Advertisements
Home

Obama is gutting Medicare 

1 Comment

Here come the death panels that the leftist loons and the RINO’s  made fun of Sarah Palin for saying they are part of Obamacare.

 

Under the guise of “reform,” President Obama is dismantling Medicare — dooming seniors to needless pain and disability and shortening their lives. The stakes are high, because Medicare and the

Source: Obama is gutting Medicare | New York Post

Advertisements

The Conservative Case Against Carly Fiorina

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

With all of these things plus her love of Muslims makes her less desirable than Jeb Bush.

Carly Fiorina is surging right now in the GOP Presidential primary and it’s easy to see why many conservatives like her. She’s had a couple of strong debate performances where she’s tossed out good lines, she’s the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business and she’s portraying herself as an “outsider” in a year when conservatives are justifiably sick of politicians.

Let me paint a different picture of Carly Fiorina and explain why other than Jeb Bush, she’s the candidate I’d least like to see get the nomination. Incidentally, that is really saying something given that I own http://notjebbush.com and the only reason I haven’t bothered to launch it is that Jeb has been so off-putting that watching him speak is like a commercial for “Not Jeb Bush.” Jeb is like the weird, annoying kid in school that no one would ever talk to if he didn’t have a pool. (PS: I’m leaving out Lindsey Graham here because I’m not sure anyone other than his mother will vote for him and I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if even she votes for Walker, Paul or Jindal instead).

First of all, it’s worth noting that Fiorina may have been the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, but she turned out to be just as bad at it as Barack Obama has been at running the country. Despite the spin she tries to put in, Carly Fiorina was a disaster for Hewlett Packard.

Fiorina’s story is that she stormed into HP, turned the company around and was unceremoniously fired because she challenged the status quo. In actuality, she insisted on a controversial merger with Compaq, got her way and it decimated the company. Fiorina loves to talk about HP’s increase in raw numbers, but if two large computer companies merge, it’s almost a given that the revenue and the number of patents produced by both companies combined are going to increase. What didn’t increase was HP’s stock price. It dropped from $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership. There is a reason Fiorina shows up on lists of the Worst CEOs Of All Time (See here, here,here, and here among others) and it’s not because the whole business world is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to portray her as an incompetent.

Let me also add that it’s not fair that Democrats will attack her for firing 30,000 workers because unfortunately, that just comes with the territory when you’re a CEO sometimes. However, if you think it wouldn’t be incredibly effective to point out that Fiorina fired 30,000 workers, tanked the price of the company’s stock, damaged Hewlett Packard so badly that it has yet to recover and STILL walked away with 100 million dollars for being one of the worst CEOs of all time, you’re kidding yourself. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney was a gifted businessman and the Democrats managed to falsely portray him as a heartless, greedy monster for doing far less than that at Bain Capital.

If Carly Fiorina were to say that she’d run America like she ran Hewlett Packard, it could be taken as a direct threat against the country. So, what else does she have to offer as a candidate?

Oh, right! She’s supposedly a grassroots conservative outsider! Yeah, well about that….

Fiorina has run for office before. During the Tea Party tidal wave of 2010, there seemed to be an outside chance that Republicans might be able to knock off Barbra Boxer in California. Granted, it’s California, so it was always going to be a heavy lift, but after Scott Brown had won earlier in the year in Massachusetts, it didn’t seem impossible that a Republican could pull it off.

So, as we have often seen in these last few years, a conservative grassroots candidate squared off with a moderate candidate backed by the establishment. The grassroots conservative candidate was Chuck DeVore and the establishment candidate was Carly Fiorina. Almost every big name conservative except for Sarah Palin lined up behind DeVore (and I love Sarah, but if Fiorina had been a man, there’s not a chance in the world she would have gotten that endorsement. That’s why Sarah had to deal with a big backlash from her own fans over backing Fiorina). On the other hand, the NRSC, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were all supporting Fiorina. Interesting question: When have John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the NRSC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive race? Yes, that’s right; they don’t do that. Ever.

After beating DeVore by outspending him more than 3-to1, Fiorina went toe-to-toe with charisma-free Senator Barbara Boxer and got her brains beaten in. Surprise, surprise — Fiorina’s disastrous run at Hewlett Packard turned out to be an anchor around her neck and the fact that she was such a terrible politician that she signed off on bizarre garbage like the Demon Sheep ad (IT APPEARS at 2:26) certainly didn’t help. In a year when Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats, Boxer waltzed to a 10 point victory over Fiorina.

So, Fiorina’s a failed CEO and it would be more accurate to call her an “establishment favorite” than an outsider, but at least she’s a hardcore conservative, right? Well….not so much. Here’s Redstate on Carly Fiorina back in 2010.

From her praise of Jesse Jackson, to her playing the race and gender cards against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts, to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus, to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration, to her support for Sonia Sotomayor, to her Master’s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education, to her past support for weakening California’s Proposition 13, to her statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that Roe v. Wade is “a decided issue,” Carly Fiorina’s oft-repeated claim to be a “lifelong conservative” was only plausible in the universe of NRSC staffers who recruited her in the first place.

…She endorsed Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for “extra” embyros.

She endorsed the California DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

She refused to endorse California’s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law.

Fiorina also strongly supported Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan that even he claims not to back anymore, endorsed cap & trade and attacked Ted Cruz for being willing to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.

How do you trust Fiorina on immigration, small government issues, taxes, pro-life issues, global warming or to even try to kill Obamacare after that?

None of this means Carly Fiorina is a bad person, a liberal, a stalking horse or anything else. If you like Carly Fiorina, support her, but at least know what you’re really getting. If you’re backing Carly Fiorina, you’re backing a 0-1, establishment moderate who was an epic failure at the one thing that is supposed to qualify her for the presidency. On the other hand, Fiorina does seem to be pretty good at debating. Of course, if you’re in the market for a charismatic candidate who’s relatively moderate, Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee would seem to be a much better choice, but opinions vary.

Although it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen in a primary season as crazy as this one has been, the difference between what people THINK Fiorina is and what she ACTUALLY is, is so great that we can hazard one guess: Carly Fiorina is going to follow the 2012 pattern. People will initially get excited about her, find out what her record really looks like and then she’ll quickly implode.

b Bush.

NAZI Princeton Professor: Government Should Use Obamacare to Kill Disabled Infants!

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

 Heinrich Himmler and Josef Menegle would be proud.

If God does not judge America soon, he will have to apologize to Sodom and  Gomorrah.

Sarah Palin was mocked without mercy in 2008 when she mentioned death panels.  

 

 Princeton University was once upon a time a haven for Christian morality and ethics, a place where young men would go and be trained to serve God and teach the Bible to others. Now the esteemed college in New Jersey is a place that gives sanctuary to sick and twisted “educators” like supposed “ethics” professor Peter Singer.

World Net Daily is reporting that last weekend Singer gave a radio interview with Aaron Klein Investigative Radio where they discussed the professor’s views on abortion and infanticide (nice words for Child Murder). The conversation was supposed to focus on the professor’s latest book but turned to these heinous topics when the host wondered what Singer thought of health-care rationing (death panels) under Obamacare.

Professor Singer argued that rationing was already happening in US hospitals (though to a lesser extent than in Europe): “It’s different in the U.S. system, in a way, because it doesn’t do this overtly; maybe it doesn’t do it as much. And the result is it spends about twice as much on health care as some other countries for very little extra benefit in terms of the outcome.” Klein then quoted from another Singer book where he opines that “non-voluntary euthanasia” (which many of us would just call murder) is morally acceptable when the person being euthanized cannot understand the choice between life and death, including for “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

Professor Singer also expects that denying treatment to disabled infants will become much more common under Obamacare.

“It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.

If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.

I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child.

So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.

And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”

 This response led to Klein’s next question:

“I know that it happens and it happens certainly if the family gives consent. But do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs, that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?”

Singer responded with what may terrifyingly be the common answer in the not-to-distant future:

I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”

And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”

Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.

Look for arguments like this to begin going mainstream in the coming years as Americans begin realizing that socializing medicine MUST lead to rising health care costs. Every nation on earth that has nationalized their healthcare has also been forced to institute some method of “rationing” to help keep costs down. It will start with abortion and euthanasia of the elderly or those facing terminal illness, but will eventually creep into other subgroups like the mentally and physically disabled. Professor Singer (and liberal defenders of socialized medicine) argue that it is moral to kill the weak to benefit the strong. We conservatives must stand for the most defenseless among us and shout the truth from the rooftops – though liberals may disagree, we are not animals and it is therefore the moral duty of the strong to defend the weak.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/nazi-princeton-professor-government-should-use-obamacare-to-kill-disabled-infants/#gjuIy2BKgQPqUcZR.99

Hillary Clinton Suggests Trump “Triggered” Charleston Mass Murder

Leave a comment

This is from the Last Resistance.

The Hildabeast is just following the example set by Slick Willie.

Slick Willie blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The loon leftist also blamed Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords shooting.

Liberals always want to blame someone else for their problems in order to push some agenda. Predictably, the major news outlets and left-leaning politicians have all come out to use the Charleston church mass murder to renew calls for more gun control and to talk about how “White America” must pay for this atrocity. They don’t blame the one person who committed the act. Their solution is to foment racial and political divisiveness and push gun restrictions on everyone.

Hillary Clinton is playing the Trump card. She wants to blame the murderer’s actions on “inflammatory” rhetoric from Republicans, notably comments made by The Donald. ABC News reported:

Hillary Clinton didn’t call The Donald out by name, but she suggested in an interview Thursday that comments like ones the real estate tycoon-turned-Republican presidential candidate made during his recent announcement speech could “trigger” events like this week’s church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, hatred, prejudice,” Clinton said of the Charleston shooting in an interview with Jon Ralston on his show “Ralston Live.”

“Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.”

Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, did not say Trump’s name, but went on to explicitly mention remarks he made during his announcement speech on Tuesday, the day before a white gunman opened fire in a historically African-American church, killing nine people.

“I think we have to speak out against it,” Clinton explained. “Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”

Trump did not respond to a request for comment by ABC News.

During his announcement speech Tuesday, Trump said “the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems” and said people who immigrate here from other countries, like Mexico, are not the “right people.”

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us,” Trump said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

In her interview with Ralston in Nevada, Clinton said such comments from everyone need to stop.

“I think he is emblematic,” Clinton said in reference to Trump. “So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s everybody.”

Clinton also spoke about guns as a factor in mass shootings.

“The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns,” she said.

So, Clinton wants to blame the mass murder on comments that Trump made and guns. Let’s get one thing straight. If this murderer were black and identified by the media as a Democrat, they’d find a way to sympathize with him, if they didn’t ignore the whole thing. More than likely, they wouldn’t even mention the incident. They’d let it remain a local story.

That’s what they do in reference to black-on-black violence and black-on-white violence, the kind you see all the time in Chicago and Detroit. Those are non-stories. In fact, the mere mentioning of them shows a deep-seated racism. The only kind of stories worth making national headlines and taking political opportunities from are those involving white people attacking and/or killing black people.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/12296/hillary-clinton-suggests-trump-triggered-charleston-mass-murder/#RABvC8lYsSAlhxEB.99

Sarah Palin Discovers a Big Problem With US Citizens Who Leave to Join Terrorist Groups

1 Comment

This is from Independent Journal Review. 

I will go Gov. Palin one better if these people have any property and other assets they should be seized.

They should denied the ability to return to the United States or to any of our territories.

 

Sarah Palin has a pretty specific idea in mind of what she would like to see happen to any Americans that decide to join a terrorist organization like ISIS.

Palin posted the above video and following note to her Facebook page:

As crazy as it sounds, a U.S. citizen who leaves this country to join ISIS, al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization does not immediately lose his or her citizenship. That needs to change!

Posted by Sarah Palin on Friday, March 27, 2015

In her post, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee suggests that traitors should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship immediately.

Palin’s comments come just one month after federal authorities arrested three New Yorkers on charges of conspiring to join the Islamic State in Syria:

“The message is clear: No place is safe from jihad,” she says. “The threat of radical Islam is real. It’s growing, and ignoring it won’t make it go away. How many more wake-up calls do we need?”

The former Alaska governor made note of this – and other recent terrorist attacks worldwide like January’s Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris – as justification for her proposal.

SARAH PALIN SLAMS ‘JACKASS’ JESSE VENTURA FOR ‘SHAKING DOWN’ CHRIS KYLE WIDOW

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

I hope Ventura loses this case in the appeals process.

I think suing a widow and orphans is lower that whale droppings at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

 

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin hammered Jesse Ventura for winning a $2 million defamation lawsuit this week against Chris Kyle’s widow.

After Kyle’s death, Ventura continued with the lawsuit that stemmed from a passage from Kyle’s book in which Kyle claimed he knocked out an unnamed Navy SEAL for trashing the troops. During his book tour, Kyle said that was Ventura. But after Kyle was tragically killed in 2013, many felt that Ventura, who has done a lot to damage his own reputation over the years, should have dropped the lawsuit.

“Hey tough guy, Jesse Ventura, your feelings were hurt because you perceived your reputation was besmirched by words in a book?” Palin said on her SarahPalinChannel. “So you turn around and sue, expecting $2 million from a military widow and her fatherless children? Yeah, like that is going to help your reputation, jackass.”

Chris Kyle was a true American patriot — the soldier who stood up for his country and saved so many lives by doing the job his Commander-in-chief gave him, taking out the bad guys. For his extraordinary work, Chris was known as “The American Sniper.” He was senselessly murdered on our own soil while helping a military brother. His widow and young children will forever feel a lot more “hurt” than you will, Jesse, after a sad verdict in your ridiculous lawsuit against Chris. You went after the bereaved family, whining that you, a public figure, were defamed in Chris’s book, “American Sniper,” even though Chris never wrote your name in the book. Since when are public figures immune from hearing something we don’t like, anyway? Chris always stood up for every American. Now we’re standing up for him.

In a video on her new SarahPalinChannel, Palin recalled how Kyle was on the security detail in Pella, Iowa in 2011 for the premiere of Stephen K. Bannon’s film, The Undefeated. She reminisced about her husband, Todd, meeting and getting to know Kyle on Mark Burnett’s Stars Earn Stripes show, where they co-starred. She also gleefully recounted how her son Track, who is also in the military, said even though he was privileged to have met many celebrities after Palin as John McCain’s running mate, “Chris Kyle was the one” celebrity he wanted to meet. “That says a lot,” she said.

Before Palin attended Kyle’s funeral service in February of 2013, Palin said President Barack Obama should “pay his respects” to Kyle with at least a “gesture of condolence.”

She also accused Ventura of “shaking down” a widow and hoped the “appalling and shameful” decision could be “overturned on appeal.”

Palin called Kyle “a great patriot and a wonderful human being” who died “exactly as he lived”–helping out a fellow American struggling with PTSD. She said she was “sickened” by Ventura’s “ridiculous lawsuit” that took $2 million from Kyle’s widow and children.

Unlike others who took Jesse Ventura’s side, Tammy Bruce echoed the sentiment, writing in her column this week that “there is a difference between the things we can do and things we should do”:

The revulsion many felt surrounding this adventure stems from the fact that Mr. Ventura opted to continue with the lawsuit after Kyle was murdered at a shooting range by a veteran he was trying to help cope with post-traumatic stress disorder.Mr. Ventura’s continuing his fight to the point of dragging the widow and children of the assassinated veteran to court, strikes the conscience as loathsome.

We all, of course, have a right to pursue what we choose. Yet there is a difference between the things we can do and things we should do. After all, when the issue is reputation, it’s not as though the very famous Mr. Ventura didn’t have options other than pursuing a lawsuit. This is where common decency enters the decision-making process.

Ginsburg: Who would you ‘rather see on the court than me?’

1 Comment

This is from The Hill.

I would like to see Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman or any other Conservative.

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged liberals to name a judge they would want on the Supreme Court over her.

Ginsburg, 81, told Reuters that President Obama would have been forced to choose a compromised nominee if she retired this year because of the partisan breakdown of the Senate.
“So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?” she asked rhetorically.

Ginsburg is a consistently liberal voice on the court, but some have advised her to resign so Obama could name a successor while Democrats control the Senate. Democrats are battling a tough election landscape to keep control of the upper chamber this year, and Republicans would need to net six seats to flip the majority.

The majority today is not filibuster-proof, and the changes Democratic leadership made last year to the rules regarding nominations does not apply to Supreme Court nominees.

Ginsburg’s 75-minute interview with the newswire was the third this week with different media outlets.

Ginsburg described a private lunch Obama invited her to last summer but dismissed the idea “he was fishing” for information about her potential retirement.

“Maybe to talk about the court,” she said when asked why she received the invitation. “Maybe because he likes me. I like him.”

In an earlier interview with Yahoo News, Ginsburg said she would stay on as long as she is able to think sharply and write quickly.

When asked if the politics of naming a successor should come into play, she said, “All I can say, I am still here and likely to remain for a while.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/214035-ginsburg-who-would-you-rather-see-on-the-court-than-me#ixzz39Mu3yW3W
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

WE’RE UP AGAINST EVIL’: Duck Dynasty Patriarch Blasts Obama, Tells GOP to ‘Get Godly

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Post.

Phil Robertson is correct America has turned its back on God.

Not all Americans have turned away from God.

We are doing what God said not to do with shedding of innocent blood by aborting babies as well as calling good evil and evil good.

Screen Shot 2014-05-30 at 9.22.42 AM

photo credit Clash Daily

Isaiah 5:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Proverbs 6:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

 

NEW ORLEANS — “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson on Thursday urged his fellow Republicans to bring their party back to God as it seeks its way forward.

Speaking to the Republican Leadership Conference here, the bearded Louisianan said the party and the country have moved too far away from the founding fathers’ vision of religion’s role in American government — and that the current version of the separation of church and state is a “lie.”

“GOP, you can’t be right for America if you’re wrong with God,” Robertson said. “You want to turn the Republican Party around? Get Godly.”

Robertson spoke in a somewhat meandering fashion for about half an hour at the conference, where he was a late addition.

He recently courted controversy by telling a reporter that homosexuality could lead to bestiality and that he doesn’t remember things being so bad for African Americans prior to civil rights laws. He was briefly suspended from the TV network that airs his show, but was quickly reinstated after conservatives cried foul.

On Thursday, Robertson decried racism — “The color of your skin doesn’t determine the character of your person” — and later alluded to his unlikely role as a speaker at the GOP confab, recalling when conference organizers asked him to come.

“I guess the GOP may be more desperate than I thought to call somebody like me,” he said.

Robertson, who was introduced by Sarah Palin, closed the speech with a minutes-long prayer, said “Amen, I’m done,” and walked off.

5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

2 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

Obama and Holder need to be held accountable for the damage they have done to the rule of law.

Sadly because of their race they will get a pass.

 

 

When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you’re moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you’re moving toward anarchy. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. — John Wayne

 All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. — George Orwell

Tell me why any American should respect the law?

Because it’s moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it’s not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the “law” is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people’s lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you’re prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what’s left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren’t equally applied and don’t reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the “law” in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we’re likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.

 

1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn’t have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange was set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were KimJong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic. 

2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it’s so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren’t given any similar breaks. 

 Tea party activists…accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs. …The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17. “He’s sympathizing with them,” said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. “We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law.” Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.

When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law. 

3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn’t “illegal” anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven’t been charged with other crimes. According to Senator Jeff Sessions “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”

This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a “path to citizenship” fornon- Americans and it’s called following the law.

4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you’re lucky, maybe you’ll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn’t have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted TeaPartiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of usare forced to do when we face an audit. 

5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your state passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said: 

 I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.

…Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit — indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.

….I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.

When the “law” becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it’s not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they’re in charge, it’s not going to end with Obama.

 

Sarah Palin Fires Back at Holder On Gun Control Bracelets: ‘You Don’t Want to Go There, Buddy’

2 Comments

This is from Independent Journal Review.

Go Momma Grizzly.

111005105002-sarah-palin-at-restoring-america-story-top

 

Sarah Palin is not a fan of Attorney General Eric Holder’s idea for gun control bracelets or fingerprint identification on firearms. Those were among Holder’s proposals at a Congressional hearing on Friday:

Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe… by making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.

Palin unloaded online, posting fighting words with a picture implying ‘I got your bracelets right here’:

 

1965670_10152346587588588_1541635096402641748_o

 

Hey Eric, these are my identifying bracelets: One honors our military; One honors independent Americans who have a healthy distrust of Washington’s permanent political class and who will fight against elitists hell-bent on fundamentally transforming the USA;

And one celebrates the year 1791 – that glorious year our Bill of Rights came to be, with the cross and bones symbol representing our Founders’ “Death to Tyranny” commitment, and on each side you’ll see symbols of my faith. Complete with Swarovski crystals, I might add.

Eric, you can replace my identifying bracelets with your government marker when you pry them off my cold, dead wrists.

And, Eric, “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” – Sarah Palin

And that’s all that really needs to be said about that…

 

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: