Knowledge Bomb

Some info for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.



The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.

Our nation’s historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

The Democrats:
Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
Democrats opposed:

The Emancipation Proclamation
The 13th Amendment
The 14th Amendment
The 15th Amendment
The Reconstruction Act of 1867
The Civil Rights of 1866
The Enforcement Act of 1870
The Forced Act of 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Freeman Bureau
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1960
The United State Civil Rights Commission
Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
Civil Rights Act of 1983
Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Republicans:
Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.

As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

They're Coming

Molon Labe,


It should be no surprise to anyone who knows me or regularly reads this blog that I am a gun owner. I believe the 2nd Amendment to be just as important as the first if not more so. (Actually I think the entire Bill of Rights is important and if we lose one amendment the rest will fall like dominoes).  We know that most democrats hate guns, strike that, most democrats hate regular citizens having guns. It is easier to control a disarmed population. When the Obama administration tried some overt gun law action it was trounced and the president told radical left wing activist Sarah Brady about more gun control;  “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” ... “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” So again it is no surprise that he president is backing this U.N. Small Arms Treaty and calling it harmless to everyday Americans. But lets take a closer look, Larry Bell from Forbes put it this way, if the US Senate ratifies this "treaty" it will have the following effect;

• Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

• Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

• Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

• Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

• In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Remember what I said earlier, this is two amendments gone in one harmless treaty. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has warned 2nd Amendment advocates the the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” Obama has been stacking the deck for gun control in his administration and court picks for a long time. When he said "under the radar" he wasn't kidding. Hillary Clinton, Greg Nickels, Andrew Travers, and the highly anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor are just a few of the radical gun control advocates Obama has foisted on us. 

Meanwhile the FBI released the official numbers for crime in 2010 and despite the sales of "evil" guns going up since 2008, the number of gun related crimes had gone down for the fourth straight year. In her new book "Chicks with Guns" author Lindsay McCrum says that 15-20 million women in the US are gun owners and proud. She speaks on the stereotypes attributed to guns and women of all ages, ethnicity and social classes love their guns. It's a unique relationship America has with guns, an amazing freedom where as many people own guns for recreation as those who use them for protection. 

There are many who fear guns, most fear what they do not understand, but our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they gave us the Constitution. They took rights God bestowed upon us and made clearly available to all. That is the reason why 235 years later America is still the shining example of freedom on this planet. 

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Obama*: 'From my cold, dead hands!"                                                                                                     — Charlton Heston, May 20, 2000

  (*Previously said Mr.Gore)

Daily X-tra

I know since the Amazon thing went down I haven't been blogging. Some of it was Amazon and some of it was a weird burnout. In order to get back into posting, I've decided to do a daily mini post just to keep me posting.


Today's X-tra shines some light on some California craziness; So you are headed out for the evening and you call the neighbor girl to come over and watch little Johnny for a few hours. She's 18 fresh out of high school and happy to sit on your couch, eat your ice cream and watch your kid 3 hours for $20. But a new bill in Calif. Assembly bill 889 (sponsored solely by democrats) is getting fast tracked and will mean for every 2 hours of babysitting the neighbor girl (we'll call her Mandy) needs a 15 min break and minimum wage. Oh and if you are late be prepared to shell out overtime and pray Mandy doesn't get hurt tripping on little Johnny's skateboard, that's workers comp. God forbid Mandy sneaks Bobby over and gets knocked up, then there's maternity leave. Yeah I'd rather take little Johnny with me. Read details at theunion.com

Just Saying

• If we're going to lose our AAA credit rating anyway and we know it's a fallacy that we can't make our payments, I say don't raise the debt ceiling. Force Obama to cut spending in order to pay the bills each month till we have a balanced budget.

• Seems like the end of the world guy was wrong, according to CNN and MSNBC the world will end Aug 2nd id the debt ceiling isn't raised.

• Did anyone else not know Amy Winehouse was Jewish until her funeral?

• Funny how Obama has taken such a huge interest in the "debt crisis" over the last 4 weeks, I seem to remember posting about it here 4 months ago.

• McDonald's caved to the First Lady's crazy power and is now including apples in their Happy Meals instead of french fries. I guess they should change the name to Pissed Off Kid Meals.

• The Norway shooter/bomber's max jail sentence is 21 years, if we could see into hell right now we'd see Timothy McVeigh jumping up and down saying WTF?

• I saw Captain America today, it was pretty good. Nice to see a pro-America movie. *Spoiler*- At the end Cap superman punches Obama... Wait maybe I fell asleep.

• Republicans always talk about how important "Business Experience" is and how "politics as usual" messes thins up, so how come they are so quick to dismiss Herman Cain as just "some guy that worked in a pizza place"?

