014. Murchison wrote: “Whatever intentions Obama may have genuinely harbored (as a candidate) regarding the prospect of racial reconciliation , he switched relatively quickly to the tried and true tactic of race baiting.

Not the baiting of blacks; no one does that anymore; rather, the baiting of unidentified, because they are unidentifiable, white people who want to keep power out of black hands. The only race war going on around here in 2014 is the one that Democrats wage for the purpose of gaining and holding onto power.

With Obama low in the polls and Democrat control of the Senate threatened, the party sinks to the occasion. Politicians alone—virtually all of them liberal; at least I haven’t heard of any conservative co-conspirators—act as though everything in the wide world is centered on race or class or sex.”

America is losing much of what was gained through the blood, sweat, and tears of those who fought in the trenches during the battle for civil rights. What is ironic about this unfortunate situation is that those who are undermining the civil rights movement are the very people who were supposed to benefit most from it: black leaders.

We will never realize Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of the day when people will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin if black leaders and organizations continue to turn their backs on black Americans who have succeeded and prospered without government assistance. As long as a black man has to be a certified liberal in order to be considered black in America, the battle for civil rights continues and Dr. King’s dream still eludes us.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:

ZoNATION: Part One-2013 In Review: Hot-Headed Democrats Ruining Nation

1 Comment

This is from the Liberty Alliance.

In Part One, Zo reviews the hot-headed Democrats of the year–Christopher Dorner, George Zimmerman, The Tsarnayev Brothers, and other murderers. The media always wants to portray these guys as Conservative radicals, but we know the truth.


Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here:


12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal


This is from Town Hall.


There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don’t even consciously know they’re following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you’ll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.

1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.

2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.

3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned: There’s an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It’s not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It’s not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.

4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don’t pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.

5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal “Christian” or “Jew” is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that’s simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.

6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: ” Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization.”

7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don’t work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn’t work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill” than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.

8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism:Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That’s because right and wrong don’t come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.

9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn’t work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people’s lives. There’s nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.

10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they’re conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren’t going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine.

11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don’t “logic” someone out of a position that he didn’t use “logic” to come up with in the first place.

12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There’s one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it’s based on ideology, not religion.


Are You A Patriotic American Citizen Or A Communist (Liberal) Traitor & Enemy To Freedom?

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Mad Jewess.


Are You A Patriotic American Citizen Or A Communist (Liberal) Traitor & Enemy To Freedom?

If you watch this video (below) with an understanding and love for what this country is supposed to be, then you are a patriotic American citizen.  If you feel a loss for our once nice country, then you are on the right side of history.

BUT-If you feel scared watching this video and want this man to just shut the hell up…and you think the teacher in this youtube is nuts, on a ‘witch hunt’, or is ‘brainwashing’ people, etc.. You ARE the problem.  You ARE the Communist. You ARE the enemy to our country.  You need to repent or get the hell out.  





7 Falsehoods about the Free Market

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Flyover-Press.

Just as there are timeless truths, there are also timeless falsehoods.Here are a few of the latter that I’ve recently encountered, but there are, of course, plenty more. Some libertarians may not agree with me (at least at first) on all of them.

1) The free market creates scarcity and higher prices. In any economic system—socialist, interventionist, or free market—the quantity of a good will typically not be enough to satisfy demand when the price is zero. In a free market, in which people trade their legitimate claims to those resources, prices will tend to rise or fall to the level where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded, and in that way prices help us to cope with scarcity. Not only that, the free market, via a system of profit and loss, gives entrepreneurs an incentive both to supply more of scarce resources and to discover alternatives to them. (But not all “trade” is conducted this way. See No.4 below.)

2) The free market means the government gives businesses special privileges. This is a very common belief based on the idea that pro-market means pro-business. But the free market is free precisely because it denies special legal privileges to any person or group. People sometimes define “privilege” as any advantage a person or group may have over others. Certainly such advantages exist today and would exist in a free market—you may be born into a wealthy family or have superior drive and resourcefulness—but these advantages are consistent with the absence of privilege in the libertarian sense, as long as you acquired such advantages without fraud or the initiation of physical violence against the person or property of others.

3) The pre-Obamacare healthcare industry was a free market. Actually, it was a highly interventionist market, as John C. Goodman explains. Similarly, the failures of the housing and financial markets were hardly the result of “free-market policies,” and the same could be said for practically every other sector of the American economy. The free market is free of legal privileges and discrimination; it is whatever happens in the absence of aggression and within certain “rules of the game”—for example, private property, freedom of association, and the rule of law. Again, it’s not pro-business, pro-consumer, or pro-anything if that means using political power to intentionally help some and hurt others.

