Based on what evidence has been released so far, it looks rather like it'll go down as a justifiable shooting; exonerating the white cop.
Of course, there's no way to tell if ALL evidence has been released (it probably hasn't), so, ultimately, we must wait until the investigation is complete.....something Democrats NEVER do.
The cop will remain brutally beaten.
He will also be living under constant death threats. Forever.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will shake down the local police and local white groups, extorting tons of money from them.
Residents of Ferguson whose houses and businesses were looted and burned and otherwise destroyed will go broke, trying to pick up the pieces.
Eric Holder will go back to Washington, securing his, and Obama's, role as core, fundamental racists.
No one will "win" in Ferguson.
One young man dead and a cop's life ruined.
And this is the very definition of "justice" to Democrats and, more pointedly, black Democrats.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Idiot.
But in terms of "Democrat", this idiot is run-of-the-mill....garden variety.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/23/untitled-n1882308
Democrats, by the way, that the same misconceptions with the definitions of "marriage", "life", "equality", "justice", "science", "gender", "racism", "discrimination", "gay", "progressive", "Socialism", "Hitler", "First Amendment", "terrorist", "patriot", "Communism", "Second Amendment", "Fourth Amendment", "Fifth Amendment", "women's rights", "fully human", "Christian", "Catholic", "fair", "balanced"..............
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/23/untitled-n1882308
Democrats, by the way, that the same misconceptions with the definitions of "marriage", "life", "equality", "justice", "science", "gender", "racism", "discrimination", "gay", "progressive", "Socialism", "Hitler", "First Amendment", "terrorist", "patriot", "Communism", "Second Amendment", "Fourth Amendment", "Fifth Amendment", "women's rights", "fully human", "Christian", "Catholic", "fair", "balanced"..............
I hate to admit.....she IS sort of right.....
Clearly trying to beat Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and a HUGE pile of other Democrats in the "I am the biggest idiot on the planet" competition, Harris-Perry said this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/23/Harris-Perry-Reporting-on-Outside-Agitators-in-Ferguson-Like-Bull-Connor
And, ya know, in ONE sense, she is absolutely right....IF it were to be true that these 'outside agitators' are trying to stir up violence.....
Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor.......WAS A DEMOCRAT.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/23/Harris-Perry-Reporting-on-Outside-Agitators-in-Ferguson-Like-Bull-Connor
And, ya know, in ONE sense, she is absolutely right....IF it were to be true that these 'outside agitators' are trying to stir up violence.....
Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor.......WAS A DEMOCRAT.
'Gay' is the new black?
"Gay" will be the new black just as soon as "black" becomes a behavioral choice.
This may SEEM like humor.....
Democrats REALLY SHOULD pay attention (I can't believe that I'm actually trying to protect them...from themselves).
So, homosexuals want "gay marriage", right?
And, throughout the long battle, I've pointed out that there is, and can never be, "gay marriage", since "marriage" is VERY specifically defined: one man, one woman. Period.
So, the legal relationship between two like-gendered people is NOT a "marriage".
And yet, they wish to change the definition of "marriage".
Ok, fine.
In the past, I've argued that the ultimate test of laws and balanced views is that that law or view applies equally, to all.
As an example:
Since a "White Congressional Congress", an "NAAWP", a "WET" network, etc, would NEVER....EVER.....be allowed, then the black versions of those groups are not legitimate.
So, Liberals.....
Suppose America decides to change the definition of....abortion?
And suppose they change that definition from the termination of pregnancy to the termination of Democrats. Or how about the termination of blacks. Or the termination of females.
Far-fetched? Really?
Your own president voted to allow abortion AFTER BIRTH.
Margaret Sanger advocated abortion as a means to control the population of blacks.
China utilizes abortion to control the number of women in the population.
Democrats, blacks, women....you could be next.
.........
I've consistently held that a change in the definition of "marriage" would lead to the legalization and normalization of multiple marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, etc. And certainly, groups are appearing to be aggressively pursuing these ends.
And all this because people, who have made a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE, now refuse to accept the consequences of that choice.
Such is Liberalism.
Such is the Democrat Party.
So, homosexuals want "gay marriage", right?
And, throughout the long battle, I've pointed out that there is, and can never be, "gay marriage", since "marriage" is VERY specifically defined: one man, one woman. Period.
So, the legal relationship between two like-gendered people is NOT a "marriage".
And yet, they wish to change the definition of "marriage".
Ok, fine.
In the past, I've argued that the ultimate test of laws and balanced views is that that law or view applies equally, to all.
As an example:
Since a "White Congressional Congress", an "NAAWP", a "WET" network, etc, would NEVER....EVER.....be allowed, then the black versions of those groups are not legitimate.
So, Liberals.....
Suppose America decides to change the definition of....abortion?
And suppose they change that definition from the termination of pregnancy to the termination of Democrats. Or how about the termination of blacks. Or the termination of females.
Far-fetched? Really?
Your own president voted to allow abortion AFTER BIRTH.
Margaret Sanger advocated abortion as a means to control the population of blacks.
China utilizes abortion to control the number of women in the population.
Democrats, blacks, women....you could be next.
.........
I've consistently held that a change in the definition of "marriage" would lead to the legalization and normalization of multiple marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, etc. And certainly, groups are appearing to be aggressively pursuing these ends.
And all this because people, who have made a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE, now refuse to accept the consequences of that choice.
Such is Liberalism.
Such is the Democrat Party.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Yes, they are linked.
This......THIS IS WHY YOU NEVER MAKE DEALS WITH TERRORISTS.
First was Bergdahl.
Now this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731164/ISIS-offered-swap-Foley-Lady-Al-Qaeda-Terrorists-wanted-return-MIT-graduate-jailed-U-S-planning-mass-casualty-strike-dirty-bomb-ebola-chemical-weapon-spared-children.html
And this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/11050013/James-Foley-Up-to-twenty-more-Westerners-held-hostage-by-Isil.html
Great job, Democrats.
And let's be clear: this ISN'T JUST an Obama thing.
This is the Democrat Party. So, WHICHEVER Democrat goes into WHATEVER key position, the actions....and the results.....will be the same.
Obama IS Hillary IS Jerry IS Michelle IS Gabby.............
First was Bergdahl.
Now this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731164/ISIS-offered-swap-Foley-Lady-Al-Qaeda-Terrorists-wanted-return-MIT-graduate-jailed-U-S-planning-mass-casualty-strike-dirty-bomb-ebola-chemical-weapon-spared-children.html
And this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/11050013/James-Foley-Up-to-twenty-more-Westerners-held-hostage-by-Isil.html
Great job, Democrats.
And let's be clear: this ISN'T JUST an Obama thing.
This is the Democrat Party. So, WHICHEVER Democrat goes into WHATEVER key position, the actions....and the results.....will be the same.
Obama IS Hillary IS Jerry IS Michelle IS Gabby.............
Saturday, August 16, 2014
A tax proposal that will make sense to everyone but our elected officials.....from both parties.
BACKGROUND
Most folks probably don't think much about how, exactly, charitable deductions work; either on taxes or in the real world.
There are any number of sites on the 'net which demonstrate, essentially, that $100 in charitable donations DON'T equate to $100 saved in taxes. In truth, charitable donations, for the sake of a tax deduction, are nearly worthless. (Let's be clear.....this is NOT to say that charitable giving is worthless!)
Here's an example of one of those sites:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/charity-and-your-tax-bill/
Similarly, most folks don't think about the EFFICIENCY of money through either charities or the Government.
Folks should.
They REALLY should.
PLEASE....take the time to check out this web site:
http://www.charitywatch.org/
It rates charities by their efficient (or inefficient) use of money. In other words, it compares the percentage of each dollar taken in by a charity which ACTUALLY goes to the intended beneficiary (as opposed to which percentage is lost in costs and overhead of the charitable organization). By their standard, a charity that operates at better than 60% (60% of each dollar goes to the intended beneficiary), is a good charity. Obviously, the higher the efficiency rate, the better the charity, since a greater part of each dollar goes to the intended beneficiary.
The question, then, is "at what efficiency does our Government operate?"
Through the years, in many articles and research papers read, the efficiency rate of the Government is around 20%. I've seen it as high as 25%, but the overwhelming majority of reports I've read place it at below 10%. So, in order to be as fair as possible, I'll lean toward the higher efficiency.
But even as such.....even at DOUBLE, 40%.....the government would STILL be a lousy charity.
(BTW.....get used to using this percentage EVERY time you hear about the Government spending money. For instance, if they say that "$2 billion is being spent on..." whatever charity, understand that that $2 billion dollars equates to $10 billion in collected taxes. Just take whatever number they give you, multiply by FIVE, and you'll have an idea of how many tax dollars they had to collect in order to provide that number. THAT.....is how INEFFICIENT your Government is. And it's not just OUR Government, it's "government" that is inefficient).
TAX PROPOSAL
Here's how to a) VASTLY increase the effectiveness of charitable dollars and b) reduce your tax burden....so that you can greatly increase the strength of the private sector economy:
Create a "pure deduction" for charitable giving.
Here's how it works (I'm not using exact numbers. ONLY THE CONCEPT IS IMPORTANT):
Let's say you make $100,000.00 (taxable). So, let's say that you owe the government $35,000.00 in taxes.
And, let's say that your charitable donations totaled $10,000.00 for that tax year.
(In the current tax structure, you'd lower your income by $10k, making your taxable income $90,000.00.....which would change your 'owe' to the Government $31,500.00, a difference of $3,500.00, if you donated nothing to charity)
In this "pure deduction", your total tax burden, $35,000.00, would be reduced by YOUR TOTAL CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION, or $10,000.00, making your 'owe' to the Government $25,000.00.
This would do two primary things:
1. Driver HUGE amounts OF VERY EFFICIENT dollars into charities.
2. Allow you to keep more of your hard-earned money, which you would very likely put right back into the economy, thus stimulating it greatly!!!
WHY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
This plan will NEVER happen for one reason and one reason only:
IT WOULD DEFUND AND DE-POWER THE GOVERNMENT. And they will NEVER willing allow this. NEVER.
Please share.
We, the people, CAN force the Government to bend to our will.
Most folks probably don't think much about how, exactly, charitable deductions work; either on taxes or in the real world.
There are any number of sites on the 'net which demonstrate, essentially, that $100 in charitable donations DON'T equate to $100 saved in taxes. In truth, charitable donations, for the sake of a tax deduction, are nearly worthless. (Let's be clear.....this is NOT to say that charitable giving is worthless!)
Here's an example of one of those sites:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/charity-and-your-tax-bill/
Similarly, most folks don't think about the EFFICIENCY of money through either charities or the Government.
Folks should.
They REALLY should.
PLEASE....take the time to check out this web site:
http://www.charitywatch.org/
It rates charities by their efficient (or inefficient) use of money. In other words, it compares the percentage of each dollar taken in by a charity which ACTUALLY goes to the intended beneficiary (as opposed to which percentage is lost in costs and overhead of the charitable organization). By their standard, a charity that operates at better than 60% (60% of each dollar goes to the intended beneficiary), is a good charity. Obviously, the higher the efficiency rate, the better the charity, since a greater part of each dollar goes to the intended beneficiary.
The question, then, is "at what efficiency does our Government operate?"
Through the years, in many articles and research papers read, the efficiency rate of the Government is around 20%. I've seen it as high as 25%, but the overwhelming majority of reports I've read place it at below 10%. So, in order to be as fair as possible, I'll lean toward the higher efficiency.
But even as such.....even at DOUBLE, 40%.....the government would STILL be a lousy charity.
(BTW.....get used to using this percentage EVERY time you hear about the Government spending money. For instance, if they say that "$2 billion is being spent on..." whatever charity, understand that that $2 billion dollars equates to $10 billion in collected taxes. Just take whatever number they give you, multiply by FIVE, and you'll have an idea of how many tax dollars they had to collect in order to provide that number. THAT.....is how INEFFICIENT your Government is. And it's not just OUR Government, it's "government" that is inefficient).
TAX PROPOSAL
Here's how to a) VASTLY increase the effectiveness of charitable dollars and b) reduce your tax burden....so that you can greatly increase the strength of the private sector economy:
Create a "pure deduction" for charitable giving.
Here's how it works (I'm not using exact numbers. ONLY THE CONCEPT IS IMPORTANT):
Let's say you make $100,000.00 (taxable). So, let's say that you owe the government $35,000.00 in taxes.
And, let's say that your charitable donations totaled $10,000.00 for that tax year.
(In the current tax structure, you'd lower your income by $10k, making your taxable income $90,000.00.....which would change your 'owe' to the Government $31,500.00, a difference of $3,500.00, if you donated nothing to charity)
In this "pure deduction", your total tax burden, $35,000.00, would be reduced by YOUR TOTAL CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION, or $10,000.00, making your 'owe' to the Government $25,000.00.
This would do two primary things:
1. Driver HUGE amounts OF VERY EFFICIENT dollars into charities.
2. Allow you to keep more of your hard-earned money, which you would very likely put right back into the economy, thus stimulating it greatly!!!
WHY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
This plan will NEVER happen for one reason and one reason only:
IT WOULD DEFUND AND DE-POWER THE GOVERNMENT. And they will NEVER willing allow this. NEVER.
Please share.
We, the people, CAN force the Government to bend to our will.
Here's how to stop identity theft.....
It's very simple.
When you find them, kill them.
I also recommend this for stopping child molestation, rape and crimes against the elderly an infirmed.
Find them, kill them. Immediately.
When you find them, kill them.
I also recommend this for stopping child molestation, rape and crimes against the elderly an infirmed.
Find them, kill them. Immediately.
Friday, August 15, 2014
The Democrats were right after all....
There really IS a "war on women"....
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/report-abortion-clinics-shield-men-who-rape-young-girls/
So, while they butcher the unborn and cause physical and psychological damage to the baby-carrier (they don't deserve to called "mother"); while they proceed not to give a rat's ass about under aged girls being raped......
......they end up protecting the men who perpetrate those horrific rapes.
And let's be clear: THIS IS YOUR DEMOCRAT PARTY.
Just how stupid ARE Democrat women?
I guess we will find out in November 2014, 2016.......and beyond.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/report-abortion-clinics-shield-men-who-rape-young-girls/
So, while they butcher the unborn and cause physical and psychological damage to the baby-carrier (they don't deserve to called "mother"); while they proceed not to give a rat's ass about under aged girls being raped......
......they end up protecting the men who perpetrate those horrific rapes.
And let's be clear: THIS IS YOUR DEMOCRAT PARTY.
Just how stupid ARE Democrat women?
I guess we will find out in November 2014, 2016.......and beyond.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Someone should explain the difference to him.
Ok, so, Obama is on vacation and golfing....again.
Lots of press.....from BOTH sides (but for VASTLY different reasons)...about how he shouldn't be out golfing, fundraising and vacationing when the world seems to be exploding.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/08/14/obama-updates-public-on-iraq-ferguson-riots-then-heads-back-to-golf-course-n1878821
My first comment is:
So what?
Is a President supposed to drop everything and run to the White House at every piece of news, no matter how bad? If he does, doesn't that make him look rather weak? And doesn't it show that he has no faith in the people he has working for him?
Yes.
Presidents are supposed to be Presidential. They are supposed to ACT Presidential, ESPECIALLY in times of crisis.
It calms the nations.
It projects a " you don't matter that much" message to our enemies.
A competent President has a team of advisors and officials in Washington who handle these crises and prepare whatever is necessary to brief the President, upon his return, and guide him to make competent decisions regarding whatever crisis.
So, under "normal" crises circumstances, I'd say that Obama is doing EXACTLY the right thing:
Looking and acting Presidential.
My second comment, now that the first comment has been made, is:
The PROBLEM with this, or ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT, President is two-fold:
1. This President hasn't a CLUE as to what's going on; at least, not until he reads it in the Huffington Post. And even if he WAS clued in, he wouldn't make a decision.....because he is incapable of making decisions. He is VERY much "Nero"; fiddling while Rome burns.
2. While this President is trying to act Presidential, he has to rely on his Cabinet and advisors to handle things. The problem is: That Cabinet and those advisors are even DUMBER than Obama (if that is even possible). They are academics, who've never actually done anything in the real world; only in the theoretical one. This.....THIS.....is the team YOU, America, put in place, through election and through appointment; a team of clueless followers, following a gutless, indecisive coward who has ALSO never had to make a real decision.
Congratulations, America.
You evidently wanted a sh** sandwich, now you get to eat it.
Someone needs to explain to the President that there is a difference between "Presidential" and "clueless"; unless, of course, you are talking about a Democrat.
In that case, the terms are synonymous.
Lots of press.....from BOTH sides (but for VASTLY different reasons)...about how he shouldn't be out golfing, fundraising and vacationing when the world seems to be exploding.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/08/14/obama-updates-public-on-iraq-ferguson-riots-then-heads-back-to-golf-course-n1878821
My first comment is:
So what?
Is a President supposed to drop everything and run to the White House at every piece of news, no matter how bad? If he does, doesn't that make him look rather weak? And doesn't it show that he has no faith in the people he has working for him?
Yes.
Presidents are supposed to be Presidential. They are supposed to ACT Presidential, ESPECIALLY in times of crisis.
It calms the nations.
It projects a " you don't matter that much" message to our enemies.
A competent President has a team of advisors and officials in Washington who handle these crises and prepare whatever is necessary to brief the President, upon his return, and guide him to make competent decisions regarding whatever crisis.
So, under "normal" crises circumstances, I'd say that Obama is doing EXACTLY the right thing:
Looking and acting Presidential.
My second comment, now that the first comment has been made, is:
The PROBLEM with this, or ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT, President is two-fold:
1. This President hasn't a CLUE as to what's going on; at least, not until he reads it in the Huffington Post. And even if he WAS clued in, he wouldn't make a decision.....because he is incapable of making decisions. He is VERY much "Nero"; fiddling while Rome burns.
2. While this President is trying to act Presidential, he has to rely on his Cabinet and advisors to handle things. The problem is: That Cabinet and those advisors are even DUMBER than Obama (if that is even possible). They are academics, who've never actually done anything in the real world; only in the theoretical one. This.....THIS.....is the team YOU, America, put in place, through election and through appointment; a team of clueless followers, following a gutless, indecisive coward who has ALSO never had to make a real decision.
Congratulations, America.
You evidently wanted a sh** sandwich, now you get to eat it.
Someone needs to explain to the President that there is a difference between "Presidential" and "clueless"; unless, of course, you are talking about a Democrat.
In that case, the terms are synonymous.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
An outstanding, important read.
Pay particular attention to the HISTORY
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/09/vietnam-iraq-democrats-lose-won-wars-holocaust-to-follow
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/09/vietnam-iraq-democrats-lose-won-wars-holocaust-to-follow
Friday, August 8, 2014
I won't bother asking Liberals directly.
I won't because they are gutless hypocrites and any answer I might get will be devoid of reason, rationale and fact.
So, I ask:
We all remember when Liberals castigated Bush for his "Mission Accomplished" speech, yes?
Well, where are those Liberals, now that we are conducting meaningless bombings in Iraq, in a weak, disorganized, puny response to the butchery being conducted by ISIS?
Why aren't Liberals taking to task these ridiculous statements:
Obama:
By "Uncle Joe" Biden:
“We ended the war in Iraq.”
Or Bill Clinton, the philanderer-in-chief:
“He has taken good care of our men and women in uniform, he has ended the war in Iraq.”
And, finally.....
By Michelle, that great statesman:
“Remind them that this is the president that ended the war in Iraq.”
Well, Liberals? Shouldn't you be doing EXACTLY what you were told to do, by Michelle?
Those reminders won't come.
What Obama and the Democrat Party HAVE accomplished is this:
- Rendered the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform meaningless.
- Empowered terrorist organizations in Iraq, as well as around the world (yes, they're all watching)
- Forsaken the innocent citizens in Iraq (especially the Christians)
- Given back EVERY real accomplishment we gained in Iraq.
And, folks, let's be VERY clear about this: this is only the beginning of the butchery. ISIS will continue to butcher, creating a genocide; the biggest since Rwanda (thank you, Bill Clinton).
This is what happens when you put a spineless, gutless coward in the White House.
In other words: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ELECT A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT.
So, I ask:
We all remember when Liberals castigated Bush for his "Mission Accomplished" speech, yes?
Well, where are those Liberals, now that we are conducting meaningless bombings in Iraq, in a weak, disorganized, puny response to the butchery being conducted by ISIS?
Why aren't Liberals taking to task these ridiculous statements:
Obama:
“I’ve kept the commitments I’ve made, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq, we did.”
Obama:
“You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say – I said I’d end the war in Iraq, I ended it.”
By "Uncle Joe" Biden:
“We ended the war in Iraq.”
Or Bill Clinton, the philanderer-in-chief:
“He has taken good care of our men and women in uniform, he has ended the war in Iraq.”
And, finally.....
By Michelle, that great statesman:
“Remind them that this is the president that ended the war in Iraq.”
Well, Liberals? Shouldn't you be doing EXACTLY what you were told to do, by Michelle?
Those reminders won't come.
What Obama and the Democrat Party HAVE accomplished is this:
- Rendered the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform meaningless.
- Empowered terrorist organizations in Iraq, as well as around the world (yes, they're all watching)
- Forsaken the innocent citizens in Iraq (especially the Christians)
- Given back EVERY real accomplishment we gained in Iraq.
And, folks, let's be VERY clear about this: this is only the beginning of the butchery. ISIS will continue to butcher, creating a genocide; the biggest since Rwanda (thank you, Bill Clinton).
This is what happens when you put a spineless, gutless coward in the White House.
In other words: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ELECT A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/iraq-security-pope-idINKBN0G718P20140807
The choice is NOT between war and peace.
The choice is between war and something FAR worse.
The choice is NOT between war and peace.
The choice is between war and something FAR worse.
It occurs to me that.....
Abortion has as much to do with "women's rights" as slavery had to do with "private property rights".
What I'd like to see.....
Ya know those commercials, attempting to drum up ambulance chasers, so that some law firm can file a class action suit and collect their millions, while the idiots who think they're getting a free payday end up with a couple bucks?
Let's get together and file suit against Pkannec Parenthood and every other abortion provider.
We can make a commercial: have you suffered emotional or physical trauma during or after an abortion procedure? .........
Let's defund these butchers.
Let's get together and file suit against Pkannec Parenthood and every other abortion provider.
We can make a commercial: have you suffered emotional or physical trauma during or after an abortion procedure? .........
Let's defund these butchers.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
So.....doesn't this make her......
A sexist?
Doesn't this prove that there's a "war on men"????
C'mon Liberals, be consistent!
Oh....wait......what am I thinking?!?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/06/Michelle-Obama-Women-Are-Smarter-Than-Men
Doesn't this prove that there's a "war on men"????
C'mon Liberals, be consistent!
Oh....wait......what am I thinking?!?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/06/Michelle-Obama-Women-Are-Smarter-Than-Men
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
RACIST!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/Watch-At-Pro-Gaza-Rally-Cornel-West-Calls-Obama-a-War-Criminal-That-Kills-Children
Sorry, pal, but your little attempt to place context doesn't work.
We Conservatives have learned a POWERFUL lesson from you Marxists:
If a person disagrees with Obama....
....it ISN'T because Obama is a gutless coward, unable and unwilling to make ANY tough decisions.
....it ISN'T because Obama is a radical Marxist, intent on creating a Socialist America.
.....it ISN'T because Obama's "go-to" target is the unborn, who he delightfully supports their wanton butchering.
.....and it ISN'T because he's the worst and least effective President in our nation's history.
No, Cornell.
If YOU disagree with Obama, it's because YOU, Cornell, are quite obviously A RACIST!
My God....what it must be like to be ashamed....embarrassed....hateful....of your own race!
But....that's the Democrat Party for you!
Sorry, pal, but your little attempt to place context doesn't work.
We Conservatives have learned a POWERFUL lesson from you Marxists:
If a person disagrees with Obama....
....it ISN'T because Obama is a gutless coward, unable and unwilling to make ANY tough decisions.
....it ISN'T because Obama is a radical Marxist, intent on creating a Socialist America.
.....it ISN'T because Obama's "go-to" target is the unborn, who he delightfully supports their wanton butchering.
.....and it ISN'T because he's the worst and least effective President in our nation's history.
No, Cornell.
If YOU disagree with Obama, it's because YOU, Cornell, are quite obviously A RACIST!
My God....what it must be like to be ashamed....embarrassed....hateful....of your own race!
But....that's the Democrat Party for you!
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Democrats hard at work.....being paid by YOU.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/08/02/bored-government-workers-spend-their-days-watching-porn-n1874007
This is your America, as envisioned by Democrats and as allowed and funded by YOU.
Well, at least they aren't using SNAP to fund their porn.
.....oh, wait......they are.
This is your America, as envisioned by Democrats and as allowed and funded by YOU.
Well, at least they aren't using SNAP to fund their porn.
.....oh, wait......they are.
Hey, Michelle!
Banning bake sales at schools?
Forcing "healthy" lunch programs on public school kids?
Fine.
When are you going to ban the sale of Girl Scout cookies?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/schools-plan-to-lighten-up-on-bake-sales-1406923280?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
Forcing "healthy" lunch programs on public school kids?
Fine.
When are you going to ban the sale of Girl Scout cookies?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/schools-plan-to-lighten-up-on-bake-sales-1406923280?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Willfully? Hmmmmmm......not sure I'd go there
BUT.......
This moron IS an "ignorant f***stick".....
http://townhall.com/video/how-exactly-does-immigration-affect-us-jobs-n1873554
I mean....SERIOUSLY......there's being wrong and then there's BEING WRONG!
He MUST have got his degree at the same Obama got his....
This moron IS an "ignorant f***stick".....
http://townhall.com/video/how-exactly-does-immigration-affect-us-jobs-n1873554
I mean....SERIOUSLY......there's being wrong and then there's BEING WRONG!
He MUST have got his degree at the same Obama got his....
What's that old saying?
I remember this as one of the greatest pieces of advice I ever got from my folks:
How do you tell whether a person is a good person?
Answer: if she's nice to you, but not nice to the waiter, she's not a nice person.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713591/Hillary-told-one-agent-f-suit-looked-cheap-Secret-Service-agents-say-guarding-former-First-Lady-wasthe-worst-form-punishment-author-reveals-explosive-new-book.html
How do you tell whether a person is a good person?
Answer: if she's nice to you, but not nice to the waiter, she's not a nice person.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713591/Hillary-told-one-agent-f-suit-looked-cheap-Secret-Service-agents-say-guarding-former-First-Lady-wasthe-worst-form-punishment-author-reveals-explosive-new-book.html
Friday, August 1, 2014
Just like in Vietnam.......
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384367/making-weapons-out-dead-children-gaza-ian-tuttle
Wrong then, wrong now.
Have Democrats EVER been on the right side of history?
.......nope.
Wrong then, wrong now.
Have Democrats EVER been on the right side of history?
.......nope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)