• Democrats are funny, when you bring up Reagan they say how much they hate him and everything he did and stood for. Until they want to compare Obama to how great he was. Make up your minds!

War Protesters! Where?

When George Bush invaded Afghanistan the war protesters were there, when he invaded Iraq the numbers exploded. War protesters were demonstrating across the country. Holding signs that cursed Bush, his family and even calling for him to be hung. Bush also caught a lot of flak for supporting Israel, even though he did very little to help them.

Today, though winding down we still have troops in Iraq. And if you've been watching the news you know they are still dying. Afghanistan is a complete mess, we have no strategy, no plan to win or even an exit. We have dropped bombs and killed Bin Laden in Pakistan. Months not days later we are still in Libya, without congressional approval by the way and it's not winding down either, boots on the ground is inevitable. Now we are dropping bombs in Yemen. But surprise, surprise the protesters are no where to be found.

No one should be surprised by this. The double standard is so obvious here. When it's a Republican he can do no good, and a Democrat can do no wrong. The MSM is complicit in this as well, during the Bush administration there were daily updates on how many soldiers died. When's the last time you saw a body count on CNN?

Basically if you were one of those pacifist that I argued with at school who said war in never right while Bush was in office but are somehow too busy to protest Obama, go take a flying you know what at a rolling donut.

UPDATE: Two more soldiers were killed in Iraq today, and after checking the whole front page of nbc news, I guess it wasn't important enough.

Only Friend Part II

On Tuesday my last blog post was about defending Israel, little did I know that just 2 days later The President of the United States would throw his support to the Palestinians and turn his back on our only friend in the middle east. For the first time since the State of Israel was created, the POTUS has abandoned our ally in favor of the muslim terrorist group Hamas. We really should have seen this coming, backing the muslim brotherhood in Egypt should have been a big clue. By telling Israel to drop dead Obama has shown his true colors and as I posted on twitter; the years of exposure in his raising, schooling, churching, community organizing and politics have ingrained Antisemitism into Obama and he can't hide it any longer.

Obama’s demand for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, displaces over 300,000 Israeli citizens from nearly half of the country. What right does Obama (who speaks for us all) have to make 300,000 people of another country homeless? What right does Obama have to involve himself in Israel’s affairs? What right does Obama have to demand an ally give up its own territory won in a defensive war, when it was attacked without provocation, from all sides, by multiple countries? What right does Obama have to give away the land Israel needs to defend themselves from Hamas missiles and terrorist attacks? What if Obama’s interposing leads to the destruction of Israel and the death of millions of innocent Israelis? With friends like this, Israel no longer needs enemies.

Thursday Obama made it clear he hates Israel and doesn’t care what the American people think or want. I am hoping that this will secure him a loss in the 2012 election. I hope Jewish voters will see the light and never again feel the same about Obama or Democrats that support this craziness. Obama’s biggest mistake was crossing religious voters, over 90% of America connects itself to Judeo-Christian values. It is the same Judeo-Christian voters that elect Presidents. And almost 100 million evangelical Christians who love Israel will now vote and donate to Obama’s opponents with a fervor and passion of a patriotic group on a mission to save America and Israel from destruction. And that is exactly where Obama is taking us.

Since President Obama cannot be relied on, we have to speak up as individuals to let Israel know we support them and care about their future. A middle east without Israel will not have peace. Without Jews to pick on the muslims will focus on Christians. When the Christians are gone they will just keep going farther and farther till they get to you, where ever you are. Do you really think a muslim earth is a peaceful one? If you keep throwing your friends under the bus, soon you will be surrounded by enemies. 

Here's what the great Gene Simmons has to say on the subject. 

3 Reasons - Trump

I know many of you think Donald Trump is a joke when it comes to presidential nominees, and if the republicans had, or even looked like they were going to put up someone better, I wouldn't be able to write this. I've been very clear that the "front runners" in the republican field cannot beat Obama. The polls prove it, head to head polls between Trump and the potential GOP field, Trump trumps them all. This is not an endorsement, I still believe Herman Cain is best man for the job, though I acknowledge his chances are slim.


So the first thing is not his hair, as much as it's oddly interesting the polls are more. Like I mentioned above, the poll shows the audacious real estate tycoon and reality TV show host posting a whopping nine point lead on his nearest competitor. In the latest recent survey the Donald is running strong in the GOP field, and by strong I mean way out front. Trump brought in a hefty 26% of the vote, followed by Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Sarah Palin 8%, Ron Paul earned 5%, while Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty took 4% each.


Next, I believe that people who are best suited for political offices are those that care about their community and country. They have a deep passion for serving the people's shared interest, and are deeply experienced in public service. They are educated. They are a God fearing. They are vibrant, and brilliant people with incredible ideas and motivation. But since Ronald Reagan is long gone and Zombie Reagan is only in science fiction, we might have to start looking elsewhere. You don't get into public office anymore by being smart, talented, and a bold speaker; you get into public office by being rich, pretty, or popular. Trump has two of the three and that ain't bad.

Last thing is democrats don't like him, Harry Reid said he's not presidential material, that helps in my book. When the main lame stream media goes nutto I know I'm seeing something good.  Take the new Atlas Shrugged movie, the msm is really going out of it's way to slam a movie that is being released on 300 screens nation wide. That tell me I want to see it. Trump is everything Obama is not and that is the most important thing.

3 Reasons - Lybia

With all the "uprisings" going on across the Middle East why are we intervening in Libya? Why not Bahrain or Syria? I can't answer those questions and this post will not be backing the President's action. To the contrary I don't think we should be involved at all anywhere in the recent uprisings short of protecting our ally Israel. I know Obama is no friend to Israel and neither are most Democrats, but the US and Israel are connected and that's the way it should be and that's the way it should stay.


One thing we have to look at in Libya and other places, like Egypt (who already fell) is who these "Rebels" or "Freedom Fighters" or "Youth" that are revolting actually are? Now while these countries seem like Muslim strongholds their leadership was actually quite secular. Yes I know Gadaffy was liked to the Pan Am bomber but the closer we look the more it seems like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Queda are part of the rebellion in Libya. I've gone into detail on the MB before and despite what the State Department tells you they are not secular, hell their name is Muslim Brotherhood. With all the bitching about how we armed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein why should we take a chance on arming people who will most likely turn our weapons against us next week!


Another thing that really raises a red flag in Libya is the President's complete lack of clarity at why we are there and what our endgame is? Again, lots of bitching took place when Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan with no exit strategy, so is Obama making the same mistake? Are the Democrats ignoring it because it's Obama?  If we set up a "No Fly Zone" to protect innocent Libyans that Gadaffy was killing with air power then why haven't we wiped out his air force and left already? We usually don't get involved in civil wars, we're not getting involved anywhere else. The MSM made a big deal the other day of "rebels" capturing "oil cities", please tell me this is not a war kinetic military action for oil?


Last thing is Gadaffy himself. When this "kinetic military action" started we heard different stories from the White House and the State Dept. and the Military. First it was Gadaffy can stay as long as he stops the slaughter, then he had to leave, then he might stay and now I don't know what's going on. I do know that Pan-Am bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has implied that Gadaffy ordered the bombing personally and for that I say he needs a dirt nap. But, if Gadaffy sleeps with the fishes and his country falls to the MB like Egypt looks to be, that is a problem that can't be ignored. As much as I want al-Megrahi and Gadaffy to hang for what they did the safety of our ally Israel will be in jeopardy when Egypt goes MB and will be worse if Libya follows.

Anti-Midas

President Obama has been fairly quiet on gun control since he's been in office, but yesterday he decided to go there; “I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides,"  He goes on, "However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the nation a safer, stronger place." Now Obama is a liberal so I knew he wouldn't leave my guns alone, and really all he is saying, right now, is we need to enforce existing gun laws. That I am 100% OK with. But when you read that quote, you can see the little hamster on the wheel in his head running as fast as it can and that is what worries me.


There was a time during his campaign that Obama was like King Midas, everything he touched turned to gold. He seemed to overcome impossible odds to get the top job. But, since he has been president it's been more like anti-Midas, everything he touches turns to garbage. I guess you can also liken him to the king with no clothes, but lets stick to anti-Midas. Stimulus, healthcare, bail-outs, foreign policy and outright socialism, normally I'd be very happy to see a democrat go down in flames, but Obama is somehow still wielding popularity. Looking at 2012 it seems like he is going to win a second term and I can't for the life of me figure out why. This Country is in shambles, we are embracing our enemies, alienating our friends, looking at a double dip recession, gas prices and unemployment are sky high, yet Obama's crown is still firmly atop his head. 


Guns are one of the issues Obama had shied away from, probably because it is highly controversial and they have a huge base that cannot be budged. But with Obama going around and wildly doing whatever he wants damned what the people of America think, I worry about a Nazi style gun ban (yeah i said it!). The Second Amendment exist to keep the power with the people and not the government. But Obama's government power grabs have been sweeping and disarming the people will become necessary to maintain the masses. I understand that is a "out there" sounding theory but we have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. 


With the very recent tragedy in Japan and the unrest in the middle east, many people have brought up to me the "end times" and "2012". Now I have stated before I do not think Barack Obama is the anti-christ, while he is a huge narcissist he is not going to bring on the apocalypse. But times will be hard, I have said that we will have to tighten our belts to get through, and with the Republicans looking totally impotent for the 2012 elections, the belts will get yanked a few more notches. America will prevail, times were hard after the Depression and we fought through, we will fight through again. As long as we are steadfast in our Faith and stick to the values that our Founding Fathers taught us America will survive and sun will shine again. 


"Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back -- with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free." - Ronald Reagan,1986

High Speed Really?

When Obama passed his trillion dollar (total & utter failure) stimulus plan two years ago a chunk of it was designated for high speed rail, though I haven't noticed any bullet trains whizzing by and traffic is worse than ever. That chunk amounted to $8 billion that was invested as "seed money" and now Veep Biden has told us the White House is investing another $53 billion of our money in getting this so call high speed rail going. But the more I read up the more clearly I see high speed rail is really just high-jacking our wallets. The Obama Express is moving all right, bringing us straight to bankruptcy hell, let me explain a few things that will help us pull the emergency stop line on this runaway nightmare.


Here in California the big talk has been a high speed line between LA and San Franfreako. The original projected cost of this masterpiece was around $28 billion dollars, but things change and budgets swell, so now the price tag is more like $43 billion. But as time passes the budgets keep changing and swelling, the final cost is looking to be oh $100 billion. Take the number form the above paragraph and add them up... So with all the stimulus money and the newly allocated cash plus the $9 billion in Calif bonds the rail project between LA and SF is $30 billion dollars in the red. That doesn't leave much for the rest of the country.


But high speed rails will reduce traffic and that will help everybody! Or will it? Let's stick with California, the line from LA to SF will alleviate little to no traffic. Not many of you currently stuck on the 101 fwy reading this on your smartphone because traffic hasn't budged in 3 hours are going all the way up to Frisco are ya? Same story country wide, high speed lines are mainly for city to city use and most of the backed up freeways are within city  limits. Even light rail lines in LA and NY do little to nothing to ease off the massive number of cars.


The biggest hurdle to making high speed rail a reality is  the track. We can't use the existing tracks because freight trains dominate existing tracks and if you've ever had to wait while a mile long freight chugs past, you know they don't move that quick. So new tracks are needed, country wide. Now granted it won't take as long as the original lines that crossed this great Nation, but I bet you it will cost a whole lot more. Not to mention the cost of Air Force One jetting back and forth so the Anointed One can drive a gold spike into every finished product.


If we really want to "Win The Future" we have to stop spending money or as The One puts it "Investing" and start saving. The American people have become the People of NO. No more pouring our hard earned money into a bottomless pit. No more taxing us into oblivion. No more bail outs, no business is too big to fail, even the states. No more socializing of American industries and institutions. We have to rise up, not in revolution, off our couches and into the voting booths. Make all these big spending politicians Democrat or Republican do what we've been trying to do for the last few years, find a real job.

Kill Switch

After getting some feedback on this topics on my social networks I figured I would expand on it here.


In the first days of the "protest" in Egypt, President Mubarak decided to shut down the internet. He said it was for the good and safety of the people, but suppressing the voice of the people is not a good thing and it only caused more problems and inflamed the uprising. The next day both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama condemned Mubarak for the action and talked about the freedom of the people. The following days were more of the same, Obama saying that freedom of speech and assembly are God given rights, of course any actual American knows that the God given rights are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. But Obama's ignorance aside, he was saying it was a breech of freedoms to shut down the internet.


Jump to here, the United States of America, where we do have a First Amendment to protect us. The White House is and has been for several months now been trying to secure an internet kill switch for Obama. This started last year before the Congress was retaken by Republicans, it failed in congress but it now is being reborn in the still Democrat controlled Senate. Now it is being said that the US govt controlling the internet is for our safety and national security. Though that kinda sounds like the dictator in Egypt. Now I know when I call Obama a socialist or communist I get all sorts of jeers and boos, but Net Neutrality and other forms of Govt control of the internet just reeks of Socialism. This is not the first time Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth and I guarantee it won't be the last.


UPDATE; Here's an article on Killing the Kill Switch from Investors Business Daily.

Defending a Democrat? Yes!

For some time now I have been watching Juan Williams as a commentator on Fox News, very little have I ever agreed with anything he has said and I have never read or heard anything he has done for NPR (national public radio). NPR in my eyes has always been an outlet for hard left wing diatribe and overt socialist commentary. The idea that the taxpayers are forced to support such an idealogical organization has always been a bit disturbing. but now that NPR has fired Williams for "controversial" statements he made about muslims on The Factor I am in full de-fund mode.


First for the sake of clarity here is Williams' statement; "I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." I guess honesty is not the best policy at NPR.  


NPR said in it's statement that Williams' remarks; “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” So being open and honest is inconsistent with NPR's standards? What exactly are they saying here? It seems freedom of speech and expression are not welcome at a station that is being partially funded by taxpayer dollars. It's time to stop paying for NPR's rhetoric. The First Amendment is for everyone, right or left, black or white, Jew or Gentile, right or wrong.


Maybe Fox News should offer Williams a full time job? Fox News seems to be the only news outlet that can live up to their mission statement, "Fair and Balanced".


UPDATE:
NPR now says Williams was fired for going on conservative TV - "Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives." (linked to NPR).


UPDATE II:
Fox just signed Williams to a $2Mil job!


  

To Palin or not to Palin?

There has certainly been a lot of emotion surrounding Sarah Palin in the last 18 months or so, some good, most coming from the MSM just downright mean. When the state controlled media goes to such huge measure to discredit someone you know they are deathly afraid. The Left is doing everything in their power to make sure Sarah Palin is not an option for 2012. The question I present to conservatives is should she be an option?

I have no doubt Sarah is a smart woman, but can she be President? Sure she was a governor, and Alaska is a big state but it's not a very populous state. Now I know you can say the same about Mitt Romney, but his executive experience doesn't stop with being governor. He has big business under his belt, she was a local mayor. Call me sexist but another issue that has to be considered is her children. It's more than just small children but one who is mentally disabled. Having Trig is a very big burden on her, her time will always be split between the country and her children. Sure many Presidents have had children in the White House but it is different with a woman and that one of the children has special needs. Folksy nature isn't a plus either. Jimmy Carter had a folksy nature... Enough said.  Don't misread me, I am not saying a woman can't be President, while I wouldn't have liked her any more than Obama, Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for the Democrats. She would have been stronger than Obama. Sarah Palin just doesn't have what it takes to be President of the United States. I don't have a magic answer to who should run, but if we want to recapture the Executive Office then we have to find a person who is more than just charismatic and folksy.

Divided We Fall

I have been as excited about the Tea Parties as the next guy, but I am starting to think we are headed down the wrong path. It is a fact that the Republican Party has been slipping away from conservatives over the last 10 years, maybe longer, running Bob Dole in '96 was pretty lame. The RNC has repeatedly decided just not to campaign in areas they think chances are slim. But being in California , in the late 90's I believe, and watching Matt Fong struggle without  RNC support and lose to Diane Feinstein by 8 points makes me very angry. But all that anger aside splitting the party in two just guarantees Obama a second term, and that is exactly what the dems would love to see happen. I've attended a few tea parties and watched several more on TV and the internet, I was proud to be a part and see other people who were like me and frustrated with what is happening in the Govt. But never did those feelings, not even for a second, make me want to split the republican party. We know what happens to third party candidates, they suck votes of off whichever party they are closest to and send the other guy into the winners circle. The excuse "We have to show the republicans we are unhappy by letting them lose" has not worked. They lost and we paid the price! We are drowning our grandchildren in debt. We can't afford the democrats another minute, much less another term by splitting our party.

I don't like it one bit. I have left the party before and came back after reading "If it's Not Close They Can't Cheat" by Hugh Hewitt (I'm pretty sure). He was right. We can't afford even a close race. We have to win and win big. Forming a "Tea Party" will only take us farther from that goal. That brings me to Sarah Palin, a very smart woman who has way more experience than Obama (exectutive wise). But we gotta face the facts she doesn't have enough experience by our standards to be President of the United States. Ladies don't mis-read me, I am not saying a Woman can't be President, just not Sarah Palin.

We need an experienced Republican (any race, creed or gender) to stand up and take on the challenge of being President. Then we have to back that person 100%. We cannot be sidetracked by a shiny new Tea Party. I hear what you are saying, who is it? Who will step up and take reigns? Honestly, I don't know. I can throw out names but it won't help. That being said it is time for the Republican party to step it up too. The RNC is weak and it bends to political correctness and whining liberals. I am not sire Michael Steele has what it takes to do it. But someone has to. If the RNC wants to survive the next 6-10 years someone has to take a stand.

Someone is out there, maybe not a Reagan, Lincoln, or Washington. But someone who will make a name for themselves. A name that will be synonymous with the great ones not living in their shadows. Someone who understands we are one Nation under God, indivisible. United we stand!