Ever heard of an intellectual free thinking lemming? Good luck in finding one. Blacks have wasted their political capital. The Democrat Party doesn't feel they have to work for the black vote, they EXPECT IT or else. There lies the problem with a racial group giving unfounded loyalty towards a political party that doesn't deserve it.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
It must have been the warm weather in Tampa that made Obama do it.
We've heard the excuses by the left on why Obama can't seem to help himself from bowing to people. It has gotten so bad that even the Japanese are starting to wonder what is up with this guy. Obama's loyal drones have given every conceivable excuse under the sun and even the moon to why Obama can't help himself not bow when in front of some sort of leader. The excuse I've hear the most is that Obama is merely showing respect to other world leaders. If that is truly the case and their best explanation, I wonder can they explain why Obama was shown Thursday bowing to the "MAYOR OF TAMPA" Pam Iorio?! The Mayor may be an important person to the people of Tampa, but she isn't no Angela Merkel of Germany. Maybe Obama can use some of the stimulus money to go to Walmart and buy himself a back brace to help him with his case of the bows.
Jon Stewart reams Chris Matthews over his "I forgot I was watching a black man for an hour" remark.
Dare I say that I'm actually starting to like Jon Stewart? His blue on blue comedy attacks are really hilarious. Maybe Jon is thinking to himself "why ruin a good thing". Jon ripped into Chris Matthews over Matthews stupid comment about forgetting Obama was black for an hour. When a comedian goofs on a liberal, you know that it has to be funny. When that comedian is a liberal also, it's just beyond priceless.
This is how our nation got stuck with Barack Obama.
Coming off the one year anniversary of the Barack Obama "error", I decided to show everyone just how Barack Obama was able to win the presidency. Let me just say the following.
Ignorance is bliss. To the Democratic party it's mandatory.
Chris Mathews forgot Obama was black for an hour during the SOTU address.
I'm kind of late chiming in on the latest racial act of stupidity in regards to another liberal commenting on Barack Obama. A few weeks ago, I thought nothing could have topped the remarks made by Harry Reid. I thought wrong. Chris Matthews is a text book idiotic blowhard. That isn't in doubt by most people who know who he is. What he said on the night of the Obama's State Of The Union speech actually managed to equal what Harry Reid said and helped to elevate Chris's status among being one of the most obnoxious people on a cable news channel. Chris Mathews said on Rachael Maddow's show that "for an hour I forgot that Barack Obama was black".
To my surprise, a few in the media actually picked up on Matthew's comments. I can only imagine what would have been the response though if say Sean Hannity would have made those exact comments on Fox News about Obama after Obama's SOTU address. What did Matthews mean when he said "for an hour I forgot that Barack Obama was black". Could the reason why Chris gets that tingle up his leg when Obama speaks is because Obama doesn have that "negro dialect"? As a black man, I'm still trying to comprehend what Matthews meant. Could it be that Obama is just "white enough" for Chris Mathews to feel comfortable with Obama as with Harry Reid and Joe Biden? The problem with Chris Matthews is that he has a problem letting go of the issue of race like most liberals do. Race relations in America has come an extremely long way over the last decades plus. Don't tell that though to liberals both black and white. To them the racial bogeyman is forever present just ready to pounce on defenseless non whites according to them. When I was watcing the SOTU address, I saw a man lying through his teeth. Race didn't even pop in my head while I was watching him lie. What bugs the hell out of me is this. I am sick and tired of liberals of different races always trying to make every issue about race. I know these people have some sort of racial hang up in their lives, but "do their problems have to be ours too"? I said last year that the people who seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is black and is the president are liberals themselves. The rest of the country has moved on, yet these people still want to be stuck in the past. Here's a little advice for Chris. How about judging Barack Hussein Obama by the content of his character as a man instead of the color of his skin as a man. It's just a thought.
The popularity of the liberal rag known as Newsday.
When Air America filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last week, it proved that people won't listen to liberals on the radio even if the content is presented free of charge. With that being said, why would any liberal publication think for a moment that people would actually "pay" to read their content? I'm sure some people have heard of the liberal rag known as "Newsday". As with most liberal rags, Newsday is facing a steep decline in its circulation and readership. So the kings of smart over at Newsday came up with a "brilliant" idea. Since people weren't buying their magazines in print, they thought maybe people would pay money to read Newsday online. So instead of them doing any type of market research to understand the "real" reason why nobody is reading their magazine, Newsday spent over four million dollars redesigning their website. So when they were done, the content was still the same liberal dribble. The only thing that was changed was the website. So what was the grand pay off for the wizards of smart over at Newsday? For their efforts, Newsday signed up a whooping 35 subscribers to their website that they paid $4,000,000 dollars to redesign. That breaks down to roughly $114,285 dollars per subscriber. This is why most liberals suck at business. I predict Newsday will soon go the way of Air America soon.
The air has been let out of Air America once and for all.
In a long list of examples of why most Americans can give a rats rear end on what liberals have to say, this example should be displayed in neon letters. The liberal radio network Air America last week filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The network that brought us such liberal kooks such as Al Franken and Jeanne Garofalo has ceased operations as of Saturday. The board of Air America claimed that the economy was the reason for its ultimate downfall. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Funny how conservative talk radio doesn't seem to suffer in the profitability department. It simply goes back to what I've said before. Most people don't want to listen to liberal insanity. So to the tinfoilers who ran and hosted Air America, it was fun goofing on you all while it lasted, how short lived that was.
Jon Stewart rips into Keth Olberman good for going overboard on Scott Brown.
People with common sense and follow politics know that Keith Olberman of MSNBC is a fringe liberal whack job. I don't understand why NBC has him on their Football Night in America pre game show. Anyways, Jon Stewart ripped apart Keith Olberman on his Comedy Central show last night. I thought it was pure comedic gold. I'm still not sure what the motivation was for Jon to turn the knives of comedic ridicule against a fellow liberal, but I have no complaints thats for sure. I guess that Jon being a comedian realized that Keith Olberman is just a walking talking pathetic joke of human being regardless of whether he shares his ideological views or not. You all need to grab some munchies and pull up a chair. Jon Stewart's skit of Keith Olberman is beyond funny and beyond priceless.
Gas up that truck Scott Brown, you're going to Washington!
It took Obama just one year to become toxic to the Democratic party. It took Bush eight years for him to be a liability to the Republican party. Scott Brown has shocked the political world with his politically earth shattering win. When Obama and Kerry made fun of Scott for driving a pick up truck, I knew that their words were just helping to dig the political grave of Martha Coakley.
It can now be said that Barack Obama has no political capital left. Right now, he'd be better off just jetting off for another date night with Michelle. What does this historic election win says about Obama? Obama's "mojo" couldn't help a liberal candidate win in a liberal state, so what influence does he have as the leader of the Democratic party? The liberal lion Ted Kennedy was a senator of Massachusetts for 47 years, yet it took less then one year for a moderate-conservative candidate to win that seat. The election of Barack Obama has to be at this point the best gift the GOP could have ever wished for. Republicans should now be finding ways to get Obama to campaign for other Democrats this year. In essence, the man has become a jinx to his party. The people tried to tell Obama, Pelosi and Reid that America is a center-right nation. They didn't want listen. It was easier for them and their supporters to just label the people as "tea baggers" and members of the "mob".
The lesson learned by the victory of Scott Brown is that "trying to polarize people with opposing views doesn't help to win elections". Their attacks on Scott Brown because he drives pick up truck is no different then when the liberal elites attacked Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin. Hate, venom and smears don't play well among independent voters. Scott Brown won among independent voters by a margin of 73% to 25%. That is nearly a 3 to 1 margin. How embarrassing is it that Obama and Bill Clinton had to come into what was suppose to have been a solidly blue state to try and help a well known liberal candidate beat a politically unknown Republican candidate? What's more embarrassing is that it didn't work.
And you thought Republcians advocate stealing elections?
Never believe a word that comes out of a mouths of liberals. Go back to the presidential election of 2000, liberals shouted to the heavens that somehow George Bush stole the victory in Florida thus giving him the electoral college count to win the presidential election. Democrats filed lawsuits and in the end it was proven that no voter fraud had happened and no voter intimidation happened either. That didn't stop liberals from continuing to use the urban legend of 2000 as a way to continue to rally and con their fringe base into voting in elections in the years that followed. What would happen if Rush Hudson Limbaugh would have said on his radio program that he would cheat to win the election for Scott Brown in Massachusetts if he was a resident? Think about that question for a moment. What would be the reaction by the media and Democrats? Wouldn't they be saying that Limbaugh's words is proof that Republicans advocate stealing elections? Well a radio talk show host made those comments but it wasn't Rush and it wasn't a conservative talk show host who made the comments
Pat Robertson shows that even the right has it's share of nutjobs.
What can I say about Pat Robertson? Apparently Mr. Pat Robertson has blamed the earthquake in Haiti on his opinion that "Haiti at one time made a pact with the devil". You all read correctly. Pat claimed that the Haitian said "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." This nut job believes that the Haitian "sold their soul" to Satan so they could be free of the French occupation and enslavement of their land. I have mixed thoughts on Pat Robertson. On one hand, I believe he truly does believe he's doing the lords work. People like Sharpton and Jackson are mere con men posing as men of god. However, the statements by Pat Robertson today on his CBN broadcast can't be taken serious for one second. What was more offensive in my eyes other then his kookish comments was that he didn't even use his show in which to ask his viewers to send donations to help the people of Haiti. I said in my first story on the crisis in Haiti that perishiners will be generous this Sunday with their donations to help the Haiti cause. In the case of Pat Robertson, I have to wonder is the reason why he didn't ask his viewers to send donations is, because he believes that the Haitian people "made their bed" with the devil?
I believe it might be time for Pat to sit down once and for all. It's bad enough that liberals falsely label conservatives as being religious extremists. Statements by Pat Robertson only gives fuel to their claims, and his comments are just an embarrassment all the way around.
The last place a major earthquake should have struck.
It's bad enough that Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, but it is even worse that a country that is dirt poor had to withstand a 7.0 magnitude level earthquake. In a situation like this, we can only pray and send what we can to help. Reports are claiming that one out of every two houses have been leveled by yesterday's earthquake, and the death toll could go into the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Haiti was barely functioning as a country before the massive earthquake, and now it's beyond crippled. There are reports that the main hospital has collapsed as well as the presidential palace. My trust rests with the charitable organizations that are trained to handle emergencies like this. The Salvation Army as well as the Red Cross are already on the scene. The people of Haiti also now have no clean water, food and shelter. Humanitarian charities from around the world are already on their way. It's great to see the world come together to help out in what has to be one of the worst natural disasters of all time to impact a country. I have a feeling that most churches will be taking up collections to help the people in Haiti, so please give what you can. I know money is tight for a lot of people, but the old biblical saying goes something like "give and it shall be given back to you". Keep the people of Haiti in your thoughts and prayers.
Palin's new 800 pound weapon in her war against the mainstream media.
When I first heard the news that Sarah Palin has signed a multi year contract to become a contributor to Fox News, I thought that her decision was one of her first flawed decisions she's made since coming onto the national scene last year. I was thinking in the context of how her "gig" with Fox News could hurt a potential 2012 presidential run. Then I thought about it, and I thought about it some more. Then a light bulb went off in my head. This woman has to be one of the most politically unorthodox, strategic geniuses to ever come along in politics within the last 25 years. When Palin gave her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last years, she made reference to her speaking as a way to "bypass the filters of the mainstream media". What better way for Sarah Palin to bypass the filter of the mainstream media, then by being apart of the eight hundred pound guerrilla of cable news being Fox News? By Sarah joining Fox News, she will once again accomplish several goals.
1. Palin will be able to get her message out on her positions on key 2012 issues without her message being distorted by the rest of the media that can't stand her guts.
2. By Palin communicating her thoughts on the keys issues, she will demonstrate to the biggest cable news audience that she does have a command of the issues. This will further help to neutralize the stigma the the media helped to create about Palin
3. By Sarah just being a contributor instead of a host for Fox News, this gives her time to still organize a presidential campaign, raise money and help other candidates this year.
4. This project of Sarah will help to keep her army of supporters engaged and motivated.
Harry Smith and his panelists actually figured it out. Just think, they didn't even need talking points from the DNC to do it. I'm impressed!!
Sarah is suppose to be making her Fox News debut tonight on the Bill O'Reily show. I'll tune in to watch. I believe her most important show will be tomorrow when Sarah is going to be on Glenn Beck's show for an entire hour. Palin is going to have to work at getting the support from libertarians not just conservatives and moderates. Glenn Beck is a devoted libertarian. I can guarantee that the topic on CNN and MSNBC are going to be solely aimed at attacking every word that comes out of Palin's mouth. So now Sarah Palin has another weapon to add to her arsenal against the mainstream media. She's already demonstrated that she is the queen of the social media format, that being face book and twitter. This is a funny analogy, but it definitely makes sense. Last year Sarah had to deal with the media shooting spitballs at her, and she couldn't respond. This years the media is now throwing rocks at her, but she has now rolled up in a fully armed Abraham's battle tank with the sticker on the side reading "Fox News approved".
Ann Coulter debates the dark skinned black man with the negro dialect aka Al Sharpton.
Loyalty can really blind a person's judgement. Loyalty can be an overriding factor to a person exercising common sense. Al Sharpton is a person who has no moral core. His loyality as a so called Reverend isn't to god. His loyalty rests in defending a political party at every turn regardless of whether they do wrong. Al Sharpton is an ultra liberal. A black democrat State Senator in my state of Maryland by the name of Lisa Gladden made a statement a few years ago that "party trumps race". She made that statement in response to her being questioned about the racially insensitive attacks by Democrats that were being used against then candidate for the U.S Senate Michael Steele.
Lisa Gladden "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Gladden's statement was one of my very first lessons into understanding that race and politics weren't two separate issues that were dealt with on their own individual merits. I soon realized that race could be utilized as a political weapon like any other issue. When politicians talk about racism, I know for the most part they could care less about it. It is just a tool in which they can use to accumulate and maintain power. Of course the racial political tool aka the "race card" is a hallmark among Democratic liberal politicians and their operatives. Al Sharpton has been a long time liberal Democrat operative and glorified race huslter and poverty pimp. I talked before about how loyalty can blind a person's judgement. Al Sharpton illustrates that perfectly. What Harry Reid said was aimed at him, because Al Sharpton is the text book definition of what type of black person who isn't "acceptable" to white voters. Yet the dumbed down, love sick fool Al Shaprton is defending Harry Reid. Anyways, Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter were both guests on Geraldo's show yesterday, and the topic was about the comments made by Harry Reid. Ann Coulter did a great job at going after not only Reid but defining Sharpton as the black person Reid believes isn't acceptable to white voters.
Al Sharpton is nothing less then a piece of human garbage, and you can quote me on that. It's odd that Al didn't have the same kind hearted approach to Trent Lott and Don Imus when they made their "unfortunate comments". Liberals use race as a political weapon just like they use other divisive issues such as gender, religion and class envy. Since the NAACP didn't come out and take Harry Reid to task over his remarks, it was only natural to suspect that Al Sharpton was going to protect Harry Reid. This is how stupid and gullible Al Shartpon is. Al Sharpton represents the type of black person that Reid claimed that doesn't have a chance of becoming president. Shaprton is a" dark skinned man with a negro dialect". Like the blue dog loyalist Al Sharpton is, it's more about serving a party over exercising common decency and morality. Al Shartpon is a disgrace as a black man and as a supposed man of god. What would have been the result if a Republican in congress would have made the same comments Harry Reid made,and Micheal Steele would have came out and defended them like Al Sharpton did? What would Michael Steele be called by liberals? He would be called a loyal, boot licking, Uncle Tom. So what exactly is Al Sharpton? Harry Reid in essence said that Sharpton wasn't worthy of being president not based on his policies, but based on the type of black man that he is, and he defends him.
Did Harry Reid's comments validate Barack Obama as being the "Magic Negro"?
When the editor for the Los Angeles Times David Ehrenstein wrote his article back in 2007 entitled "Barack Obama The Magic Negro", liberals and Obama supporters in general didn't say much about it. It wasn't until radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made a parody of David Ehrenstein's column with the focal point being Al Sharpton that then liberals became outraged but at Limbaugh instead. People who attacked Limbaugh ignored the key aspect to the parody. The parody wasn't more so about Barack Obama but more to do with the reference to Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton made a claim that Barack Obama "wasn't authentically black". Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid last year made the comment thatBarack Obama could win the presidency because he was "light-skinned" and did not use a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." These comments just surfaced thanks to a book that was just release entitled "Game Change, a chronicle of the 2008 campaign. Going back to David Ehrenstein's article. He wrote in his sub headline "The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man". There is truth to what Ehrenstein wrote and to what Harry Reid and Joe Biden said about Barack Obama. This morning I watched Meet the Press. David Gregory's guests were RNC Chairman Michael Steele and DNC Chariman Tim Kane. David brought up the issue of Reid's remarks, it was beyond humorous watching Tim Kane trying to validate the comments by saying that Reid didn't mean nothing negative, and his comments have been taken out of context for what they were meant, Obama accepted Reid's apology yesterday. Tim Kane is either clueless or a self serving political hack. Reid's comments was more directed at blacks in general then Barack Obama, because Reid's comment illustrated the "type" of black person that would be "acceptable" to become president. I know without a shadow of a doubt that if the Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would have made the exact same carbon copy remark, black liberals, the NAACP and pundits in the media would be demanding for McConnell to resign effective immediately. So I'm going to watch the network newscasts over the next twenty four hours to forty eight hours just to see how they "handle this story". I'll repeat this again, what Reid said has to do more with blacks in general then just Obama. Last year before the Democratic primaries, it was Senator Joe Biden who said “you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
I have yet to get an answer to my question that I asked last year in response to Joe Biden's comment. What is a "mainstream" African American? Could a "mainstream" African American to liberals be any black person who is "not dark skinned" and doesn't have a "negro dialect"? Former Senate Majority leader Trent Lott didn't make a racist statement at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, yet he lost his leadership position because he said a kind comment about Thurmond. Tim Kane demonstrated how much of a two faced hypocrite he is as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I've always said that there is a deep, embedded double standard when it comes to the issue or race in politics. This latest example is just one more grain of proof in a huge pile of evidence. When Barack Obama was a then State Senator from Illinois, he demanded on a radio talk show that Trent Lott resign. In this case however, Obama defends Reid even though Reid actually made a statement that is offensive to blacks period regardless of party affiliation or ideology. It appears that Barack Obama cares more about getting his agenda passed then defending what is right. The last three black candidates to run for the Democratic nomination for president were Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley Braun. Could the comments by Reid and Biden served as evidence to why these three black candidates weren't taken seriously in the Democratic primaries? Could it have been because these three candidates weren't "articulate, clean, light skinned and had negro dialects"? I still remember how Congressman Joe Wilson was branded a racist merely for claiming Obama lied. I forgot, Democrats are a protected class. Liberals want to paint conservatives as the ones who are "racially insensitive". Why is it then that liberals are the ones always being caught saying the most racially insensitive things like with now Harry Reid? If the Democratic Party is so in tune with the black community, why did Harry Reid make such a comment?
This is what I had to say about the stupid and out of touch comments by Harry Reid and the dismissal of Reid's comments by Democratic National Committee Chariman Tim Cane.
A bad news poll for Sarah Palin that is actually good news for Sarah Palin.
Confusing isn't it? Don't worry, it'll all make sense. Sarah Palin highlighted one of her qualities during the last year's campaign on how she wasn't a party insider. She echoed the claim of taking on the "good ol boys" within the Alaskan Republican Party. That was the reason why she labeled herself a fellow "maverick" alongside John McCain. It isn't no big secret that the GOP as a party has moved more so to the center then from the right over the last five years. As the GOP becomes more centrist in it's positions, Sarah Palin sticks out like a soar thumb within the party more and more. Let me clarify that statement. Sarah sticking out as a conservative soar thumb outside to the GOP establishment is actually the best scenario Sarah Palin could wish for. Hotline On Call conducted a poll of Republican insiders. The headline based on their results is "GOP SOAR ON PALIN".
In a survey of 109 Republican party leaders, political hacks and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the Republican nomination in 2012. At face value, one would think this could mean bad news for Sarah Paln right? Not at all. Take a guess on who's the golden boy for the country club Republican crowd to win the 2012 nomination. If you all guessed Mitt Romney, you all thought correctly.
Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%) MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%) Sen. John Thune 38 (12%) MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%) IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25 Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25
This is one of the few times in polling where a person who came in last is actually better off then the person who came in first. I said months ago also that Tim Pawlenty is going to be called the "rising star" among the GOP insiders and the media, so look who came in second place in the poll, Governor Tim Pawlenty. Among the Republican candidates running for the nomination last year, all of the conservative candidates were second tier candidates, and the moderate candidates were in the first tier. Fred Thompson was the only exception. If I was Mitt Romney, I would be hating the fact the the GOP insiders showed support for me and think I would have a better shot at winning the Republican nomination. Many conservatives started leaving the GOP back in 2005 thanks to George Bush and non principal Republicans acting like liberals when it came to core issues like amnesty for illegals, out of control spending, the prescription drug entitlement etc. Many registered independent voters are conservatives. There is a reason why the Tea Party currently outranks both the Democrat and Republican Party in popularity. Both parties are seen as being totally out of touch with the American people. Mitt is seen by many true conservatives as being a "johnny come lately conservative convert". Mitt has spoken at several CPAC conventions, but CPAC doesn't represent core conservatives anymore anyways, however Mitt knows that he needs the backing of conservatives if he has any chance of winning not only the Republican nomination but the presidency as well. By the GOP party bosses having him as the run away leader to win the nomination, this victory could lead to his undoing and loss of support among grass root conservatives. With Sarah Palin, it is a much different story. With her coming in last place with only 25% support among GOP insiders, this is clearly a case of "less is more". Truth be told, Sarah really doesn't need the support among the Republican insider class. By her coming in last place, it actually helps Palin in positioning herself as a "true political outsider". Obama lied in claiming he was a political outsider, but he has proven himself to be a solid blue dog party loyalist and in favor within the Democrat Party. President Reagan went against the Republican establishment when he dared to challenge the incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford for the nomination in 1976. Reagan did things his way and in turn he got things the way he wanted them.One of the biggest drawbacks to the appeal of John McCain last year was that he was seen as being a favorite among the Republican establishment. You would have been hard pressed to find a GOP insider that didn't love John McCain. The only reason why conservatives voted for McCain wasn't because they liked him but because the vast majority didn't like Obama. He was nothing more then the anyone but Obama candidate. As I see it, Sarah has a three prong level of support. She has support among Republican conservatives, Independent conservatives and conservatives who are aligned with the Tea Party movement. The more both political establishments trash Sarah Palin, the more popular and powerful she becomes overall. Put another way, the candidates that the GOP bosses, pundits and insiders support and promote as the nominee for 2012 might as well be giving the political kiss of death. That kiss has already been given to Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. I find it laughable that the Republican party bosses honestly believe that four politically unknown candidates have a better shot of winning the Republican nomination then Sarah Palin. Sarah has huge support in the primary states she would need to win the nomination. I refuse to believe that Republican strategists don't realize that huge fact as well. Palin already has a strong following in Iowa. I guess the GOP is wishfully thinking that a miracle dark horse candidate is going to come along and derail Sarah Palin. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Don't need a poll to figure that one out.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is "surrpised" by the "determination of Al Qaeda".
Tell me this is just a bad dream and this woman really isn't the Secretary of Homeland Security. At this point, I'll even accept someone telling me a lie that she isn't. Is it possible the Janet Napolitano may have been hanging around with Joe Biden one time too many? Last week Ms. Napolitano made a very stupid and clueless comment when she said "the system worked" in regards to Delta flight 523 not being blown up. Since then, she has flip flopped on several occasions trying to "clarify" her comment thus trying to do damage control. Well Janet has stuck her foot in her mouth yet again, surprise surprise One would think that the Secretary of Homeland Security would be very well informed on the enemies facing the homeland right? The old saying goes "know your enemy". Conservatives understand the threat of Islamic Extremism very well. They have a keen understanding of Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Even some liberals like Joe Lieberman understand the Islamic threat. Apparently the person who is in the position of protecting the homeland doesn't understand the threat and "determination" of an Islamic terrorist group trying to attack this nation. Of course I'm referring to Ms. Janet Napolitano. In a news conference yesterday, a reporter asked Napolitano
Report "What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well"?
This was the answer of a person who hasn't done her homework on the threat she is suppose to try and prevent from becoming a reality. If Janet had a clear understanding of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, she would have realized that these groups are fueled by extremism. They blow themselves up for their cause. If that doesn't spell determination what does? Does Janet think that Al Qaeda is made up of sensible moderate Muslims that are merely misunderstood? Radical Islam is the core foundation of Al Qaeda. Radical Islam has been at war with "the infidels" for hundreds of years. This isn't some overnight thing. Obama has had no problem throwing people who have become liabilities under the bus, so why should Janet Napolitano be an exception to the rule? She is out of her league for the position that she holds. God forbid an Islamic nutcase is successful in carrying out another attack on the mainland, but I have no doubt Janet Napolitano will just come out and say "I was shocked by their determination and that a terrorist attack happened".
Racially obsessed Chris Matthews claims that "Every "Teabagger" is "White".
I'll repeat myself once again. When people think along the lines of race, they tend to say a lot of stupid things. In my last story I addressed an elitist ass on the right, that being David Brooks. Now I am going to address a moronic liberal ass clown Chris Matthews on the left. This guy is so obsessed with race, it is defies logic. For a white guy, Chris Matthews seem to suffer from a self identification problem with "white people". Chris believes that everybody who is apart of the tea party movement are "all white". Liberals can't let go of race for one nanosecond. Here's Mr. Tingles in all his glowing ignorance explaining what I mean.
Contrary to the belief of liberals, I am a black guy. If my memory serves me right, I believe I was a participant in the Baltimore Tea Party at the Inner Harbor back in early July. Not only was this "black man" in attendance, several black people also gave key note speeches at the event. So remember the words of the ignorant ass clown Chris Matthews. All of the people at Tea Parties are "white"
This is Reverend CL Bryant of Shreveport, Louisiana who spoke at the 9-12 Tea Party in Washington. I should email Matthews and tell him that this white guy has a very dark tan.
I guess Angela McGlowan is just another "white female" who also spoke at the same 9-12 Tea Party in Washington. Could Chris be right?
Here's another "typical white female" who spoke at the Dallas Tea Party. I noticed that other "white guy" in the background. This typical white tea party activist is Katrina Pierson.
At this point, it should be abundantly clear that Chris Matthews is a blithering idiot beyond defense. He's a drastically overpaid moron who embarrasses himself with every word that comes out of his mouth. MSNBC is a ultra liberal, racial obsessed kook network that only attracts the far out leftwing nuts imaginable as viewers. Chris would never have a person like myself on his show. I would destroy him easily in a three minute segment with no problem. Chris can get away saying the garbage he says, because nobody challenges him. If I was a guest on Matthew's show, I would bring up the fact that it was his network of MSNBC that purposely blocked the identification of a black man who carried an AK-47 assault riffle to an Obama health care rally. Chris wouldn't know what to say in response. What Chris and kooks on the left aren't getting is that mainstream America doesn't care about making every issue about race. Here's an issue that Chris hasn't brought up for some reason. Where is the diversity among the faces at MSNBC? Chris should be questioning how come Fox News Channel represents racial diversity among it's talent, yet MSNBC is "monochromatic". Let me use a word that Chris can identify with. Everybody on air at MSNBC are "WHITE".Good luck in waiting for Mr. Tingles to tackle that "hardball" question.
Does David Brooks represents a donkey's ass or an elephant's ass?
Does it really matter? David Brooks of the New York Times is an arrogant ass either way. Traditional grass root conservatives shouldn't be fooled for a minute into thinking that only pseudo elitists exist among liberal Democrats. That notion isn't true by a long shot. The Republican party has it's share of intellectual eggs heads who think they are better and smarter then the "common class" folks within the party. The ruling class elitism of the right was on full display back in 2005. The Republican leadership tried to label anyone who fought Bush's amnesty immigration bill as being a bunch of "nativists". There are people on the right who calls themselves conservative, yet they really don't have anything in common with "true" conservatives. There are two types of conservatives. One type is known as the "paleoconservatives" or "paleocons". The other type is known as "neoconservatives" or "neocons" for short. People like David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer are text book illustration of passes for neoconservatives. Liberals in their ever clueless fashion branded anyone who supported George Bush during his two terms as being "neocons". The term has been bastardized to hell and back by liberals. The definition of a neocon is a person who represents a new way of conservatism "watered down" that differs from traditional. Neo is the latin word for "new", hence "new conservative". Most neocons can't stand the taught nor the sight of paleconservatives within the Republican party. People like David Brooks look down on traditional grass root conservatives. The air for people like David Brooks of the New York Times is extremely thin. The reason is because, he always walk around with his head tilted to the sky. David doesn't like the Tea Party activists it appears. Frankly that doesn't come as a shock to me. This is what the pseudo conservative had to say about the "educated class versus the tea party crowd" in today's New York Times.
David Brooks "The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year".
David Brooks "The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting".
David Brooks "The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
David Brooks "A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.…The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems. Many Americans do not have faith in that sort of centralized expertise or in the political class generally".
What the hell do I know? I'll use a term elitist Chuck Schummer used to describe the masses who oppose pork barrel spending. I guess I'm just a member of the "great American" chattering class.
I'm might not an ivy league wizard of smarts, but I am very gifted in the area of common sense. People like David Brooks can't comprehend the simple fact that the reason why Americans oppose the ideology of the "educated" class is, because people realize that book smart is a poor substitution for "logic. rationality and common sense". If David Brooks wasn't able to write for a liberal rag newspaper in New York City, he wouldn't know what to do with himself. He would be like a fish out of water. That goes for all the wanna be elitist on both sides of the aisle. If Republicans destroy Democrats in the midterm election in nine months, it won't be because of people like David Brooks influencing people on the right. It will be because true traditional conservatives will have risen up and said enough is enough and it is "time for a change". There is a reason why the Tea Party has a higher favorability rating then the Democrat and Republican party. I guess that doesn't register with Brooks. In the end, I guess it really doesn't mean anything but a hill of beans. David writes for a newspapers that fewer and fewer people read on a daily basis. Rush Limbaugh has more listeners per day then people who read the columns of David Brooks by at least 20 to 1. I bet it must have killed David Brooks and other neoconservatives knowing that Rush Limbaugh was named this year "the most influential conservative". In a nation that identifies itself as conservative over liberal by a 2 to 1 margin, here's a simple question. Do Americans have more in common with people like David Brooks of the New York Times or Rush Limbaugh? I'll put my money on Rush. Doesn't take an educated egghead to figure that one out
Here's another reason why I would rather burn my money then spend it supporting Hollyweird.
It's no big surprise that liberals in hollyweird are nothing more then a bunch of perverted and warped minded freaks. It seems like every year these morally deprived basket cases try to push the envelope just a little bit further. A new movie is coming out in April from Liongate productions entitled "Hit Girl". Watch this trailer, and tell me what you think pro or con. The title of the movie actually describes the "star" of the movie. Hit Girl is a rated R movie about a little girl who goes around killing adults as a "Hit Girl". I'm very curious, what parent in their right mind would let their children see this kind of movie? Think about it. We see and hear in the news about students who bring guns to school. To me this movie portrays a message that the girl who swears and kills people is "cool". So much for "family values" in liberal hollyweird.
The city of Detroit and the failed liberal experiment. Part 2
I said this was going to happen when I wrote part one to this story. When liberals don't like the truth, they stick their fingers in their ears and yell repeately lie, lie, lie. I stated that the pseudo conservative blogger and writer Debbie Schlussel had a beef with Steven Crowder over the content of his story on how liberalism has destroyed Detroit. She was extremely harsh and very shrill in her critique if you want to call it that. I know Debbie Schlussel is from Detroit, but her hatchet job on Crowder goes beyond just the fact that Steven was doing a story about her home turf. Debbie has the inherit right to attack or go after whoever she wants, I just wished that in her article directed at Crowder she would have been long on facts herself and less on the angst towards him. Anyways, Lee Doren of the video blog "How The World Works" decided to research the claims of Steven Crowder as well as the basis of criticism by Debbie Schlussel. The facts appear to weigh out in support of Crowder. I understand Debbie having a need to have some hometown pride and all, but it was pretty low for her to have attacked Steven just because the truth hurts and she can't stand real conservatives.
My name is Tyrone. I was born in raised in the liberal experiment gone wrong called Baltimore. I'm a staunch free thinking, analytical conservative. I don't subscribe to political correctness. Only sheep do that.
