A Few Truisms To Start June With

Gun Control Madness - A LIttle Perspective

Left Wing Liberal Hypocrits ...

Up in arms (so to speak) about the national emergency produced by law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  So indignant about the horror of owning a gun, and the imminent threat it poses to everyone in America.  They've got to control guns ... they've got to regulate guns ...  they've got to know about all guns ... they've got to eliminate guns ...  all in the name of our own good.

Well ... PISS OFF!

If you on the left are SO concerned about reducing the number of unneeded deaths in this country, why don't you start addressing these first;

333,964       Children killed by Planned Parenthood in 2011
329,445       Children killed by Planned Parenthood in 2010
332,278       Children killed by Planned Parenthood in 2009
1,200,000    Childred killed by abortions in the US per year
54,500,000  Children killed by abortions in the US since 1973
120,000       Killed by doctor/hospital mistakes each year
4281            People killed in motorcycle accidents in 2009
10,228         People killed by drunk drivers in 2010
34                People killed in North America by bears since 2000
510              People murdered in Washington DC 2009-2011
1836            People murdered in Chicago since 2009
12                People murdered in Chicago from 1/1/13 to 1/6/13
19                Murdered by illegals released by Obama since 2009
39                People killed in the US by lightning in 2011
2800            People who choked to death on food in 2011 (estimated)

(Note that Chicago and Washington have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and have been under Democrat control for decades.  Perfect example of how well gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from their rights work to cut crime and violence!)

And on ... and on ...

I am in no way trying to make light on the recent tragedy, or any of the shootings that these evil, sick bastards have perpetrated.  I am trying to illustrate how selective the outrage is, and how it is being used to further a political agenda.  Liberals want strict gun control.  They see tragedies such as this, as infrequent as they are, as opportunities to rally support and try to force through their agenda in a panic.  This has been Obama's mode of operation since even before he got in office - portray everything as an emergency, that has to be dealt with immediately, don't look closely at what I'm doing, just trust me.  As his ex-CoS and current Murder Czar, Boss Rahm was famously quoted during his stay in the White House, 'Never let a crisis go to waste'. 

Democrats all over the country are trying to ram through gun control as quickly as they can.  They know that as the (deserved) horror of what happened in CT fades into the background, hot blood will cool and they will lose the momentum.  They also know that if they don't have the momentum, they will not have enough popular support to trash the 2nd Amendment.

Many, many people on the left are operating out of ignorance in their demands for gun control.  Mayor Doomburg of NYC was recently chastised by a TV interviewer because he did not know what a semi-automatic weapon was.  He told her that it was a weapon that you just hold down the trigger, and it keeps spewing out bullets.  Incredulously, she corrected him.  A female, blonde, TV interviewer knows more about the basics of guns than does a very public figure who is trying to ban them.  (Fully automatic weapons, such as Doomburg thought he was addressing, are already ILLEGAL in the United States, unless you go thorugh an extensive background and licensing procedure that is lengthy and costly.) 

Biden and Obama have publicly come out and threatened to attack the 'problem' through Executive Orders - bypassing Congress and the American People, and shitting on the Constitution.  Of course, their 'orders' would only involve guns themselves, nothing else - nothing addressing mental health, or Hollywood glorified gun violence, or video game violence, or violence promoted in rap music, or the complete and blatant attack on the traditional family unit in this country by their liberal buddies.

My personal opinion is that some things could be done to help prevent these tragedies from happening in the future.  Most of them have nothing to do with guns themselves, and hence will never be addressed.  But in the gun arena itself, I see where some rules could be added without denying our citizens their rights under the Constitution:

A waiting period for certain classes of firearms.

More stringent/complete background checks for purchases.

The elimination of Gun Show rules, that apparently bypass the background check process.

Magazine capacity.  You don't need a 30 round clip to go hunting - indeed, it is illegal to hunt with a clip containing more than 5 rounds almost everywhere already.  30 round clips are not practical for target shooting - they are heavy and get in the way.  Drum magazines - there is no practical reason for these to exist in the public realm.  10 round limit?  20?  I don't know.

A restriction on AP (armor piercing) ammo.  No one uses AP for hunting or target shooting.

In spite of what liberals would have you believe, there are a lot of gun regulations on the books now.  You can't just own any type of weapon you want.  Do some of those laws need to be revisited and perhaps made to work better?  Probably.  But the answer is NOT what our Pocket Hitler and his Brown Shirts are pushing for.  Remember, these clowns are the uber-smart a*holes who thought up and executed 'Fast and Furious' ...

And for you liberals who are freaking out on my listing of abortions above ... I HAVE a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms in my household.  It is expressly stated in the Constitution.  You do not have a Constitutional Right to have or perform an abortion - in spite of what a liberal activist court stated back in hippie times, the word ABORTION or any combination of words that conjure up the same meaning are not stated anywhere in the Constitution.  Period.

Update - The MOST heinous, evil gun control measure being thrown about by Obama and his Brown Shirts right now (in my opinion) is a National Gun Registry.  Gun types, magazine capacity, background checks - are all small issues when compared to the government requiring each and every gun owning citizen to register those weapons.  This would create a list of people, their locations, and the weapons they own, for the Government to use as it pleases. 

If, say, Obama in his fourth term decides he wants to drop down a Presidential Decree making a specific type of weapon illegal, he would have the database showing him where all of us are who own one - a roadmap he will use to confiscate them.  Or, perhaps, Hillary Clinton in 2018 decides that everyone who owns an AR-15 needs to pay a 50% tax to pay for health care - she would have the database needed to send out the IRS after us.

If the Registry is made public information, as it is in multiple municipalities/counties/states already, then evil left wing a*holes can get your information, and do with it what they want - like publish it for everyone, including criminals, to see.  You see, that's already happened ...

If the information is there, it will be misused.  There is absolutely NO positive result from a National Firearms Registry.  It is all about controlling us, the citizens of this country.

I urge all of you to call/write/email/scream at your Congressional and Senate reps to express your outrage that our government is even contemplating doing this.

Update II - NRA membership has grown by more than 100,000 since Obama made his post-CT statements.  If you try to order an AR-15 right now from a manufacturer, you're looking at a 6 month wait, minimum, due to order backups.  There are over 1,000,000 AR-15 30 round magazines on back order right now with a single manufacturer (Magpul - the BEST magazines out there!).  Companies that make these items are producing them as fast as they can.  People who had no interest in owning one of these weapons have gone out and gotten one, or are trying to get one - due directly to Obama's efforts to eliminate them.  You have an overbearing government try curb your Constitutional Rights, and the natural instinct is to fight back - Obama says you don't need that gun, the natural response is to go out and get one. 

In six months, if Obama somehow manages to outlaw the AR-15 and the others guns in its class, it won't matter.  There will be so many of them in the hands of the people that there won't be a need to manufacture or sell any more of them.  Dumb ass liberals ...

I Used To Like This Guy's Commercials ...

The most interesting man in the world has transformed into just another useless liberal.  I really did like his commercials (though the beer tastes like carbonated piss).

Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor, is hosting a fundraiser for His Highness next Tuesday.  I would make an educated guess from that fact that Mr. Goldsmith is definitely not a Reagan Conservative.

(Goldsmith ... and here I thought he was supposed to be some kind of Spanish superstud ...)

The Madness Of The Lunatic Left

A startling example of the lunatic left's agenda popped up in a US District Court in Boston.  Judge Mark Wolf ruled in favor of a taxpayer funded sex change operation for a convicted murderer.

Robert Koselik was convicted of the 1990 murder of his wife, and is serving a life sentence in the Mass State Pen.  This creature started hormone treatments in prison (tax payer funded), and lives in an all male prison.  Special 'accomodations', all costing taxpayer money, have to be constantly in place to protect the now "Michelle' Koselik from its fellow prisoners.

Koselik first sued the Mass Dept of Corrections in 2000.  Judge Wolf ruled in favor of everything short of surgery to accomdate Koselik's desire to become 'female'.  Koselik again sued in 2005, and added electrolysis treatments to the medically 'mandatory' treatments he was seeking.

Judge Wolf, in a 126 page ruling, ordered prison officials to give Koselik what it wants, citing the creature's 'serious medical need'.  Judge Wolf declined to give any guidance to the officials on where 'it' would be housed after surgery, or how the procedures and following 'accomodations' were to be paid for.  In other words, Mass taxpayers will pay for every bit of it, and be on the hook for any future treatments and whatever special security and housing arrangements that have to be made in order to keep 'it' safe while it lives out its life behind bars.  (In essence, the prison will have to build a seperate 'prison within a prison' to keep it safe from the other prisoners.)

Judge Wolf was appointed to his position on the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1985.  One wonders what Reagan would think about that appointment if he had the chance to see this ruling.  One also wonders what the people of Mass think about their money being squandered on bullshit like this ...

Update - a day after Judge Wolf's decision, leaders of the LGBT movement came out and praised it for advancing the cause of rights for transgendered.  Wow - your movement is pretty pathetic if your poster child is a convicted murderer.  These people completely missed the point. 

The point of all the uproar over this is the fact that taxpayer money is being used to provide this ELECTIVE procedure and its lifelong results to a PRISONER who was convicted of murder.  If this creature was a private citizen, out and free, and paid for this with his own money/insurance, there's no problem at all.

Obama Will Be Fundraising When Isaac Hits Nawlins

On Wednesday, Aug. 29th, Hurricane Isaac will make landfall over Louisiana.  Manistream media is having a field day touting this as the 7th anniversary of Katrina, the day (actually it was days) on which George W. Bush killed New Orleans.  Liberal media hacks all over TV, radio, and the internet have been slamming Republicans, dredging up the horror of what Bush did, and his racist attack on black voters in Nawlins ...

Some liberal pundits have strongly criticized the GOP for continuiong to have its convention in Tampa in the face of such massive destruction.  They should have cancelled the convention out of deference to the impending thousands of victims ...

Their saviour, His Highness Obama, on the other hand, will be glued to the impending crisis like a hawk, ready to do whatever must be done to save His people.  Obama will be bunkered down, personally directing all local, state, and Federal disaster aid, personally making sure that Nawlins is saved.

Oh ... wait ...

President Obama, instead of being in the White House situation room, closely controlling the disaster response during landfall on Wednesday, will actually be in Charlottesville, VA.  Is this a forward command post, to get him closer to the doom?  Not exactly ...

Obama is campaigining, and hosting a fund raiser for his campaign.

If the levees break, and Nawlins is flooded again, do you think any of the liberal mainstream media is going to complain about what Obama was doing when it happened?  Not a chance in hell.  What they will blame is George W. Bush - guaranteed!

Update - It's now Thursday, Isaac is moving its way up into the valley, and New Orleans is still there - thank goodness.  Louisiana was hit hard by flooding, and about half the state is without power, so the situation is still serious - despite the lack of dead, floating bodies the mainstream media was hoping for. 

Barack Obama has been strangely quiet.  Not a hint of him in Louisiana, not even a flyover of the flooded areas.  For the sake of the people of Louisiana, that's a good thing, but the Bush vs. Obama hypocrisy is staggering.

Update II - Mitt Romney left the GOP convention and went directly to New Orleans to view the problems being encountered firsthand.  Barack Obama is scheduled to visit New Orleans next Monday, a rearrangement of his campaign/fund raiser schedule made only after his handlers found out that Romney was going.

You watch - manistream media, what little they will report of it, will ridicule Romney's visit as a political stunt.  They will applaud Obama for showing compassion with his visit.  The fact that the President will have waited 5 days to visit, while a candidate broke his schedule to get there in only 2 days, will be ignored.  I seriously doubt Chris Matthews will utter one word questioning Obama's absence.

Dishonorable Disclosures

Traitors in the White House, leaking national security information for political gain.  Disgusting.  Those who are guilty of this should be in jail.

Thanks to Outlaw13 for the heads up on this.

CODE PINK - Just Pathetic

Code Pink is just another rallying point for a bunch of bat shit crazy liberals, who just happen to be women.  You know, if far left liberal 'groups' wanted to be taken seriously, they wouldn't be putting on these faces in public:

If you act like an idiot, dress like an idiot, and your message is idiotic, guess what?  You are an idiot!

Obama's 1984 - Well Underway

The left's vision of a society where a small group of government ideologs control everything in our lives, because they know better than we do, is continuing to advance whether we want it to or not.

The latest is more insanity from the mind of Michael Bloomberg, Lunatic-In-Chief of New York City.

Bloomberg has decided he and his close advisors are going to save New Yorkers from themselves.  Bans on trans fats in restaurants, bans on smoking, bans on drinks containing sugar, bans on salt, rules concerning how big a bag of popcorn can be sold, etc.  While some of what he proposes and puts into place in a dictatorial fashion might be good for a person to decide for themselves, it is not government's right or responsibility to micromanage every detail of our lives.  Period.

Those ont he left are anxiously observing his efforts.  Make no mistake - they would love to institute control over us like this all across our nation.

Bloomberg's latest adventure in government overreach?  Forcing new mothers to breast feed.  Seriously ...

The Latch on NY program will restrict access to formula in New York hospitals.  The purpose is to force moms who have delivered in those facilites to breast feed their kids, rather than feed them formula.  Formula will no longer be given in new mom kits.  Formula will be held behind locked cabinets, and controlled with the same zeal as prescription drugs.  Formula will be provided to moms only upon request, one can at a time, if the mom's doctor will provide a medical reason for formula rather than breast milk, and will be delivered only after a hospital administrator has given a speech to the mom on how bad she is for giving formula to their child.  Every can or bottle of formula delivered will be documented in patient records, just like prescription drugs.

A spokesperson for Staten Island University Hospital (which is embracing the new edict), Lisa Paladino stated that "The key to getting more moms to breastfeed is making the formula less accessible.  This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication.  The nurse's aid can't just go get another bottle."

So, you stupid moms - you aren't capable of making the right decision.  Your government has decided that you must breastfeed your child, no matter what you think, wish, or believe.  How do you like that?  If they can force you to breastfeed, one of the most intimate aspects of your personal life, what else can they force you to do?

This isn't some wild proposal that has no chance of being put into action.  This is a new rule in the city of New York, and it will be put into place on September 3.  I wonder how many New Yorkers actually know this is being done.

Update - Where the hell is the National Organization for Women on this?  The NAGs are militantly opposed to any restrictions at all on a woman's choice whether or not to abort a child.  Shouldn't they be rioting in NY's streets over this restriction on a woman's choice of how to feed their child?  (Of course they won't - NAGs are just a bunch of haard left liberals who are using woman's rights to hide their efforts.)

Where is the ACLU on this, and Bloomberg's other edicts restricting personal freedom?  Aren't they against all government oversight and control?  (Of course not - they just want to forward a liberal agenda, and are using civil rights and other causes to hide behind.)

Tax Returns? Really?

The hub-bub over the past few weeks about Mitt Romney's (so far) refusal to release his tax returns (except for 2010, and 2011, which he says will be released when finalised) is such bullshit.

I mean, really.  Here the left is clamoring for those returns to be made public, with all kind of wild and inappropriate speculation going on.  We've got news anchors and pundits in the main stream media suggesting there must be something illegal or immoral in them, or he wouldn't be hiding them.

On top of that, we've got the chairperson of the DNC publicly stating that she feels he may have committed a felony because of his signature on some documents - a calculated statement made on purpose, even though the premise has been proven false for months.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

How about focusing on this - your current President, His Lord Highness Obama, repeatedly broke the law by smoking pot and snorting cocaine too many times to count while in high school and college.  He was proud of that, and bragged about it in his own autobiographies.  His high school buds have come out and confirmed it, stating that Obama was some kind of pot smoking god.

 Not a single ounce of evidence that Mitt Romney has done anything immoral, much less illegal, and the narrative is focused on him, rather than an admitted criminal substance abuser?  How twisted is that?

(Anyone remember the Democrat uproar in the 2004 election over George W's one DWI while in college?  That was supposed to disqualify him from being President, wasn't it, according to them?  Where are those Holier than thou Dems now?)

Liberals Should Be Outraged

We hear constantly that liberals hate what big money is doing to politics.  All we hear is how Wall St. bigwigs and rich white people buy influence with Republicans.  How special interest groups and lobbyists corrupt the party, and screw the little guys.

Well, here is another example, and boy, should they be pissed off about it.

Mitt Romney is having a fund raiser for his campaign this weekend.  A well known conservative bigwig is hosting the event at his home.  The price tag to just get in the door is a $40,000 donation to Romney's campaign.  It is estimated that $15,000,000 will be raised for his election effort just during that one evening.  Representatives of dozens of special interest groups will be there, hoping for a little face time with Mitt to forward their agendas.  Cameras and news folks will not be allowed inside, so they can't report on what is said by whom during this outrageous display of monetary gluttony.

Occupy whatevers ought to be camped outside of this home protesting this outrage.  Democrats all across the country should be denouncing this horrible example of Republican/Conservative twisting of our political process.  It is horrible, and they should be doing everything they can to stop it.

Correct?  Am I misrepresenting what their reaction should be?

Well, digest this ...

This event is actually happening this weekend, with just a couple of small details differing from what I stated above.  The event is being held at George Clooney's house in Hollywood, and the guest of honor is Barack Obama.  His campaign will receive that 15 million dollar infusion. 

All that money is coming from rich people, mostly Hollywood liberals, the vast majority of whom are white.  They are in no way shape or form what liberals call the '99 percenters'. 

If anyone on the left is reading this, please ask yourself this question (and you can be honest, no one but you will know your answer).  You would really be pissed off at Mitt Romney if he did this.  Are you just as pissed at Obama, since he is actually doing it?

Mr. Obama, What Is Your Definition Of Marriage?

Now that the Pres has come out and endorsed gay marriage, I have to ask him (and other liberals) - where does it end?  What is your definition of marriage?

Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman - period.  There have been homosexual relationships throughout time, but they have never been recognized as marriage.  The basis of this is both civil and religious.

So, Mr. Obama, according to you and your friends, what is the defnintion of marriage you wish us to use?  Is it the recognized union of two people?  If so, why?

If the legal definition of marraige can be expanded from a man and a woman to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, why must it be limited to that?

If you do not allow for other unions to be recognized, then you are discriminating, aren't you?

How about polygamists?  Having more than one wife or husband is illegal, and frowned upon by almost everyone in society.  Why?  If a man and a man can be wed, why not a man, a woman, and another woman?  Or three men?  Or six women and a man? 

How about the man who is in love with his Japanese robot girlfriend and wants to marry 'her'?

How about the woman who is in love with her German Shepherd?

How about the man who wants to marry his sweetheart, who died 4 years ago?

How about the Jack-in-the-Box commercial guy who wants to marry some bacon?

How about the car nut who wants to marry his hotrod?

All of these sound silly, yes.  But, to a vast majority of Americans, the idea of two women marrying sounds just as silly.

You may say I'm being silly and sarcastic.  I am not.  If you change the rule to meet the wishes of one group of minorities, then how can you say you won't change that same rule to meet the wishes of other minorities? 

You watch - if somehow same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, someone else (polygamists probably) are going to be the next group to jump up and claim discrimination, demanding the right to exercise their wishes and have it recognized by the government.  The government and society will have no legal or moral grounds to oppose them, given that the time tested definition of marriage has been thrown out the window.

Obama Endorses Same Sex Marriage - Finally

President Obama has finally come out and publicly declared his support for same sex marriage.  We've known all along that this was his position, but he has refused to state it due to the political firestorm that will result.

His far left base has been after him to do this since before his election.  His handlers have refused to let him do so, because gay marriage is a lightening rod social issue.  A lot of Democrats are not in favor of gay marriage, and this has the potential to cost him a lot of votes in November.  It will not gain him any votes, since obviously the vast majority of those in favor of same sex marriage were going to vote for him anyway.

Consider that in the 30 states where gay marriage has come up on the ballot, it has been defeated in every one of them.  North Carolina is the latest, just this past weekend, where it was soundly defeated.

Obama risks alienating a lot of Blacks, Hispanics, and middle of the road white Democrats with this proclamation.  It will be interesting to see how he tapdances around it, trying to limit the damage.

I applaud Obama for coming out and publicly stating this - not because I agree or disagree with him on the issue, but because for this one time at least, he appears to be honest about an issue no matter what the political focus groups are telling him.

This Is How Liberals Debate ...

A prime example of how liberals react when confronted by someone who does not agree with them:



Bob Beckel, who has been known as one of the more level headed liberal talking heads, loses it when he hears something he doesn't like, on live TV. And, he refuses to apologize for it. (He did, however, later apologize for his profanity through Twitter - no doubt after his producers informed him of his predicament).

The Buffett Rule - What A Bunch Of Horses**t

By now you've heard His Highness touting the Buffett Rule as the fix all for the country's budget problems. He's out giving speeches about how the tax code has to be 'fair', how millionaires must pay their 'fair share'. Well, I agree with that in principle, but Obama's reasons have nothing to do with 'being fair'.

The 'Buffett Rule' is no rule at all, just a suggestion from billionaire Warren Buffett that he doesn't pay enough taxes. It is not legislation, it is not a bill before Congress. It is smoke and mirrors designed to convince the '99%s' that anyone making over a million a year should pay at least 30% in income taxes. This has become a rallying cry for Obama, and the tip of the spear in his class warfare strategy for winning re-election.

A couple of facts stand in the way of this:

First, Warren Buffett is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion dollars. Not exactly a member of the '99%ers', is he?

Warren Buffett, and his various entities, owe the Federal Government more that $1 billion dollars in back taxes. Rather than happily delivering a check to the IRS, his army of lawyers is fighting tooth and nail to keep from paying the bill.

IF the Buffett rule was implemented in full, the amount of money raised would be about $5.1 billion. The Federal Government burns through more than that in 2 hours. For Obama to be suggesting to us that implementation of the Buffett Rule would solve this country's fiscal disaster is an absolute lie.

Warren Buffett and his companies have made hundreds of millions of dollars during the Obama regime directly as a result of Obama's decisions. I am not suggesting anything dirty has happened between Buffett and Obama - even though it looks suspicious, I have no evidence that would specifically indicate collusion. However, for Buffett and Obama to suggest they are at the forefront of 'fairness' while making tons of money is complete bullshit.

Those on the left decry how the rich Republicans running Wall Street are ruining the country, raping the 99%s of their money and their future in order to pad their own corporate pockets. The fact is that most of the Wall Street establishment is on the political left in this country. Those are RICH, WHITE, MALE DEMOCRATS running Wall Street.

I haven't heard anyone from the mainstream media ask Buffett directly how much he pays in taxes. What is his current tax rate?

There is nothing standing in the way of Warren Buffett or his rich, liberal pals writing checks to the IRS for however many billions of dollars they wish to give to the Federal Government so that they can see themselves as 'fair'. No law, no rule, prevents George Soros from signing over 95% of his wealth, for the good of the country. Why isn't anyone asking these guys why they haven't done this?


Oh, and by the way ... If we want to talk about fairness in regards to taxes, lets talk about the 48% of legal citizens in this country who pay nothing in income taxes? Those Millions who pay nothing, yet benefit fully. Not to mention the additional millions of illegals who benefit and also pay nothing.

Where is the fairness in that?

Update - The supposed trigger that made Warren Buffett come out and complain he wasn't paying enough taxes was the supposed fact that his secretary (who makes over $200K) paid a higher overall income tax rate than Buffett himself. I don't know if that's true, or if it was a script written for him by the White House. In any case, if made great left wing headlines - secretary pays more taxes than billionaire.

Well, Buffett is not the only one who can make this claim. Turns out Obama's own secretary in the White House (who makes about $95K) paid a higher tax rate than the Obamas did last year. The Obamas, who made about $400K last year, paid an income tax rate of a hair over 20%. They took advantage of tax laws and shelters to keep from having to pay the higher rate that would have applied to their income bracket - nothing illegal. Their secretary paid around 24%.

Obama is out trying to make political points by touting the Buffett Rule as a way to achieve tax fairness - all while publicly violating that exact example of fairness - and oh by the way not only not apologizing for it, but stating there was nothing wrong in taking advantage to the tax loopholes to cut their IRS bill.

Hypocrites.

Unhinged Lunatic Is One Of Obama's Good Buddies

This guy is a freaking Nazi (and I don't use that term lightly at all). Meet David Brock.

Mr. Brock runs Media Matters, an internet website that promotes iself as a media watchdog group. In reality, it is the front for a group of far left wing kooks who use the internet to spread hatred, personal attacks, and lies about anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the path to a Socialist utopia.

Mr. Brock has regular contact with the White House, face to face meetings and weekly conference calls to coordinate strategy. Media Matters is frequently used as a 'source' to validate 'news' reports for the mainstream media. Recently, an employee of MSNBC admitted publicly that almost all of their material for their prime time 'news' and opinion shows is provided by Media Matters.

Mr. Brock is such a looney tune that he employs armed bodyguards to protect him from what he describes as 'right wing sniper squads'. The man is completely off his rocker. His closeness to the Obama Administration and his mush-brained liberal internet followers make him a danger.

The Daily Caller has done a series of investigative reports on this lunatic, his ties to the White House, and blatant personal attacks on anyone who he disagrees with. I suggest a visit to their site to take a look at who Obama considers a valued ally in his fight for Sociaism.

Update - Fox News has obtained legal documents laying out a paymend Mr. Brock made to his former gay live in partner totalling $850,000. The money, according to court documents Brock filed at the time, was a blackmail payment. His 'friend' claimed to have information concerning Media Matters donors, payments, and tax dodging - all information Brock did not want in the hands of the IRS. The fact Brock paid out such a sum of money to keep the information away from the IRS would seem to indicate he's probably guilty of something serious.

No big deal for members of the kook left - just corrupt business as usual.

So, Samuel L. Jackson Is A Racist

Actor Samuel L. Jackson came out and admitted he voted for Obama in 2008 because he was (and remains) black.

Voting for or against someone simply because of their skin color is nothing but racism, isn't it? We've heard constant complaints for the past 3 years about how anyone who voted against Obama, or opposes his policies has to be a racist. It's a tired staple of the Democrat Party - anyone who stands in His way is racist.

So, Mr. Jackson comes out and says he did what thousands, if not millions, of other people did in 2008 - voted FOR Obama because of his skin color. That means they voted AGAINST McCain because he is white, right?

I don't hear the NAACP, or LULAC, or MoveOn.org, or Obama Administration officials condemning Mr. Jackson for his racist comment. You don't hear much about it at all, do you?

Let me ask this ... if someone says they voted for McCain because he is white, they'd be branded an evil racist, wouldn't they? Of course, they would. If someone says they voted against Obama because he is black, they would be branded the worst kind of racist, equal to the old KKK members who burned crosses, wouldn't they? No question.

Mr. Jackson told the truth, which he should be commended for. He should be condemmed for the racist action itself. The fact he isn't being crucified in the mainstream media for this is completely expected, completely biased, and completely dispicable.

If you are a liberal minority, you can say anything you damn well please, no matter how racist or offensive it is.

Full disclosure - I respect Mr. Jackson for his craft, he is one of my favorite actors (no matter what color he is).

More full disclosure - I voted against Obama in 2008 because he is the closest thing to a Socialist ever to run for the office, and it was apparent even back then. I knew what was going to happen to our country, and wanted to prevent it. I'd have done so whether the man was black, white, brown, yellow, red, blue, green, pink, or purple with yellow polka-dots. His race doesn't matter, his politics and beliefs do!

The Stupidity of the Komen Uproar

The amount of bullshit flying in relation to the Komen Foundation stopping further funding of Planned Parenthood is an instructive lesson in liberal-think.

The Komen Foundation is all about fighting breast cancer in women, isn't it? Everyone who wears a little pink ribbon thinks they are battling this disease. Everyone and every entity that donates to Komen thinks their dollars are going towards defeating this killer. Right?

How many of those folks and corporations have been surprised to find that a good deal of the money they have been giving has been diverted for other purposes? Specifically, a large amount has been given away to Planned Parenthood, a controversial organization that supports 'women's health matters'. Planned Parenthood, currently under Congressional investigation for misuse of taxpayer funds.

Planned Parenthood, deserved or not, is the face of abortion in this country. Its primary purpose is to provide no questions asked abortions to any woman or child who wants one, for any reason. It does so under the guise of 'reproductive health', or 'reproductive rights'. They apparently provide some other health services, but those are overshadowed by their hard liberal stance on abortion.

Folks who donate to Komen have a right to have their money go towards Komen's stated purpose - fighting breast cancer. From news reports, it has been a shock to many folks to find their Komen donations have been diverted to an organization they believe engages in wholesale killing of unborn children. Private donations to Komen have soared since this news broke, donations from people who are very happy that their dollars are no longer going to be, in their opinion, used for purposes they are fundamentally opposed to.

I have read that Komen's grants to Planned Parenthood were to cover breast examinations for poor women. I am under no illusions that Komen's money was limited to that purpose. More than likely it was dropped into PP's general operating funds, and used to support all of PPs activities - not just breast screenings. I have no evidence of that, except it is what PP is under investigation by Congress for, and multiple news investigations that found evidence of it.

Bottom line for me is this. No matter what your thoughts on abortion are, if you are giving to Komen you are entitled to KNOW that your money is going to fight breast cancer - and nothing else. If you want to support Planned Parenthood, either to support their overall services or specifically their abortion services, you are free to give them as much money as you want.

The liberal-think lesson in this is that liberals or liberal organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, think they are absolutely right. No opinion other than their own is allowed. And, even folks who disagree with them have to provide the funds they need to further their own agendas. Folks who disagree with them are villified.

Update - Before I could even post this, the cowards at Komen have caved. Their Board of Directors has reveresed itself, saying that they will continue to funnel their contributor's money to the Planned Parenthood abortion factories. They caved in to liberal outrage. They will continue to allow funds contributed to fight breast cancer to be used to provide abortions.

OK. They can do that. However, this is now out in the open. Komen contributors now know what's being done with their money. I venture the opinion that a good number of those donors aren't going to send Komen anymore contributions, because they don't want their money to be used to kill unborn children. Those contributors have that right.

Liberals are going to be howling in the streets over their victory for 'women's rights'. A very worthy charitable cause, Komen's fight against breast cancer, will take a huge hit, because of their stupid decision to give money to PP in the first place, and then caving in to the political pressure and reversing themselves.

Update II - PP President Cecile Richards stated that she is happy the flap with Komen is behind them. "The good news - the wonderful ending to this story - is that Komen and Planned Parenthood are here working together again," she stated at a PP awards luncheon in Dallas.

She is also happy at what she says is an outpouring of financial donations to PP from the general public since the flap occurred.

What she has refused to say, and what Komen officials have refused to say, is how future Komen donations to PP will be used. We keep seeing statements that Komen's donations allow free breast screenings for PP customers. If that is what the money is for, then I have no problem. If the money gets dumped into PP's general operating funds, where a portion of it will be directed towards providing abortion services, then I've got a real problem with that.

People and companies that donate to Komen have a right to know that their funds will be used for Komen's stated purpose - to fight breast cancer. If that money is being used for any other purpose then Komen and PP should publicly state that to its donors.

If the money was being strictly used for breast screenings, you can be sure that both PP and Komen would be loudly and publickly stating that. Since they are silent, and refuse to make that statement, Komen donors can reasonably infer that a portion of their money will be used by PP for other purposes, including providing abortions.

Her Highness Buys Some Essentials

Her Highness, the Missus Big O, spent some time before Christmas shopping for a few essentials. According to The Telegraph, she and the Queen of Qatar visited a thrift shop called Agent Provocateur, located in Manhattan.

For their shopping spree, several blocks of Madison Avenue were blocked off. Apparently, they had the store to themselves.

Missus O spent a reported $50,000 in the store.

What does Agent Provocateur sell? High end lingerie (no pun intended). Take a look at their web site, you will be shocked at the prices.

I don't care what she buys to (hopefully) please her husband with. I do believe that she could have done so at a less exclusive store, and not spent quite so much. I would be very interested to know who paid for it - the trip, the security, the garments ... I have a hard time believing that the Big O would write a check that big himself.

The hypocrisy is truly astounding. This person, who tries to portray herself and her husband as every day middle class Americans fighting for the little people, blows $50 large on lingerie? The arrogance is unbelievable. These two truly believe they are Royalty. What do the 99% ers think about this?

Have you seen anything in the mainstream media about this? Of course not. Turn it around - if Sarah Palin had done this, it would be headline news for at least a week.

Update - spokespersons for Missus O have categorically denied that this took place. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - if it is false, then Agent Provocateur would seem to be lying. They came out and publicly stated that Missus O's visit was responsible for a substantial sales increase in the days leading up to Christmas. We will see ...

Weiner's New Job

I have a serious suggestion for Rep. Weiner. I think you ought to run for the position of Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. Your qualifications make you perfect to lead the modern Democrat Party.

AOL Goes To Hell ... Part Deaux

A strike is being carried out by Huffington Post writers/contributors. They are pissed off that they haven't been paid, in the wake of the AOL buyout. I've read conflicting info, some folks are pissed because they weren't paid for contributions and work they had performed for pay, others (volunteer contributors) are pissed that they didn't receive anything from the buyout.

Huffington herself pocketed a huge wad of cash in the deal, 18-20 million, and is pulling a 4 million annual salary from AOL.

The goobers who wrote the vile crap that filled her blog's pages are now upset they didn't get rich as well.

This deal exposed Huffington as the fraud she is. Supposed to be a champion of progressive causes, leader of the fight 'for the everyday person', staunch anti-Wall St. - hard core liberal through and through. But, how does that jive with pocketing a fotrune based upon the work of others? How does she reconcile the fact that she didn't sign all that money over to poor people to help even the gap between those who have and those who don't?

This strike exposes the goobers for what they are - greedy capitalists. God, how they must hate that. All this socialist equality, money means nothing, everyone should be equal, government should provide everything rhetoric they have been spewing for her flies in the face of their real nature - they are greedy and want some money.

It's a good lesson for all of us on the nature of liberalism and its leadership here in this country. The liberal elites are just capitalists (hard core capitalists) who spit out a bunch of lies to get the common man to give them their loyalty and money.

This is good ... I needed a laugh today!