Showing posts with label Democrats are 'misguided'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats are 'misguided'. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Newt's Immigration Stance: Intelligent Design

Jai singh | 05:29 | | | Be the first to comment!
I like Newt Gingrich's stance on immigration reform, espoused by the now-leading Republican candidate in last night's debate. Because it's humane treatment for people who've come here illegally but, over time, have kept their noses clean, paid their taxes, created a family, gone to church and frankly have acted better than some of the dirty socialist marxists LeftLibProggs who were born here.

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter-century, who have children and grandchildren … separate them from their families and expel them,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich added that he does not believe that “the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt a policy that destroys families that have been here a quarter century.”

There's caveat to what I'd do for these illegals who would escape from deportation, however.

Since they did come here illegally and bypassed the immigration rules, missed the queue, then they could never become 'full-fledged' U.S. citizens. We'd have to create a new ranking for them, with *most* of the privileges of *real* citizens (they must pay taxes, they and their offspring can go to school and use public facilities, and other basic rights) but I'd not allow them to vote.

Voting is the most important privilege Americans have, after all; to cheat, come in the country illegally, and then be allowed to vote seems inappropriate to me. Democrats, of course, would immediately disagree with that: they tend to welcome any voters for any reason, alive or dead in most cases, who would give them another 'high-five for socialism'. Of course, not all Hispanics are drawn to dirty socialism; as a matter of fact, many are God-fearing non-Atheists who would be repulsed by the Democratic Party's embrace of atheism (if they knew the extent of it).

Of course, drawing the line between 'good' immigrants and 'bad' immigrants would be a difficult chore. I'd look for evidence of their desire in integrate and not just lurk in the shadows: community people, caring people, family men and women. Oh, and speaking English would be one of the most important criteria, of course.

And no further criminal violations! 'Breaking and entering' our country illegally would be the only pass they'd get.


Read more ...

Sunday, 6 November 2011

"Population Control, Marauder Style"

Jai singh | 10:43 | | | | | Be the first to comment!
The New York Times has an article up today, in 'celebration' of the 7 Billion humans now alive on Planet #3 (Mudball Earth). Unsurprisingly, their focus is on population control: specifically, deaths due to various human wars and atrocities occurring since 400 BC to present day.

But, there's an omission on that handy chart they provide; the popup chart reproduced and 'fixed' below...


This is one massive chart, sized 1400 x 2000. Click to enlarge.

You'll easily see my 'fix', the large red circle at the bottom of the chart. That represents the U.S.'s 50 Million induced abortions, since Roe v. Wade was put into operation as a killing methodology in 1973. Sourced, here.

The 'top two' killing events in world history prior to my 'correction' were:
1) World War II - 1939-1945 - 66 Million deaths
2) (Tie) Genghis Kahn, 1206-1227 - 40 Million; Mao Zedong 1949-1976 - 40 Million

My correction:

1) World War II - 1939-1945 - 66 Million deaths
2) U.S. Induced Abortions - 1973-2011 - 50 Million deaths
3) (Tie) Genghis Kahn -1206-1227 - 40 Million deaths; Mao Zedong - 1949-1976 - 40 Million deaths

Interesting to note that Mao Zedong was a Communist. And, supporters of Roe v. Wade are far-Left Democrats, now approaching full-blown Communism in their radical ideologies.
Read more ...

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Bob Turner wins; Barack Obama loses.

Jai singh | 04:47 | | | | | | Be the first to comment!
New York District 9 'special election': Weiner's seat (vacated when, well, Congressman Weiner became overly exposed).
Anthony Weiner
NOTE:
Objects in this Photoshop are MUCH LARGER
than for-reals.
Results: Bob Turner (R) by a comfortable margin over David Weprin (D). The first Republican elected in this district since 1923.

Turner ran on Barack Hussein Obama's record, and got the vote of the JOOOOOOOS!, who felt Mr. Obama had turned his back on them. "REVENGE OF THE JEWS!", screams Drudge.

harbinger: anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign: Turner's win is a harbinger of the SCOAMF's defeat in 2012, in what might be a landslide.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

~*~

Read more ...

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

So, why did the NRA lend support to that little shithead fleebagger, Wisconsin State Senator Jim Holperin?

Jai singh | 05:41 | | | | | | Be the first to comment!
The recall election for two of the Democratic Wisconsin 'fleebagger' state senators didn't go well for Republicans last night: both 'fleebaggers' get to keep their seats.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), an organization I've long supported, gave an (A) endorsement to little shithead fleebagger Jim Holperin, and I am forced to defend the NRA for doing so.

Long before I became interested in broad-spectrum politics, long before the current chasm in Republican - Democratic ideology drove me to support all-and-only Republican tickets, I voted Democratic when the NRA endorsed a solid 2nd Amendment Democratic candidate.

Yeah, the NRA is single-issue, and believes that in order to keep that single issue front-and-center it’s best to not just pick a party and support only that party, but to judge each candidate on individual merits. Usually it’s no contest: Democrats love gun control; it is a featured party plank.

But the NRA caught massive hell from members when they were poised to endorse Harry Reid for re-up. Finally, the NRA acquiesced, and offered no endorsement in that race.

This comment set off the following exchange (limited to my responses; if you want to follow along, follow the damned linky)...
happyfeet posted on 8/16 @ 9:15 pm
I blame the cowardly self-serving fat-ass socialist douchebags at the National Rifle Association

But Holperin supported legislation deemed helpful to preserving the 2nd Amendment, therefore earning the rightful endorsement of the NRA.

What about ‘single-issue’ do you not understand ?

That single issue (the 2nd Amendment) is the only issue the NRA cares about. It’s a hell of an issue to bear standard for; and I support them for their unwavering support of it.

That is all.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has recognized the gun rights voting record of State Senator Jim Holperin with an “A” rating, and has endorsed Holperin in the current recall election.

“Your strong and vocal support of our right to keep and bear arms” led to the organization’s backing, according to the letter of endorsement.

“Hunting, fishing, trapping and other outdoor sports are very important to many 12th Senate District residents,” Holperin said. “Therefore, I’ve always worked hard to defend our northwoods sporting traditions, including the least restrictive exercise of 2nd amendment rights.”

Holperin said over the past three years he’s either authored or co-sponsored legislation to authorize the concealed carry of weapons, protect the right of in-the-home self defense (Castle Doctrine), and create a mentor program for young hunters. Conversely, he’s helped to kill legislation requiring weapons to be “micro-stamped”, along with other anti-gun measures.

“I’m grateful to the NRA for recognizing my legislative record of protecting gun rights and our northwoods hunting heritage,” Holperin concluded. “I’m proud to have the organization’s endorsement and I intend to continue working to advance legislation that protects 2nd amendment rights.”

Recall that the NRA was responsible for Al Gore losing Tennessee in 2000. We worked our asses off here; it paid off handsomely, wouldn’t you say?

There are other things we are proud of. S’long, you RINO bastard...

WASHINGTON – Former president George Bush, a gun enthusiast and decades-long member of the National Rifle Association, has resigned from the group because of its statements that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are “jackbooted thugs” who harass gun owners.

“Your broadside against federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor, and it offends my concept of service to country,” Bush wrote to NRA president Thomas Washington in a May 3 letter that was released yesterday. “It indirectly slurs a wide array of government law-enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.”

Bush said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s description of federal agents as ” `wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms’ (and) wanting to `attack law-abiding citizens’ is a vicious slander on good people.” LaPierre used the description in a fund-raising letter sent to the NRA’s 3.5 million members early this year, and he defended it in the wake of the April 19 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Telling truth isn't always easy. But the NRA will tell the truth, no matter who cries like a pissy baby.

Heh. The NRA: giving the TEA Party a fall-back position. You be sure to Thank us some day, m’kay?

Much like when Sarah Palin stood up for her old mentor, John McCain, for his re-election (much to the butt-hurt of ‘feets). You always dance with the one who brung you.

If the NRA hadn’t endorsed this little shit, then this little shit and lots of other little shits who are Democrats could cry “See? the NRA will turn it’s back on us in a heartbeat! Why, again, should we risk alienating our caucuses and fellow travelers and support these 2nd Amendment rights?”

Why, indeed?

Wasn’t so long ago that Democrats were not far-LeftLibProggs. Remember the blue dogs? All but dead now, driven out by the new, neo-Marxists.

But not all of them, obviously, are that far gone. This little shit did the right thing, whatever his inner thoughts are, he did pull the right levers. And was rewarded for it with that endorsement.

The NRA is the only big tent with flaps left open, I suppose.

It’s a difficult line to walk.

But we have a solid string of successes to point to.

As of this morning, 51 members of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms ownership. These strongly worded letters caution the President and Secretary of State to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Thanking the NRA for our long-standing work on this issue, Senator Moran remarked, “I appreciate the NRA’s partnership on this important effort to defend the rights of American gun owners. I want to thank them for their active support in sending a strong message to the Obama Administration that our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”

There’s not 51 Republicans in the US Senate.

Both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature voted to approve one of the nation’s strongest Right-to-Carry bills by solid bipartisan margins. Today’s signing of the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act into law leaves Illinois as the only state that provides no way for its citizens to carry firearms for self-protection outside their homes or places of business.




Glenn Beck with David A. Keene, NRA 2nd Vice President, at the NRA Convention Banquet
Louisville, KY, May 19, 2008 (photo credit: serr8d)


The official NRA line, which I pretty much nailed just above...

NRA is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We base our political decisions solely on gun-related issues, as we are a single-issue organization. By not taking into account political party affiliation and/or non-gun-related issues, we ensure we do not divide our base of support that is united in its support for the Second Amendment.

We have a pro-gun incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection over pro-gun challengers. We stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature. We would lose all credibility if we abandoned our friends who have stood by us. Of course, should a pro-gun challenger win his election, then he will be the beneficiary of this policy when he seeks re-election.

Given the string of obvious successes, I can pretty much say without worry that their policy is, generally, effective.

I mentioned, above, the Reid Exception
The National Rifle Association has learned a powerful lesson. That lesson is that they are not the all powerful group they thought they were whose members jump at their mere request. Whether or not they will retain this lesson for use in the future however? That will remain to be seen.

In recent months the NRA has made no secret their overt desire to endorse Senator Harry Reid in Nevada’s Senate race. Claiming to be a “single issue” group that only cares about the second amendment, they touted Reid’s record on gun rights as justification for this potential endorsement. What they were not ready for however was the backlash from their members who had quite a different opinion of Senator Reid.

What the NRA learned is that vast swaths of their membership were not single issue voters. They learned that their members were lovers of the whole Constitution. And as word of the potential endorsement spread the pushback was becoming obvious and even threatened the organization’s ability to raise money. …

Well, there is good news to report. The NRA has backed off. We Tea Partiers demanded it and they blinked. …

The real reason for this hasty decision and poorly provided justification for it is because the NRA has felt the sting of what Americans who have had too much are capable of. And anyone who flirts with the destructive ideology of liberalism or supports liberals will be in our line of fire.

Eventually, the gouge between Left and Right will be such that no organization can bridge it. Then, there will be open conflict, which is not a pleasant thing, really.

Read more ...

Monday, 6 June 2011

Democrats: "GET YOUR FREE STUFF HERE! (just remember to vote for us, so it keeps coming)".

Jai singh | 06:03 | | | | Be the first to comment!
There is no politician anywhere who should be allowed to 'skate' to a re-election, be it a Tea Party candidate, a Republican or (especially) a Democrat.

The new Democratic party has an edge, however. They are now the party who offers 'free ones' (Other People's Money) to their 'clientele' (moochers) for votes. It's difficult for any person of low self-confidence to overcome the lure of free monies, especially now when the leader of the new Neo-Socialist Democratic Party is a skilled 'Community Organizer' who can swoon voters with vacuous, meaningless words like "HOPE" and "CHANGE".

Any politician who's been in office is susceptible to the lure of the Office and the pleasantries of the Beltway. So, to keep each one of 'em honest and staunch, keep the fires lit under their backsides. Especially those who are desirous of re-election.

As for Democrats? Is there any hope left for that now Far-Left neo-Socialist Party?

Mob-rule would have everything given out for free. Democrats want to promise just that; in a climate of limitless wealth, they could afford to offer their desired nirvana where everyone is exactly alike, with 'equal outcomes' for everybody. Is there limitless wealth? How long can the printing presses run? Are we Broke? Yes, we are.

Democrats are now promising their voters 'free stuff' in exchange for their votes. Our Great Debate today is to whether we should allow Democrats to get away with this tactic; if our Republic fails due to the overwhelming debt we are incurring, the answer will be plain to all, but it'll come too late. How much 'giveaway to the Poor and Needy' is enough? There must be a 'happy medium' between what we give to those who 'want' and really do 'need; allow for those who really 'need' to get some (temporary) help, and, most importantly, separate the politicians from their ability to suck the Treasury for limitless monies with which to buy votes.

Here's some thoughtful reading, for those with the necessary intellectual stamina (h/t Darleen Click)...
My answer is that one way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want government spending to be the independent variable that determines tax levels, and conservatives want government spending to be the dependent variable determined by taxes.

...

I’m a conservative because I think it’s democratically healthy to confront the hard question about taxes first and directly, and then let our answer to that question determine the budget perimeter for our welfare state. It is democratically unhealthy to proceed the way liberals have habitually dealt with the problem, by promising generous programs that will “pay for themselves” or even “pay for themselves many times over,” and only later, after people have come to expect and depend on the stream of government benefits, fess up about the taxes required to sustain them.
Please, don't be susceptible to the lure of free stuff promised by a Democratic politician for your votes! TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).

Best for the Republic to Vote Conservative, and keep the fires lit under their asses, or they will CHANGE over time.
Read more ...

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

New York Times' editor 'Wesley Mouch': "The Numbers Are Grim"

Jai singh | 06:26 | | | | | | | | | Be the first to comment!
Of course the numbers are grim, 'Wesley'. Barack Hussein Obama, redistributionist extraordinaire, dirty socialist, economy-destroyer and likely follower of Cloward-Piven stratagems, is still in Office.
More troubling in the latest figures, consumer spending — the largest component of the economy — was especially slow. Stagnant wages and higher prices for gas and food are squeezing family budgets, while falling home equity hurts consumer confidence. That suggests more bad news to come.

When consumers are constrained, so is hiring, because without customers, employers are hard pressed to retain workers or make new hires. A recent Labor Department report showed a greater-than-expected rise in the number of people claiming jobless benefits even as private-sector economic forecasts are being revised downward — both very bad omens for continued job growth.
What does 'Wesley Mouch' recommend? Why, more taxes and govern spending, of course!
The White House has offered sounder ideas, including job retraining, plans to boost educational achievement and tax increases to help cover needed spending. But its economic team is mainly focused on negotiations to raise the debt limit, presumably parrying Republican demands for deep spending cuts that could weaken the economy further while still reaching an agreement on the necessary increase.

The grim numbers tell an unavoidable truth: The economy is not growing nearly fast enough to dent unemployment. Unfortunately, no one in Washington is pushing policies to promote stronger growth now.
Yes there is. Why, just this weekend Sarah Palin started her bus tour, leaving Washington for a cross-country campaign. If that's not 'pushing policies to promote strong growth', then what is?

Kicking Barry out of Office in 2012 is the most significant economic stimulus plan that's currently on the table.

Who is John Galt ?
Read more ...

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Democrats are the Perfect Parasites: Sucking the Treasury Dry to Satisfy their Moocher Constituency

Jai singh | 06:36 | | | | Be the first to comment!
Even the New York Times realizes that the Democrats are FAILURES. Witness the headline...
Passive in the Senate  Published: May 28, 2011
The 112th Senate has become a body that largely reacts to outrageous things that Republicans do or say. Rather than coming up with original ideas and sensible policies to counter to the extreme ones pouring out of the House, it simply votes down House bills, or refuses to take them up. Democratic senators, fearful of last year’s Republican tide, may think that a play-it-safe strategy will save their jobs in next year’s election, but the country could pay a high price for their timidity. ...

But there will be no vote on a budget by the Democratic majority of the Senate, the traditional method for stating the majority’s priorities in black and white dollar signs. That’s because the Budget Committee has not agreed on one. And that’s because a good plan by the committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, was deferred by Senate leaders, who feared that the plan’s tax increase on millionaires would make Democratic senators ripe targets for Tea Party attacks.

These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.

But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right.


Democrats are Cowards. Dirty socialist Cowards. Senate Democrats have had no Budget proposal FOR TWO YEARS. Barack Obama's budget was one that seemed as if it were created by a child tapping away at an Excel spreadsheet; chock-full of pie-in-the-sky nonsense that didn't address the REAL consequences of his Democrat's unfunded social agendas.

Democrats have promised the world to their constituencies for votes; and are now too cowardly to address paying for their promised largess.

Cowards. All Democrats are cowards, and seemingly would rather wait for a fiscal bombshell crisis than address tough issues. Barack Obama, the titular leader of the Democratic Party, would rather promise his 'community organized' but stupid voting bloc free lunches, then dodge any sensible debate on curtailing the over spending. There is no way to pay for Democrat's desires.

It seems as if they have adapted the Cloward - Piven strategy: keep loading up the cart until it collapses under the weight of the load, then worry about the broken axle, or not; if the collapse is grave enough, they can reform the system to allow for their socialist desire to 'spread the wealth', or at least equalize the various peoples, with themselves ensconced at the top rung, of course. Just like the good old days in the Soviet Union, or in China today.

So, Paul Ryan, start hammering the Democrats to pay for their promises. Make 'em show us how they would pay for their vote-attracting lures set out to attract their unkept, unthinking moon-eyed voters who are fed with plates dished high with class envy.

Eat the rich. It's worked before, right?

Political cartoon h/t Theo Spark
Read more ...

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Barack Obama exhibits the dumbth at least TWICE in one day.

Jai singh | 05:00 | | | | | Be the first to comment!
Nothing more about Sarah Palin or George Bush from pipsqueak leftists, please. You've your own idiot - moron to answer for.

Barack Obama signs the Westminster Abbey guest book "5/24/08", no doubt reliving his glory days before the early stages of Alzheimer's. Then, he screws up the toast to the Queen, who elegantly rebukes him.

Original caption:
"A message from US President Barack Obama and his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, apparently signed by the President with the wrong date of 2008 in the distinguished visitors’ book during a tour of Westminster Abbey, in central London, as part of his state visit to the United Kingdom, Tuesday May 24, 2011. (AP Photo/John Stillwell, Pool)"

Alternative caption:
"DUMBASS!!!11!1!1!!"
Heh.
Blaze writer Billy Hallowell may have had the best one-liner while we were discussing the photo: “Maybe that’s the year he visited all 57 states.”




Etiquette and protocol: obviously BHO knows as much about that as he does about preserving the Constitution.
Surely we have protocol officers who could have prepped him for this occasion.

Barack Obama won't release his grades from his college years; we're seeing mounting evidence as to why.

There's no escaping getting publically graded now, BHO. You can't hide these sorts of inadequacies anymore. Appointing a new 'Czar' to monitor the Press hasn't helped a bit, has it?

Poor guy, he's on the job for a day, and this. Give him a raise. No, strike that! We've enough overpaid government employees already.



Read more ...
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

Search

Pages

Powered by Blogger.