4) The free market requires that all valuable resources be privately owned and traded on markets. Even if this was possible, and I’m not convinced that it is, it’s not always the best way to overcome a “tragedy of the commons.” Sometimes the alternatives to individual ownership just work better. Indeed, Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for her research on commons-type problems, found ways that people around the world and throughout history have avoided conflicts over such things as water usage and forest-cutting by using non-market methods of cooperation (and often without the use of government). Indeed, we typically “exchange” favors with family, acquaintances, and sometimes with strangers without the need for formal markets and market prices. And that’s a good thing.

5) The free market encourages racism, homophobia, etc. Now, it’s true that you can be a racist homophobe in a free market, and refuse to live next to a same-sex, interracial couple, or refuse to hire someone because their looks in some way offend you. The consequences of those actions, however, mean that you will tend to pay a higher price for a house or a higher wage to your employees because you’ve deliberately narrowed the range of your choices.

Some critics of the free market scoff at this explanation and argue that it doesn’t address the underlying racism or sexism. Much can be said in response, but I’ll limit myself to two things. First, paying for prejudice may not eliminate it, but it will tend to reduce it (i.e., the demand curve for prejudice slopes downward). Indulging in prejudice means losing out to the family that is more tolerant or the employer who is more competitive. Second, trying to change a person’s attitude toward homosexuality and racism by the use or threat of aggression is not really an effective method; indeed, it usually does more harm than good and causes enormous complications in the long run. The free market gives you an incentive to profit from associating with and learning from others who might be very different from you, who operate outside your normal social networks. Legal mandates tend to breed resentment and rent-seeking that undermine the tolerance necessary to connect to people who are socially distant from you.

6) The free market is pro-war. It’s true that besides being “the health of the state” and the enemy of liberty, war does benefit some special interests such as businesses that produce the weapons of war. But war undermines the free market in general. War and the government interventions that inevitably accompany it restrict markets (domestically and in the countries against which our government is fighting) and free association, make it more costly for most people to buy and sell, reduce the purchasing power of households and businesses, and disrupt the peace that is necessary for a thriving free market.

7) The free market is always efficient. The real world is populated by real people who don’t have complete information, who may have bad information, and who may just make mistakes. An “ideal” economic system is not one in which no one ever makes a mistake; it is one in which the mistakes that people inevitably make are corrected as effectively as possible. Competition in a free market will tend to let you know if you charge too much or too little, overlook an opportunity to lower your cost or raise your revenue, or utilize a new method of consumption or production. The free market is not ideal because it always operates to perfection, but rather because it does better than any other system that we know of so far in correcting mistakes.

How’s that for a start? I’ll get into a few more falsehoods in a future column, but these are worth keeping in mind for now. They tend to be regarded as conventional wisdom by a lot of people, and they underlie a lot of misunderstandings.

Photo of the Day, Year

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Socialism is not the Answer.



Photo of the Day, Year

Jon McNaughton – Stand Your Ground


On The Road to Execution

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

We have lost some of our rights because of these good intentions.

Will we be able to get off of this road Hell?

To borrow a quote from Pogo.

“We have met the enemy… and he is us”



“Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century?” — Whitaker ChambersWitness

It started simply enough. Four airplanes were hijacked and used as bombs against America; killing innocents as well as their executioners. It went downhill from there.

George W. Bush took it upon himself to try to ensure America’s safety. In order to do so he implemented one of the biggest sweeping changes in American government’s history. The birth of “Homeland Security” was done with good intentions, acknowledged. Too bad good intentions often go astray. The current administration took the start of the path to perdition and put it on full speed ahead: the Titanic captain had nothing on this admin!

Suddenly, we have this:

“[The President] has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such ‘commanding heights’ of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.”

Of course, it could be that he’s not actually a Communist, but is a Socialist instead:

Contrary to claims made in 2008 by [the president], his staff, and supporters, he was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago.”

It’s not just his membership in the Socialist Party that makes him a Socialist, it’s his actions as well. Whatever he is, he isn’t following the precepts of our Founding Fathers and no one can successfully argue that statement.

The president has taken America very quickly away from the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. By hook or by crook, he’ll get what he wants:

Just look at how this administration is trying to do an end run around the people by having the Environmental Protection Agency impose stringent regulations when it couldn’t even get the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to pass the socialist cap-and-trade bill.”

The question that becomes the issue: Is he taking us toward Communism or toward Socialism? In the long run, it doesn’t matter. Socialism (which we know via his membership card) is something that we know he believes in. With this president though, it looks like his Socialism leads to our Communism.

To clarify,

Socialism manages the economy through planned collective social control, while communism tend to manage both the society and the economy by making sure that the properties are owned by the centralized organization to gain classlessness and statelessness. Both communism and socialism tend to prevent the effects of capitalism.”

So if Communism’s defining moments come when the economy is under control of the government, what do you call the long list of economic impacts the president has had while doling out taxpayer dollars to whomever he likes? Add the 20% of the economy that his health care plan will control (until it buckles under its own weight). Just last month the president released his Climate Action Plan:

“It is this war on coal that would prove the most costly, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and $1.47 trillion of lost national income by 2030. [my bolding]“

Taxes and his tax plan may round out the list, but it does not finish it. There are things not yet mentioned, but I must keep the article a readable length. The fact that his tax plan impacts us in that,

“The most serious consequence would be slower economic growth, less job creation, and less wage growth. Secondarily, the smaller income gains would reflect back on federal revenues, offsetting much of the revenue growth the president hopes to achieve with the tax increases. State and local budgets would be adversely affected as well.”

Established: The president was a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party as a younger man (for all we know, may still be).

Established: The president has manipulated the economy and has had a drastic impact upon it.

Established: The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is whether the government is in control of the economy, as well as the social arena.

Established: The president is in control of the economy.

Therefore: The president is a Communist.

We also know he’s allowing more drones to take to the air to keep an eye on us. We know he’s not above suing states to keep them from enforcing their own laws. We know he tries to stifle the votes of those whom he believes will vote against him.  We know he’s hiding his background from us. We know he lies to us constantly.

We also know he willingly allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and did nothing to help them: “Stand down!” He did not seek out and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible for Brian Terry’s death. We know there are questions surrounding other deaths related to the president (Jamie Zapata and Judge John Roll among others).

“The daughter of a former German diplomat in Moscow was trying to explain to me why her father, who, as an enlightened modern man, had become an implacable anti-Communist. It was hard for her because, as an enlightened modern girl, she shared the Communist vision without being a Communist. But she loved her father and the irrationality of his defection embarrassed her. “He was immensely pro-Soviet,” she said, “and then — you will laugh at me — but you must not laugh at my father — and then — one night — in Moscow — he heard screams. That’s all. Simply one night he heard screams.” — Whitaker Chambers, Witness

– See more at:


Politics: Charlie Rangel: ‘Millions of kids dying’ because there’s no weapons ban

Leave a comment

This is from Cain TV.

Charlie Rangel is the face of most of New Yorker‘s.

As long as Rangel,Bloomberg and Cuomo are in power

the state and people of New York will never be free.


How about a hyperbole ban?

New York’s most famous censured Congressman, Charlie Rangel, is absolutely foaming at the mouth over the fate of the assault weapons ban.  How dare Democrats like Harry Reid kill it?  Doesn’t Reid know that “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons?”

Wait “millions?”

To put that in perspective: just 1 Million would be more than the total of all U.S. military combat deaths – from 1775 to the present – combined.  Still, according to Rangel, “Millions of kids” are being gunned down by assault weapons which are easier for them to get than a basic laptop.

I’m ashamed to admit it but its politics and its money, The NRA has taken this position, there is no reason, there is no foundation. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting.

But you know it’s really basically the absence of the voices of good people. I cannot believe that politicians are afraid of the NRA, if they thought for one minute that the churches and the synagogue and the priest and the ministers were saying “Hey! Do the right thing and we have your back.”

We’re talking about millions of kids dying  being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.

So Rangel thinks we’d be rid of semi-automatic weapons if only the churches and synagogues weren’t so pro-gun?  Seriously?

Of course, we’ve already dealt with the completely bogus notion that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting, and we’re all well aware that the NRA has done more to promote gun safety than Rangel could ever dream of accomplishing.

Claiming the problem is “politics” is a deflective way of saying “the people don’t support the ban.” Democrats knew that pressing the issue would spell electoral doom for 2014, so they decided to deep-six the legislation. It was an act of self-preservation, as they’re well aware they’re on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment fight.

Clearly, Rangel understands all of this, so it seems his loony, incorrect, and anti-constitutional rant was just a way to remind everyone that, despite his conviction on corruption charges, he’s still in office.

Congratulations on maintaining your status quo Charlie.  Mission accomplished!


Voices Without A Vote

Leave a comment

This is from The Mark Levin Show.

This is a very powerful video.

Please help spread this around the internet.

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: Mark begins the show by playing a video called, “Voices without a Vote.” It stresses how important the election is this year not just for us but for future generations as well. With the massive debt and deficit, the U.S. simply can’t sustain overspending as much as we have. We need to throw the current government out on Election Day and replace it with individuals that will fight to restore liberty and constitutional government

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: