MODERATE MUSLIM’ In THIS State Said Jews Should Have Their Throats


This is from Clash Daily.

This proves what so many of us patriots have said there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

Muslims are violent murdering extremists just waiting to attack.

When “extreme” Islam is essentially the murder and extermination of all people not complying with Islam, you have to stop and wonder what “moderate” Islam actually looks like.   When a so-called moderate Muslim jumps online and categorically defends stabbing Jews as “allowed” under Islam and slams Muslim “Turkish soap opera lovers” for suggesting that maybe it’s wrong, the obvious question becomes, why is the West excusing moderate Islam just because it’s slightly less despicable than real Islam?

Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 7.06.42 PM

Meet Lina Allan, of Michigan. Yes, you read that correctly, she lives right here in the U.S. Concerned yet? Ms. Allan decries the treatment of Palestinians and orders people to not “talk about things they don’t understand”.  Fortunately, she understands everything perfectly from Michigan and has deigned to bring the fire of her wisdom down from the mountain to the uninformed. Ms. Allan does let the Jew defenders she’s reprimanding slightly off the hook by allowing that they could be considered equal to animal rights activists, but never human rights defenders.

How nice of her.

Actually, given the realities of Sharia law and the Quran, which advocates a hell of a lot more than stabbing Jews, I’d say that makes her fairly moderate. After all, she’s no Islamic terrorist. Of course, precious few leaders lack the guts to even stare such realities in the face in an election year. They would rather pass a ruling to criminalize criticism of Islam.

To borrow a line from Richard Dreyfuss in “Jaws”, I’d say they’re going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites them on the ass. Or in this case, walks up and blows up the Capitol Hill Starbucks with a clock bomb.

Ms. Allan represents a perfect storm of insanity viewed as moderation only in context. Nonetheless, she and her ilk are enjoying the freedom and fruits of the fear and denial by our leaders that protect such bigotry. Very often it’s the accusers who are guilty of what they’re accusing others of. In this case, the same leftist agenda that throws around terms like “Islamaphobia”, “racist” and “fear mongers” against people on the right are guilty of perpetuating just those ideas by their passive defense of a religion that, for potentially 20% of its followers, feeds off of murder and terrorism. Add to that number “moderates” like Lina Allan, and that number grows exponentially.


Klansman, Racist, and Democrat Robert Byrd’s Name and Portrait Must be Removed

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

I can add a few more names to this list John F. Kennedy for his opposition to President Dwight Eisenhower’s Civil Rights legislation.

Bobby Kennedy for wiretapping and trying to destroy Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

J. Edgar Hoover for spying on Rev. King and keeping blacks out of the FBI.

Franklin D. Roosevelt for sending Japanese Americans to internment camps and denying Jews escaping the Holocaust entry to America.

Woodrow Wilson for his segregationist views.

I could go on but I think I have made my point.

In the early 1940s Robert Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia…. In 1946 Byrd wrote the following to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

“In 1946 Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating ‘The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.’”

His portrait needs to be removed from the lobby of the capitol.



Here’s a list of all the places named after former Klansman and racist Robert Byrd that need to be removed if Democrats are going to be consistent: 

  • Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center Marshall University in Huntington.
  • Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center Marshall University Graduate College in South Charleston.
  • Robert C. Byrd Auditorium National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown.
  • Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center Marshall University in Huntington.
  • Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Laboratory University in Morgantown
  • Robert C. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies Shepherd University in Shepherdstown
  • Robert C. Byrd Center for Pharmacy Education University of Charleston in Charleston
  • Robert C. Byrd Center for Rural Health Marshall University in Huntington
  • Robert C. Byrd Clinical Teaching Center Charleston Area Medical Center Memorial Hospital in Charleston
  • Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope Green Bank
  • Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center Princeton
  • Robert C. Byrd Health and Wellness Center Bethany College in Bethany
  • Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center University in Morgantown
  • Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center Charleston Division Charleston
  • Robert C. Byrd High School Clarksburg
  • Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing (RCBI) Bridgeport Manufacturing Technology Center Bridgeport
  • RCBI Charleston Manufacturing Technology Center South Charleston
  • RCBI Huntington Manufacturing Technology Center Huntington
  • RCBI Rocket Center Manufacturing Technology Center Rocket Center
  • Robert C. Byrd Institute for Composites Technology and Training Center Bridgeport
  • Robert C. Byrd Library Wheeling
  • Robert C. Byrd Library and Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center University of Charleston in Beckley
  • Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center Eastern Community and Technical College in Moorefield
  • Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center University in Morgantown
  • Robert C. Byrd Metals Fabrication Center Rocket Center
  • Robert C. Byrd National Aerospace Education Center Bridgeport (affiliated with Fairmont State University)
  • Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling
  • Robert C. Byrd Regional Training Institute Camp Dawson near Kingwood
  • Robert C. Byrd Science and Technology Center Shepherd University in Shepherdstown
  • Robert C. Byrd Technology Center Alderson — Broaddus College in Philippi
  • Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center
  • Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex Rocket Center
  • Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park Moorefield
  • Robert C. Byrd Community Center Pine Grove
  • Robert C. Byrd Community Center Sugar Grove
  • Robert C. Byrd Rooms Office of the Senate Minority Leader State Capitol in Charleston
  • Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building Beckley
  • Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building Charleston
  • Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution Hazelton
  • Robert C. Byrd Clinic School of Osteopathic Medicine in Lewisburg
  • Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to Veteran’s Hospital Huntington
  • Robert C. Byrd Addition to the Lodge at Oglebay Park Wheeling
  • Robert C. Byrd Conference Center (also known as the Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism) Davis & Elkins College in Elkins
  • Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in Harpers Ferry
  • The Robert C. Byrd Bridge crossing the Ohio River between Huntington and Chesapeake, Ohio.
  • Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System Appalachian Development Highway System
  • Robert C. Byrd Bridge crosses the Ohio River between Huntington and Chesapeake Ohio
  • Robert C. Byrd Bridge Ohio County
  • Robert C. Byrd Drive Routes 16 and 97 between Beckley and Sophia
  • Robert C. Byrd Expressway United States Route 22 near Weirton
  • Robert C. Byrd Freeway United States Route 119 between Williamson and Charleston (also known as Corridor G)
  • Robert C. Byrd Highway United States Route 48 between Weston and the Virginia state line near Wardensville (also known as Corridor H)
  • Robert C. Byrd Interchange on Interstate 77
  • Robert C. Byrd Interchange on United States Route 19 Birch River
  • Robert C. Byrd Intermodal Transportation Center Wheeling
  • Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam Ohio River in Gallipo



Native Americans Call on Buffalo, NY to Change Its “Racist” Name


This is from Pundit Press.

The label of racist gets used so often it has lost its meaning.


Mark Beasley, a member of the Navajo Nation, has started a petition for Buffalo, NY to change its “racist and offensive” name. According to Beasley, he speaks for his “Native American colleagues.”

Beasley writes in his petition that “Buffalo is the name of the animal that was driven almost to extinction by the non-Native forces in order to annihilate and drive out my ancestors from the American landscape.”

Further, “Within only a few years from the beginning of the campaign, all Native nations were driven off their lands and into reservations, where we have prior and since been unduly subjugated and  [sic] exposed to genocidal horrors unimaginable to the rest of the world and throughout history.”

For these reasons, Beasley writes, Buffalo “should change their offensive and racist names containing the word “Buffalo.””

If the city does this, they will “End the use of racist and genocidal imagery and symbols toward Native Americans today” and “End the pain and denigration these symbols and images incite and the damage to the psyches of Native Americans everywhere.”

On top of that, changing the name of Buffalo will “restore Native people’s dignity.”

Beasley also posted this picture to his petition:
Buffalo Petition

As of writing, the petition had 98 signatures.

Pundit Press was the first national news source to write about the petition.

Confessions of a Public Defender


This is from American Renaissance.

I bet I get called racist for this post.

The truth is painful sometimes, but it is the truth.


Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.


Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The cellie who knows the law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Black witnesses can also sway the jury.

Rachel Jeantel: Blacks often make bad witnesses.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.


This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”


No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.


Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.


The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.


From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.


At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

White House Says Courts have NO Power to Review Obama’s Decision-Making

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Sadly, Obama is so close to being right because not one judge or member of Congress has offered any major resistance to his actions.

As they are afraid because he is black they will be labeled as a racist.

Well Damn It we are talking about trashing the Constitution and wrecking America it is time to take a stand.


Never before in the history of our nation have we been in the severe constitutional crisis as we face today. Thanks to liberal public education and even more liberal mainstream media, few Americans are aware of it or if they are they just don’t care.

Over the past six years, Obama has repeatedly taken it upon himself to decide what laws he would enforce and what ones he doesn’t want enforced. The first ones that come to mind are the Defense of Marriage Act and immigration laws.

Then there are other laws that Obama decided to alter and change on his own. This would include immigration laws and the Affordable Care Act to name just a few.

The drafters of the US Constitution purposefully wrote it to keep law making powers out of the hands of the President. Those powers were reserved for Congress who was supposed to do the will of the people, but we know that doesn’t happen anymore either.

The drafters of the US Constitution also established a federal judiciary to help protect the Constitution. Their duties were to make sure that no American citizens violated the Constitution, Bill of Rights or federal laws. They were also charged with making sure that the other two branches of the federal government, legislative and executive, operate within the confines of the Constitution and federal laws.

However, the White House is now saying that Barack Obama is not only above the law, above the Constitution, above Congress and now above the federal courts.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania heard a case involving the delayed deportation of an illegal immigrant. In his ruling, Schwab stated that Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, which I strongly disagree with. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives enforcement discretion to anyone, especially the occupant of the White House.

Schwab went on to say:

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional.”

His ruling, although made in a single case, could be used as a precedent to argue against Obama’s memo that led DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to delay the deportation of up to 20 million illegal aliens.

However, what I found alarming in this case was that attorney’s for the Obama administration argued that judges have no power to review a president’s decision-making. If judges don’t have the power to review a president’s decisions and he has some discretion in how to enforce laws and he is allowed to make law without Congress; then that equates to a dictatorship and America is once again ruled by a greedy self-serving tyrant like we were over 240 years ago. Perhaps it’s time for another revolution to take our country back and re-establish a true constitutional government.

The Racist, Segregationist, Democrat Party is Still Alive and Well

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

The idicocisy and hypocrisy of the liberals is growing hourly.

The great Comrade Bill de Blasio (General Secretary Mayor of New York City) is such a post-racial guy, he’s making racial discrimination an official part of his new hiring process. According to the NYPost:

“Mayor Bill de Blasio has an opening on his personal security detail — and the candidate has to be black”

Lurking behind the American Left’s constant accusations of racism lies an unhealthy obsession over skin color. In fact, we have a name for people who are consumed by concerns over the racial makeup of other people: We call them “racists”.

Of course, how can de Blasio be racist? Not only is he one half of an interracial marriage, but he’s discriminating in favor of a black candidate for his security team… Clearly he’s just a concerned liberal trying to “level the playing field”. After all, I’m sure the Democrat Party’s 200 years of racism, modern day obsession with racial disparities, and constant implementation of race-based “social justice”, is merely part of a deeply emphatic altruism. Right?

“Black lives matter” chant the white UCLA liberals as they fund the construction of another Planned Parenthood abortion mill in the south side of Chicago. (Hmm… I guess only some black lives matter.) “Only cops should have guns” scream the inner-city gun control advocates, while they protest a police officer for using his gun to kill an unarmed black man. “Reparations for slavery” cry Sharpton disciples while the first Black President in American history meets with the millionaire behind closed doors.

Yeah… The American left is clearly the intellectually-honest defenders of racial justice. Heck, just look at the New Black Panther’s favorite prosecutor, Eric Holder:

School vouchers (which would do more to desegregate schools than any number of National Guardsmen) are routinely opposed by the self-proclaimed champion of racially-focused “social justice”. Holder has basically turned the elimination of voucher programs into an unofficial pastime for the Department of Justice. And Bill “hire-a-black-guy” de Blasio has been busy closing down the charter schools in NYC that offer young black kids a way out of the ghetto.

Of course, none of this should be too surprising. Segregation was always aDemocrat Party objective… (By the way, did you hear about the “progressive” Ferguson protestors who demanded that demonstrations be segregated? Yeah… I’m sure the Confederate States of America would have been proud.) Segregation wasn’t just about making Rosa sit in the back of the bus, it was about conditioning the American public into believing that we must all be treated differently because of the pigmentation of our skin. And that racist foundation has never been completely erased from the Democrat Party. In fact, it is as strong today as ever.

The American left is convinced that black America is incapable of achievement without the helping hand of big government. Minorities are incapable of collegiate success without a little “affirmative action”, or specialized government grants, or low-interest loans for which the only real requirement seems to be that the borrower has a pulse (and even that isn’t set in stone).

But we’re supposed to applaud, swoon over, and admire the Great Comrade de Blasio for having the generosity to require a black security team member? (Are we supposed to believe that, without Bill’s requirement, a person of color would otherwise be incapable of filling such shoes?) Discrimination on the basis of skin color is, of course, the clinical definition of “evil” to modern progressives… unless it is utilized to give those poor incapable minorities a chance to be a part of some political photo op.

The truth is, the segregationist Democrat Party did not waive the white flag (wait… is that racist?) after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They merely dreamed bigger. No longer are we segregated on public transportation, or in the military, or (officially) in schools; but we are segregated as a nation. Why is it that “black lives matter”? Why not all lives? Why are we so concerned about African American communities being confronted by an increasingly militarized police presence? Shouldn’t all races be concerned about the power of the state?

The continual focus on race among the Left is nothing more than a continuation of their segregationist past. Obama was not focused on bringing togethercommunities after Ferguson caught fire, instead he spoke about the “inherent racism” of America. Holder isn’t interested in giving young black kids a chance to go to the same school as some middle class white kid. And Bill de Blasio isn’t interested in looking beyond race – in fact he’s focusing in on it like a laser.

So, wonderful and benevolent de Blasio, thank you so much for showing the black community compassion by engaging in a little politically-expedient race discrimination. (What a guy.)

9 Things To Think About Before You Start Rioting And Looting


This is from Clash Dailey.

Does posting this make me a racist?



Things are getting dicey out there in the United States of Acrimony, eh?  People are pissed.  They’re sick of the government sick of control sick of the inequities and absurdities in our land sick of the man and the machine sick of our borders having bigger holes than a fat woman’s pantyhose after high steppin’ a barbed-wire fence; and sick, hallelujah, of that little priss, Justin Bieber.

It appears as if, ladies and gents, that rebellion/revolution is America’s soup de jour.

Yep, it’s cuckoo time and me likey.

This is what it must’ve felt like in 1773 minus the powdered wigs and small pox.

As we’ve seen this past week in Ferguson, MO, folks are fed up and ready to break crap if they have to in order to bring about justice; and I dig that spirit.

However, and this is just my advice: before we starting burning the mother down, we should make certain that the war we wage, the cause we champion and the person we support is noble and legit.  Amen?  Amen.

With that in mind, herewith are nine things to consider before you burn your neighborhood or city down to the ground:

Check it out:  Prior to rioting, looting and pillaging and taking off a week to trash the place in which you live and risk being tear gassed, shot and/or run over by Barney Fife’s new army tank, ask yourself these nine diagnostic questions

  1. Has the man I want to champion just been exposed on CCV stealing Swisher Sweet cigars by the armload from a convenience store?
  2. Did this self-same man violently grab, shove and intimidate a tiny little store clerk?
  3. Did the man I’m supporting flip off the camera a lot via Twitter?
  4. Did the man I am ready to go to bat for make gang-signs quite often as he sat for photographic portraits taken by his friends? Oh, and don’t forget, do due diligence to ascertain whether or not he also had rap songs out in which he praises murder, drug use and screwing ho’s.
  5. Also, before you go out on a limb in a revolution, try to be certain that the person you’re willing to go to jail for didn’t climb into a cop’s car and then punch him in the face.
  6. Similarly, make sure your champion didn’t try to take the police officer’s firearm before you paint him as a damsel in distress.
  7. Further, before you hinge your freedom on a deceased person, be careful to make sure that the witness you’re banking on wasn’t a part of a robbery that could implicate him and thus cause him to uh embellish his story.
  8. In addition, before you destroy your city, bear in mind your taxes will probably spike once the dust settles to rebuild what you just torched and ransacked.
  9. And finally, ask yourself: “Self, how will your stealing seven bottles of Mad Dog 20/20 bring about justice?”



Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To Nation, Obama Suggests

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Barack Hussein Obama the perpetual two year old that constantly screams “It is not my fault!”

George W Bush is to blame and if you do not believe me and agree with me You are A Racist.


Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation, President Barack Obama suggested in a kid-glove interview with the New York Times.

“The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman.

“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions,” said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism and radicalism.

“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama added.

That comment about diversity was likely a warning to conservatives, who are expected by many Democrats to lose power as the nation absorbs more foreigners who do not share conservatives’ small-government ideals.

Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.

The GOP was first on the list of causes that Obama blamed for the political divisions that are blocking his agenda, such as increased immigration. However, his list also included a series of subsidiary causes that are actually consequences of underlying ideological conflicts and economic factors.

“While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled money in politics — the guts of our political system today — are sapping our ability to face big challenges together, more than any foreign enemy,” said Friendman, who is an Obama supporter, and a champion of progressive-style expansive government.

Obama and Friedman did not put any blame on the Democratic Party or Obama himself, whose own aggressive use of big-government to promote the progressive goal of social diversity caused voters in 2010 to give the Republicans a majority in the House.

Obama’s complaints come as the GOP and public opinion have blocked his top priority for the second term — increasing immigration. That failure — despite near-universal support from Democrats, media, big business, Wall Street and many billionaires — recently prompted Obama to say he plans to provide an unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work-permits. That’s a high-risk threat, because many recent polls shows that the public very strongly opposes illegal immigration, and gives him very low ratings for his immigration policy.

But Obama didn’t suggest he’s responsible for the nation’s political divides.

Obama’s claim of moderation is contradicted by much evidence.

For example, in October 2013, during the dispute over the 2014 budget, Obama used one speech to describe Republican legislators in the House as akin to arsonists, kidnappers, deadbeats, butchers, lunatics and extortionists, obsessives, out-of-touch hostage-takers, nuclear-armed bombers, and unserious irresponsible extremists. (RELATED: Obama Offers To Fairly Negotiate With GOP Terrorists)

“I’ve shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations,” he also told the TV cameras during the same speech.

Read more:

Are You a Racist?

1 Comment

This is from The Real Side.


Are you a racist? Yes, you are. Good, I have your attention. I just wanted to see if I could get your attention by calling you a racist, since it’s what everyone else does. Today the word hardly holds any meaning. One group uses it to try to make another group feel bad or to get the attention of others that might come to help pile on. In some cases they use it simply because they’ve got nothing else to debate with!

Webster says racism is:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine  cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Well, the first misnomer is the word “race.” We are all part of the same race… the human race! We are made up of many ethnicities and cultures, but, last I checked, scientists still call all of us the human race.

Many of those on the Left consistently call Conservatives, Christians, religious, Republicans and other “non black” people racists. Why? Because we are one of the 4 labels previously listed. And to add frosting to that cake… we aren’t Democrats.

According to “them” I am a racist because I think the current president is a loser. That he can’t govern. He treats his job as if he is the president of a country club and all he has to do to get what he wants is raise membership dues. Why does that make me racist? Because he is black and I am white. Not because I am expressing my own opinion about his job performance (or lack thereof) but because of my color that they brought into the conversation.

Yet none of that fits the true term or even comes close to the definition of racism

According to “them” I am a racist because I think the flood at the border, prompted by this administration, by people who stay here illegally is a problem and I want the border and the American Laws protected and adhered to. How does that make me a racist? Again, I can’t find a connection between the real meaning of racist and me simply wanting the rules followed.

Remember, over 80% of the people who arrive here illegally, are processed, and given a notice to appear within 15 to 20 days in court never show up. They never had an intention to show up. If you support that kind of action then you support breaking the law and from my point of view you are not a racist but an accomplice to the crime and should be punished accordingly.

According to “them” I am a racist because I think that religious rights should be honored and not trampled on. That when business owners choose not to pay for an abortion drug that goes against their religious convictions it doesn’t mean women can’t get their contraceptive drug it just means that their employer won’t be paying for their abortion. Funny thing is, recent polls show that most American’s don’t want to pay for abortions either (except in the case of a mother’s imminent danger). But because access to abortions mostly affects minorities, the Left would not only label me a racist but a woman hater too. Ironically, Margaret Sanger is achieving her goal, to weed out what she called “the undesirables.” Not my goal… hers.

These are just a few examples as to how the progressive Left is either low-IQ or low information. They throw around the word racist for anyone that doesn’t agree with them. But that not what the word means! Black, progressive, Left, socialist groups (or Democratic Black Caucus for short) call black non-progressive, non-Left, conservative, Christians racist! How is that even possible? They can’t pull one word from the definition to back that statement up.

The reason it’s so hard to believe anything coming out of that party is because of all the lies originating there, including calling people racists who demonstrate none of those characteristics.

Look people, if you want us to take you seriously then speak English. If you want money, don’t hide behind bogus bills. The president recently asked for $2 billion to help the illegal refugees coming over the border and within a few days he asked for $3.7 billion because he needed more money for border security. Yet less than 2% of it would be going to support the border. Say what you mean!

Did you know that English in spoken in the air all around the world? A Turkish pilot landing in Japan is speaking English with the air traffic controllers and ground controllers and to each other. Why? Because they needed a universal language with common, well-defined definitions so they could be easily understood and carried out to keep us safe in the air. They don’t deviate. The definitions of the words aren’t changed on a whim because the pilot or air traffic controller didn’t like what it meant. They stick to it and air flight is the safest form of transportation on the planet.

When you call me a racist, in order for me or anyone else with a bit of intelligence to understand what you mean you need to use the word as intended. And if it’s not the correct word, use the right one!

So to my progressive, Left, wanna-be American comrades, use our language. Stop being deceitful and just maybe we can come back from the damage that your Supreme Leader of the Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic of America has created. And just maybe we can have the America that once was and that the world can count on again.

To my non-progressive, non-Left, conservative, Christian, religious folks, if you are a racist in the true sense of the word, it’s not a good thing… so change! However, if you are a racist as defined by the Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic of America, be proud of the fact that you are living rent-free (the ultimate badge of socialism) in the heads of the progressive Left.

America wake up FIGHT BACK or your gonna lose it!


This Bar’s Dress Code Is Being Called Racist, But Is It Really?

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

After reading the dress code there is no mention of race in it.

If I ran a bar or restaurant I would not allow this type of dress either.

Are blacks the only ones to dress in this manner?

I have seen white folks dressing this way also.


Can a dress code be racist? Some people in Minneapolis say, emphatically, yes. Bar Louie in uptown Minneapolis bars a host of apparel, including “flat bill hats,” “large chains” and “excessively baggy clothing.” “Might as well just say, ‘No black folks allowed,’” says one local resident. “It’s ridiculous.”


In order for a dress code to be “racist,” one would have to assume that an establishment would admit white people if they wore the barred clothing. And yes, we’ve all seen white guys who “dress black.” (See: Justin Bieber)

This is not to suggest that all white people – or black people – who dress like Justin Bieber behave like Justin Bieber. Or Tupak Shakur. But it is to suggest that there is a certain behavior pattern that generally goes along with those who wear all or most of the gear barred by Bar Louie’s dress code.

So it’s really a matter of barring behavior vs. barring blacks – or people ofany color, is it not? 

Besides, do those who call the dress code “racist” really believe that blacks who adhere to the policy will be turned away at the door? Or treated less welcome?

Let’s look at it another way: If the dress code listed the apparel that wasacceptable vs. that which is not (collared shirts, casual slacks, etc.), would that be “racist” as well?

The bottom line is this: if a bar or restaurant wants to establish a dress code in an effort to protect its investment, it should have every right to do so.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: