White House, gun ban groups conspire to exploit Sandy Hook anniversary

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

The antigun crowd is shameless POS’s that exploit human misery.

If someone at Sandy Hook Elementary School was armed 

The death toll would have been less

Sadly Sandy Hook Elementary School is a gun free zone.

Like so many other schools and businesses. 


A blockbuster revelation yesterday by Politico shows the depth of hypocrisy being practiced by gun prohibition lobbying groups and the Obama White House to exploit the anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy, while condemning pro-rights groups for allegedly doing the same thing; something of a vindication for a Bellevue-based gun rights advocate.

Almost immediately after Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, announced that Dec. 14 had been picked for “Guns Save Lives Day,” he was condemned by anti-gunners for trying to use the anniversary for political gains. Thanks to Politico’s report, that shoe is now on the other foot, precisely where Gottlieb had predicted it would be.

While reporting that Vice President Joe “Shotgun” Biden has been sidelined in the administration’s gun control efforts, Politico noted in the fourth and fifth paragraphs that, “Officials from the White House Office of Public Engagement, which reports to senior Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, are now carrying the administration’s gun control efforts. OPE officials hold a regular meeting with the major gun control groups known as the Gun Violence Table.

“The weekly sessions often include OPE Director Paulette Aniskoff or official Paul Monteiro along with representatives from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, the Center for American Progress, Organizing for Action and Americans for Responsible Solutions,” Politico added.

But it is not until the sixth paragraph that the reason for these strategy sessions is revealed: “The groups are coordinating a November lobbying effort and planning events to commemorate the first anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., massacre last December.”

In a press release Tuesday morning, Gottlieb noted, “For those lobbying groups to condemn gun rights organizations is at best disingenuous, if not downright despicable. They have known for weeks, perhaps months, that they were going to exploit this solemn anniversary, and it is clear now they do not want a different message competing with their efforts to erode our civil rights.”

Gottlieb was savaged over “Guns Save Lives Day” even after shifting the date to Dec. 15, coinciding with Bill of Rights Day. His condemnation was particularly bristling in the pages of the New York Daily News, but a reader of that story put the controversy in this context: “Yes, it may have been a bit crass for the SAF to have their rally on the anniversary of such a tragedy, yet it also worked: here we are — here the whole NATION is — talking about it! They couldn’t have bought that sort of press! And they do have a point: we need to WAKE UP and abolish feel good ‘gun-free zones’ and implement a true security plan. Teachers and faculty: don’t want to own or handle guns? No problem. Just don’t get in the way of those who DO, and/or get used to the idea of armed safety officers. It really is that simple.”

The Newtown Bee on Oct. 15 reported that the date had been changed, and then quoted First Selectman Pat Llodra, who stated, “For this group to use our Sandy Hook tragedy as a springboard for political action is disrespectful to our community of Newtown and is of particularly insensitive timing… I respect their right to promote their beliefs regarding guns. I ask that they respect our community and not use us for their purposes.

“We will not host a political rally of any stripe on that day,” she said, “and we hope that all such inclined persons understand that they and their agenda are not welcome. We ask for privacy and expect that all caring folks, including the media, will accommodate us. Those persons, who choose to not accede to our request to be left alone, (will) show the world their own moral and ethical fiber.”

Will that sentiment also apply to the gun ban groups and the White House OPE, which are planning the events “to commemorate” the tragic attack?

MEANWHILE, American Tactical Imports announced today that they will relocate from present headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. to Summerville, S.C. beginning next month. In a press release, ATI made it clear why the company is moving.

“ATI believes it is imperative that a firearms importer and manufacturer do business within a state that is friendly to the second amendment rights of the people,” the release states. “It is also important that ATI be close to the port-of-entry into the country for several of their imported products. The relocation to South Carolina ensures that both of these factors are met.”

“This move to South Carolina will help ensure a solid foundation for our company,” said ATI President Tony DiChario. “The relocation process will be smooth and we have ensured that the process will not affect customer service, product distribution or any other segment of our business. The people of South Carolina have welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new corporate home there.”




Obamacare: Forced home inspections for “high risk” patients ie; veterans, smokers and young mothers.

1 Comment

This is from Bradley County News.

The forced inspections of veterans,smokers and mothers under 21 is just

the tip of the iceberg.

Then the law is expanded to include gun owners,Conservatives,Tea Party Members

and any other undesirables as portrayed by the Obama Regime.


Obamacare: Forced home inspections for “high risk” patients ie;  veterans, smokers and young mothers.

With the Obamacare Healthcare Law going into effect October 1st, 2013, the Health and Human services agency has recently revealed that you may be subject to rigorous home  and safety inspections if you fall into these  “high-risk” categories below:

Families where mom is not yet 21.

Families where someone is a tobacco user.

Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

Freedom Outpost reports, “In 2011, HHS, Health and Human Services announced a $224 million grant will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.”

Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks.

A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.”

A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason.

It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents.

The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard  and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

The law under Obamacare was initially believed to be geared toward child and parents of high risk youths. But you can see where the added oversight and safety portions of the law could be interpreted any number of ways and the overreach necessary in the eyes of a federal agent, perhaps an IRS agent that will now be given enforcement powers under Obamacare.

Once the doors start opening and the forced inspections begin you can see where smokers, vets and gun owners could be targeted and the law expanded/interpreted to meet many agendas under the banner of safety and efficiency.

In South Carolina, Representative Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare.

The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing.

It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

Recently and a prime example of a law written for one purpose and it gets used for a variety of reasons. A mother of a child requested a second opinion regarding a diagnosis given to her child. Instead of granting the request they sent federal agents and police to her home.

World Net Daily, WND, has reported on one such case, which soon could be typical.

It’s the case of Baby Samuel Nikolayev, who was removed by police from his mother’s arms because his parents sought to obtain a second medical opinion about a health matter.

The mother, Anna Nikolayev, is one who does not trust the system.

Crying, she said: “You can’t break into my house and take my child. They ripped my child out of my arms.”

She told WND that she still worries CPS, Child Protective Services workers will find other reasons to take her child or other children wrongly.

Unless we speak up and out and demand that our elected representatives stop this onslaught and overreach by our federal government, we will continue to see this type of abuse and tyranny.

We will regretfully begin to acknowledge this as the norm and we will just lay in wait for the next abuse of power and the treadmarks on the backside of our freedoms will be all the more familiar and accepted.

We are in the midst of Socialist/Marxist turnover of our state and nation. Grab your seats! It’s fixing to get very interesting!

Excerpts and quotes from these powerful news outlets. All kudos to them for assisting in breaking this story. Please visit their sites frequently and share with your friends.

The Obamacare forced home visit link:


Black senator to Harry Reid: Opposing Obama is not racist

Leave a comment

This is from Bizpac Review.

I agree with Sen.Tim Scott‘s(R-SC) insight to the BS being spread by Dingy Harry.

I want to point out one thing to Sen.Tim Scott(R-SC) Dingy Harry and

his fellow racists  DemocRats thing you are a sell out and Uncle Tom.

The rhetoric of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is steeped in hyperbole, whether it’s a claim that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in years, or that tea party members are modern-day anarchists. His latest rant has resulted in him being called out by the only black member of the Senate — a Republican.

During a radio interview on Las Vegas station WNPR, Reid claimed that GOP opposition to the president’s policies and programs is rooted in racism. Sen.Tim Scott, R-S.C., appointed in December by Gov. Nikki Haley to fill the vacancy left by Jim DeMint, took exception and called for an apology, according to The Daily Caller.

“I am sincerely disappointed by continued attempts to divide the American people by playing to the lowest common denominator,” Scott said.

“Instead of engaging in serious debate about the failed policies of this administration – from the ever-increasing burdens created by the national health care reform plan to the tax and spend approach to economic recovery, along with countless others – Democrats are once again trying to hide behind a smokescreen,” he continued.

“Our country deserves more from those in Washington. I hope Senator Reid will realize the offensive nature of his remarks and apologize to those who disagree with the President’s policies because of one thing – they are hurting hardworking American families.”

The ball’s now in Reid’s court. Will he hammer it back to Scott, gently lob it over the net or simply keep it and walk home?


Nikki Haley: This South Carolina Governor Loves Her Guns

Leave a comment

This is from Politi-Chicks TV.

More Governors need to be like Nikki Haley.



There are some governors who support rigid gun control. But Nikki Haley is certainly NOT one of them. In fact, when it comes to gun control, Governor Haley has stated:

“Few things are as clearly defined as the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms. The right to bear arms was deemed so critical by our Founders that they spelled it out in absolute terms, and any governmental action that undermines that right is in turn undermining the very freedoms that built our great nation.

As governor, I will continue to fight against any government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.”

Haley also said she wants to make concealed weapons permits easier to obtain. She explainedI hold a Concealed Weapons Permit myself, and in this state makes it difficult for CWP holders to rightfully carry–we need to make the rules that govern carrying far more simple.”

Governor Haley recently enjoyed visiting FN Manufacturing in Columbia, SC. FN Manufacturing makes small arms, specializing in military and law enforcement weapons. Here’s a video of her tour:


Gov. Haley Shooting


Chapin teacher got $85,000 in flag stomping deal

1 Comment

This is from The State Newspaper Columbia,S.C.

This was a gutless move by the Lexington-Richland 5

school district.

They should have fought this scumbag to the bitter end.

Here is one more reason to do away with Teachers Unions.

You can not fire mental midgets with out a penalty.


CHAPIN, SC — Lexington-Richland 5 paid former Chapin High teacher Scott Compton √ $85,000 to avoid a legal challenge, part of a settlement that led to his resignation after he stomped on an American flag during a class lesson.

The payment is on top of Compton’s salary that will be paid through June 7, even though he has been out of the classroom since December. School officials did not provide Compton’s salary Monday, but their plan pays teachers with his 12 years’ experience $43,340 to $59,647 a year.

Lexington-Richland 5 taxpayers also will foot the bill for more than $31,500 in attorney fees, records obtained by The State newspaper under a state Freedom of Information Act request show.

The $85,000 payment was described as “a compromise and resolution of disputed claims,” the records say.

It was not disclosed as part of Compton’s resignation, announced March 27, a decision that the settlement says is for “family and personal reasons” not spelled out.

“Prior to his resignation, attorneys for Mr. Compton informed district attorneys that he had prepared a complaint for filing in federal court,” Lexington-Richland 5 spokesman Mark Bounds said.

“Based on financial considerations related to anticipated legal fees to defend such a suit, the insurer made the decision to make a monetary (offer) to Mr. Compton. He accepted the offer.”

Darryl Smalls, Compton’s attorney, declined comment Monday on any aspect of the settlement.

In accepting the payment, Compton agreed not to pursue a legal challenge to how school officials sought his dismissal by seeking damages for claims that include defamation, emotional distress and breach of contract.

As part of the settlement, Lexington-Richland 5 admitted no liability in seeking to fire Compton.

Compton’s resignation is not an admission of wrongdoing, and he is guaranteed a letter of recommendation for future employment, records say.

He also is free to seek unemployment benefits without objection from Lexington-Richland 5.

Compton’s stomping of the flag last fall set off a furor in the community in northern Lexington County.

Some educators and military veterans split on whether dismissal was merited.

Superintendent Stephen Hefner sought to fire Compton, saying the stomping was the latest incident in what Hefner said was a pattern of poor judgment.

Lexington-Richland 5 has no standards for treatment of the flag, but school officials say Compton violated conduct expected of teachers.

Compton, in statements through his lawyer, said the action was not intended to be disrespectful but an effort to promote discussion with students on how the nation is much more than its symbols.

“We’re glad this issue is resolved,” Bounds said. “Its resolution is in the best interest of the district, our teachers and the students we serve.”

Read more here:




Toy Gun Permits?

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

I am not surprised by this wacky law in York,S.C.

I moved to South Carolina in late 1988.

A repel of several blue laws  that would happen on January 1,1989.

Made it legal to buy on Sunday men’s socks,men’s underwear

women’s pantyhose,shoe laces and light bulbs.

South Carolina had several other blue laws that were repeal

over the next three years I lived there.


My Mom lives in a small historic town full of old houses and families whose lineage traces back to the founding of the town. However, rules and regulations are as much a part of that town as the sidewalks they walk and the antique chifforobes they hang their clothes in.

Doing some research for Mom about her small town, York, South Carolina, I found something that amazed me in the town’s ordinances. The ordinances of her town state in part:

Sec. 28-281. – Discharging firearms, air rifles and toy guns

“The discharging of firearms within the city, the discharging or shooting of air rifles in the city and the discharging or shooting of toy guns on any of the streets of the city is prohibited; provided, however, that the city chief of police [sic] is authorized to issue temporary permits permitting the discharge of firearms and air rifles within the city, if in the opinion of the chief of police [sic], such permission is necessary to protect property within the city from animals or fowl. The permit must state the purpose for discharging firearms, or air rifles, briefly describe the property to be protected, set forth the date such discharging is permitted and shall be issued only to a person 21 years of age or older who has a valid hunting license. [my bolding and italics]“


I kid you not: “shooting of toy guns” and the Chief of Police needs to issue a permit. “Toy guns” is not defined within the ordinance the “toy guns” statement could cover everything from paint ball guns and cap guns to water pistols. Water pistols are “discharged” or “shot” to make the water come out: so a water pistol is included.

In the City of York, a seven-year-old has to have a permit from the Chief of Police in order to go outside and have a squirt gun fight with his six-year-old brother if they leave the confines of their own yard. That’s IF the Chief of Police considers a squirt gun fight necessary for theprotection of property within the city from animals or fowl. That’s what the ordinance says. Unbelievable.

The whole idea is repugnant to me. A portion of the Second Amendment states,

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


Would the City of York, SC, even recognize those words: even for a squirt gun? Or maybe the words don’t apply to kids playing with squirt guns in the City of York. Of course, why would the Second Amendment apply?

Our Founding Fathers admittedly did not have squirt guns in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I seriously doubt that they even thought of the concept of squirt guns. Maybe that’s the reason City of York accepts the limitations?

Why else would they do something like that? Was this ordinance in reaction to a specific incident that happened years ago and the ordinance just hasn’t been amended yet? Or could it be that it’s part of the effort of the left to make our children afraid of guns? An effort to make them part of the hate gun crowd so that they won’t want a Second Amendment right when they’re older?

To tell you the truth, their motivations are not the problem. The problem is the fact that the law exists. The limiting of even “toy guns” limits freedom from a very young age.

It limits freedom and gets our children used to the idea of being incapable of “discharging” or “shooting of toy guns”: which leads to the acceptance of limits on the Second Amendment when they are adults. Limited freedom — of any sort — in childhood leads to acceptance of a limited freedom as an adult. If they grow up that way, they’re less likely to know what they don’t have.

When you have a law that limits even children having a squirt gun war that may leave their own yard and wander into the empty lot next door, across the street into their friend’s yard, or anywhere else within the city limits without a permit from the Chief of Police, there’s a problem with freedom in America.


“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” — Edmund Burke


In York, it looks to me as though the good men have all done nothing. This in the state of Nikki Haley?


SC House Approves Bill Criminalizing Enforcement Of ‘Obamacare’

Leave a comment

This is from WSSC CBS 3 Charlotte,N.C.

 Stand Strong South Carolina do not bend an inch.

Obamacare must be defeated on the state level.

All of the Republican Governors need to follow

Gov.Haley’s brave lead.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley waves on stage during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on Aug. 28, 2012 in Tampa, Fla. (credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley waves on stage during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on Aug. 28, 2012 in Tampa, Fla. (credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


COLUMBIA, S.C. (CBS Charlotte/AP) — The South Carolina House approved a bill Wednesday criminalizing the implementation of President Obama’s health care law in the state.

The Republican-controlled House voted 65-39 on the Freedom of Health Care ProtectionAct.

The act renders “null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.”

“This kind of victory occurs when the grassroots across the State come together and coalesce,” Chris Lawton, spokesman for the Greenville Tea Party, told The Greenville Post. “I could not be prouder.”

The bill declares “Obamacare” unconstitutional – despite the Supreme Court ruling last year that the Affordable Health Care Act was constitutional — and that there will be criminal penalties for enforcing the law.

Gov. Nikki Haley earlier this year said that the state will not implement the nation’s health care law.

Connecticut expanded early under ‘Obamacare’ and just reported a $190 million Medicaid deficit – in spite of subjecting their citizens to a massive tax increase,” Haley said during the State of the State address. “California just raised taxes in part to cover their Medicaid deficit and yet needs $350 million more to pay for ‘Obamacare’ next year. That’s not us. That’s not South Carolina.”

On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee refused to expand Medicaid eligibility to more poor adults as part of the state budget.

A 13-10 vote defeated Democrats’ attempt to insert the expansion into the Senate’s budget proposal for 2013-14. The committee is crafting its spending plan this week.

The proposal came a day after Democrats grilled Medicaid director Tony Keck on his reasons for opposing an expansion under the federal health care overhaul. But senators didn’t debate each other Thursday.

Senate Minority Leader Nikki Setlzer said a protracted debate was unnecessary since senators knew their positions.

Haley, along with House Republican, also oppose extending the government health care programs to hundreds of thousands of additional poor adults.

The House budget plan includes money for Keck’s initiatives aimed at improving health.


A Creative Solution to the Gun Debate

Leave a comment

This is from Young Patriots.

When I lived in South Carolina they had a law covering armed

robbery the perpetrator  would get 25 to life.

So why not have a similar law nation wide.

While the petition is a good idea Obama is to much of an

ideolog  to ever in act such a law.


We got an email this week from a 2nd amendment-loving citizen who started a White House petition. The people behind this petition came up with the idea to stop criminals with guns by creating legislation that would sentence felons, convicted with guns, to automatic life in prison.

The petition’s creator said, “Take guns from criminals instead of lawful citizens.”

Sounds a little crazy, right? When I first read that, I thought. Ok, ok, I see your point, but no one will go for that. After the idea floated around in my brain a little bit, I wondered just why this idea sounded so crazy.

Surely, it isn’t crazier than gun control advocates who look at gun violence and honestly think that the wise solution is to take guns away from the people who don’t even ever have a plan to use them unless attacked.

This prison for felons idea is NOT crazy. It’s logical. I wonder how many people will have the reaction that I did when I first read about it and shy away from signing it, thinking, “That’s just crazy. It would never pass.”

I think it sounds crazy just because we’ve never heard it before. It’s extreme. But, think about it – a felon has got a gun that he intends to kill people with…duh! HE is the one who should be disarmed and punished – not the 25-year-old woman living alone in an apartment in a shady neighborhood.

As a current parent and an ex-elementary school teacher, I can completely understand the reasoning behind this idea that the petition is based on. When I taught 4th grade, one of my main challenges was keeping twenty 9-year-olds behaving for 8 hours a day.

How would it make sense, as a teacher, for me to discipline the class by punishing the good kids when the defiant kids acted out? It wouldn’t!

If Bobby pushed Sammy, why would I punish Julie – a third uninvolved party? The sensible thing to do would be to punish Bobby – the boy who pushed!

I just really can’t understand around how people are pro-gun control – and I say that respectfully. This is not to be read with a flailing arms and a wagging finger. I really just don’t see the logic.

If you are pro-gun control, please share in the comments and explain why you are. I am always open to hearing what people believe and why.

I hate violence. And I know that those who are all for gun control seem to be against guns in general. But, the problem is that no matter how hard anti-gun people try to get guns out of the hands of people, lawbreakers will continue to break the law, and citizens will become less able to protect their families and more able to be controlled by the government.

Even the most wonderful trustworthy President can’t be trusted with unlimited power. Anyone is suceptible to a power trip. That’s why our founding documents were put into place – so that this country would remain in the control of “we the people.” That’s why the 2nd amendment is so important and foundational.

I’m open minded as I’m relatively new to the political realm. I listen to both sides. Even though I consider myself an unshakable liberty-minded conservative, I purposely watch conservative and liberal spin shows. I’m interested in the other side of the argument. And, honestly, for most issues, I “get it.” I get why liberals are pro-abortion and gay marriage.

The reason I’m not for those things is because of my Christian faith. I get why people are pro-welfare and national spending. They view it as a form of charity. I disagree with the liberal views, but I understand them.

I just don’t get the gun thing. Almost all of the most prominent anti-gun pundits and politicians have ARMED body guards! The average person can’t afford an armed body guard, so it gives you peace of mind knowing that IF someone broke into your house to hurt your family, you would be able to defend yourself.

This petition may sound “out there” since it’s not a common solution being thrown around, but even if all the petition does is get people thinking – its worth it. In order to even be displayed as a public petition on the White House website, it needs at least 150 signatures.

Before signing a White House petition, you’ll be directed to create an account and sign in.

Create an account:

Sign In:

Once you’ve done that, you can follow this link ( to sign the petition and make your voice heard in the gun control debate.

Read more:


‘Flawed’ Mark Sanford Plots Run at Redemption

Leave a comment

This is from News Talk 77 WABC.

Mark Sanford does not belong in the South Carolina General Assembly.

If Sanford gets elected the people of South Carolina are stupid.


‘Flawed’ Mark Sanford Plots Run at Redemption (Photo Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


(CHARLESTON, S.C.) — Mark Sanford is running for Congress and, as he makes his debut as a comeback candidate, the disgraced former governor of South Carolina told ABC News Radio affiliate WTMA in Charleston, S.C., that he’s a “flawed man,” owning up to his affair that roiled the political world two and a half years ago.

“I’m a sinner and I’m a flawed man but I think God can use flawed men or women and I hope that the voters in this case will choose to use a flawed man,” he told the station in an interview.

That baroque tale of his Argentine mistress, divulged at a July 2009 news conference after Sanford’s claims that he had been hiking on the Appalachian Trail, led to his resignation of the governorship and withdrawl from public life. Now, he’s running for South Carolina’s First Congressional District, and for political redemption.

Sanford, 52, is after the same seat he represented from 1995 to 2001, this time to replace former Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who was tapped by Gov. Nikki Haley to replace the retiring Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Sanford formally announced his bid Wednesday.

Sanford’s indiscretion became the talk of the political world in 2009, as veteran political observers mused that they had never witnessed a sex scandal quite so elaborate. A judge granted Jenny Sanford a divorce from her now-ex-husband in 2010, and Mark Sanford told WTMA that he didn’t want to talk much about his personal life. He is now engaged to the journalist he flew to Argentina to see in 2009.

“I don’t want to go down the soap opera,” Sanford said. “I lived the soap opera three years ago. All I want to say is I love the woman I’m engaged to and I’m going to marry her.”

Until his announcement, the possibility of Sanford’s comeback had been complicated by rumors that his ex-wife would run for the same seat. Insiders listed her as a potential candidate, and the former governor told WTMA that he sought her approval before entering the race himself.

“I went to the house and I talked to her and I said, ‘Look. if you want to do this, then I’m out,’” Sanford said. “I don’t think that there could be anything more ridiculous than a husband and wife running against each other for political office and she said she was out.”

NAACP Shows True Colors Against Only Black US Senator Because He’s Conservative

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

The soon to be United States Senator Tim Scott left the DemocRat Plantation.

The NAALCP is afraid soon to be Senator Scott will help others off the plantation.



South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has made the decision to appoint a replacement for retiring U.S. Senator Jim DeMintShe has chosen Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC), a very conservative Republican. He’s also happens to have dark skin, which would make him the only United States Senator who is black. So why would the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People oppose such a man? Precisely because he doesn’t go along with “their agenda.”

The Daily Caller reports,

Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

It seems that Shelton has a problem because Scott is a thoroughly conservative Republican. While claiming that his voting record “raises major concerns,” he failed to cite exactly what those concerns were. I have a feeling they have something to do with things like a perfect voting record when it comes to pro-life issues. Perhaps it’s his stand on the Second Amendment or maybe it has to do with the fact that he actually believes in the God of the Bible and marriage in the way that is defined in the Scriptures.

He did however, point to what she thought Scott would work towards and that was a vision of “small government.” Oh boy! That is exactly what the opposition to liberals and the NAACP want!

Shelton said, “Small government usually means, as it’s being described these days, the elimination of the role of government and support for initiatives and programs that are crucial for the African-American community.”

“When the discussions about small government were utilized by Ronald Reagan, he appointed Bill Bennett as the Secretary of Education. Bill Bennett had actually voted during his time in the House of Representatives to eliminate the Department of Education,” Shelton continued. “That’s not within the African-American community’s best interest.”

Not only that, but Shelton claims that Scott, by holding to the view of smaller government, would decrease the amount of federal assistance for housing, which he also claims would be a signal of abandoning civil rights regulations. Shelton added that Scott, “has demonstrated a record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the NAACP’s noted African-American community.”

Seriously? Why would a man with dark skin oppose civil rights? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest? Of course it would. He opposes no such thing. The opposition is against government dependency. Federal assistance for housing and other government goodies are not part of civil rights. The civil rights movement was over the issue of being treated equally, not special.

By the way, Rep. Scott is a Tea Party guy. That’s right, he’s one of those men that the left, along with the NAACP, claim are not welcome in the Tea Party!

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network in 2010, Rep. Scott said,

“Certainly I feel like I’m the tip of the arrow at times because certainly the national media wants to talk about the fact that I’m a black Republican and some people think of that as zany that a black person would be a conservative but to me what is zany is any person black, white, red, brown or yellow not being a conservative.”

“Sometimes you think to yourself man what is this for because there have been attacks simply because I’m a black conservative. If you think of everything Martin Luther King Jr. stood for which is content not color and then to be trashed in different places because you’re a conservative who happens to be black it just goes against the very concept that we are doing our very best to get to the day that the person is judged by the content of the character not the color of their skin.”

“I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person.”

And lest you think Scott was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he clears that up too. “It’s painful at times when people shoot at you because they can or because they look for things that aren’t real because you have a good story,” said Scott. “The truth is the story is good today. Absolutely good story. It wasn’t good living it. Let’s just be real. The fact of the matter is when you’re flunking out of High School its funny today because we made it right? I say “we” because me and the Lord. We made it. The fact is it wasn’t fun in the 9th grade. I mean my parents were divorced and I felt a sense of abandonment. It wasn’t fun growing up like that but God has been so faithful and merciful that Romans 8:28 actually works that when I discovered the truth of his word that it started bringing these pieces and jagged edges together and making smooth edges out of it and that all the things that I’ve gone through have now served me in a way that allows me to serve other people. That’s a miracle!”

But the NAACP doesn’t want to hear that. In fact, Shelton held out hope that Scott would “recognize that awesome responsibility (of working in the Senate) and that they would see “a change in how he votes and what he advocates for in a way more consistent with the NAACP.”

The truth is the NAACP’s agenda is anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-family anti-repsponibility, big government dependency and Rep. Scott will not adhere to their agenda. I think it’s a good thing that one’s character stands out the way Rep. Scott’s does, that even those who normally use the issue of skin color are completely beside themselves over the only black man being in the U.S. Senate is a conservative Republican. After all, Democrats claim to be the party of minorities. So much for that hot air!
Read more:


Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: