Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Sorry Sean Hannity, But You’re Wrong to Blame Ted Cruz If Trump Loses

Yesterday afternoon, driving back with my son from day trip up to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, I did something rare and listened to the Sean Hannity show on Sirius XM, as he is hard to find on Washington DC radio stations.

Now Sean Hannity is someone I have greatly admired over the years, since I first saw him during the Clinton impeachment on Fox News, heard him subbing for Rush Limbaugh, then tuned in when his radio show went national the day before 9/11. I got to meet him a year later and have met him several times in the preceding years (I have the photos and signed books to prove).

So it was disappointing to hear the following words yesterday from someone who has built his career as a “Reagan conservative.” (Business Insider)
“You own Hillary Clinton. National Review, you own it. Glenn Beck, you own it. Ted Cruz, you own it. ... She wins, I'm blaming all of you," Hannity said. "[Y]ou own all of her policies."
He added: "Yeah, I'm going to name names. I'm not sitting here and wimping out. I know there are people out there blaming me."
The conservative radio host first named Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Cruz. He then went after members of the conservative media, particularly seeming to home in on Beck, whom he characterized as on a "holy war" against Trump.
Here's a glimpse of his fiery diatribe:
"Well, let me just say to all of you. And that includes the commentator class. That includes the Jonah Goldberg class that includes radio talk show hosts. Glenn Beck is like on a — it's a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he's off the rails attacking me every day. Blaming me for Trump. Well, no. I was fair to everybody, Glenn. Whether you want to admit it or not. I know I was fair. My conscience is clear. And I, frankly, I'm proud to pull the lever for Donald Trump with a clear conscience.
Really Sean?

If you want to blame the Bushes, who are so cozy with the Clintons that they’ve become almost adopted members of the family, fine. You want to blame William Kristol and a load of other establishment Republicans who aren’t voting (or voting for any unknown candidate) because their guy ¡Jeb! Or “Little Marco” Rubio didn’t get the nomination, I understand. You want to blame Meg Whitman, Rep. Richard Hanna, Larry Pressler, Sally Bradshaw (a ¡Jeb! aide), Maria Comella, Hank Paulson, McCainiac Mark Salter, and several other RINOs who have publicly stated they will vote for the Hildebeast, that’s fine with me, because any supposed Republican who votes for Hillary deserves scorn (as well as a coat of tar and feathers).

But Ted Cruz? Isn’t that going too far, Sean?

All Ted Cruz did was say “vote your conscience” and everyone lost it. I don’t blame Ted Cruz for not publicly endorsing Donald Trump. I could not publicly endorse someone who insulted my father, or spouse, in such a horrible manner and did not have the decency to publicly make amends. After all, Sean, buddy, didn’t our political hero Ronald Reagan once quote something called the “11th Commandment” (Never speak ill of any Republican)? Seems to me under the iron fist of RNC Party Chair Rinse Preebus, the 11th Commandment has been tossed to the ash heap.

After such a vicious primary, moves would have had to be made to ensure party unity. Reagan had to do it in 1980, and Ford failed to do it in 1976. But Donald didn’t feel the need to do that, out of his own arrogance. (Real Clear Politics)
"I am confident that I can unite much of it. Some of it, I don't want. There were statements made about me that those people can go away and maybe come back in eight years after we serve two terms," Trump said Wednesday morning on NBC's TODAY show.
"Honestly, there are some people I really don't want. I don't think it's necessary. People would be voting for me, they're not voting for the party," Trump added.
And The Hill:
“Does the party have to be together, does it have to be unified?” he said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday. “I’m very different from anybody who’s perhaps ever run for office. I actually don’t think so.
The same arrogance applies to Rinse Prewash (RedState).
“It is essential to victory in November that we all support our candidate,” Priebus said at the RNC’s spring meeting in Hollywood, Fla.
“This goes for everyone, whether you’re a county party chairman, an RNC member, or a presidential candidate. Politics is a team sport, and we can’t win unless we rally around whoever becomes our nominee,” he added, drawing applause from the audience.
“They’re trying out for our team. No one is forcing them to wear our jersey. We expect our candidates to support our party and our eventual nominee.”
That’s not unifying the party, it is instead a Soviet-style order of shut your mouth, get in line and goosestep. Isn’t that how liberal Democrats (who don’t dare question the most corrupt Presidential nominee in history) are supposed to behave? You don't win an election by telling the grassroots of your party to go to hell. But that’s what we’ve come to expect under Rinse Prewash, who has used conservatives and the Tea Party movement for votes, just like how Democrats use minorities and special interest groups for votes, only to abandon them when it comes to governing.

Prewash has made it a personal mission to undermine anyone who rocks the establishment boat, from Newt Gingrich (in 2012), Ken Cuccinelli, Chris McDaniel, and most recently Ted Cruz. In order to undermine Cruz, he got in bed with someone who has been allied with the Clintons and said good things about Hillary in the past.

And if you want to know where I stand, Sean, buddy, in November, let me say I’m voting my conscience, and my conscience is hurting me right now. But I can with a clear conscience say I cannot sit on my hands and do nothing while Hillary is running for President. I am #NeverHillary.
I cannot vote for Gary Johnson, who is pro-abortion, pro-gloBULL warming, and whose whole candidacy is based on legalizing marijuana. Libertarians once had a lot in common with conservatives, however modern libertarians tend to be cheap, pothead liberals who don’t want to fight wars.

Gary Johnson campaign anthem

Likewise, I cannot endorse the #NeverTrump, because they have offered no viable alternative to the Trump candidacy, just a guy (funded by Romney, I suspect) whose name is mistaken with Egg McMuffin and has similar views on Supreme Court decisions as the putrid John Kasich.

So come election day, and should Trump lose (and it doesn’t look good now), I will say to you Sean, to Donald Trump, and to Rinse Prewash, don’t blame Ted Cruz. The blame goes to Trump and Preewash, who thought they didn’t need conservatives and a unified Republican Party to win.

If you want confirmation, ask ¡Jeb!, who also thought he didn’t need every Republican vote to win, and look where he is now.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

#NeverTrump Isn't About Conservatism, It's The Last Gasp Of The GOP Establishment

Recently, there were two political conventions that gave us their nominees to vote for in November, along with a lot of drama and sideshow.

Except breaking my exile to discuss the Khan con, I didn't comment on the convention. But now that we are into the general election cycle, I feel compelled to pop my head out from the bunker once again and give my point of view, as I see it.

How am I going to vote in November? Honestly, I'm not sure yet. But I know if definitely ain't gonna to be for Hillary. In other words, I'll be voting my conscience, and my conscience is really bothering me.

If you haven't gone to see it, I recommend you see Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America" and you can understand why the only place Hillary Rotten Clinton deserves to occupy is a prison cell, not the Oval Office. She is a dangerous person, and anyone who is so turned off by Donald Trump that they've decided to vote for her should have their sanity checked.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. I'm not excited about him either. It's another "lesser of two evils," but there's only a little less evil than Hillary. But these two candidates really are a reflection of how our society has sadly become accepting of the lowest common denominator that we have two candidates who are a reflection of that.  More about Trump later, but first I want to discuss those who are opposed to Trump, aka the "NeverTrump" movement.

Honestly, I found myself sympathetic to a lot of their arguments, reasoning, etc. But the recent actions of the #NeverTrump movement have shown me that their arguments are not about conservatism. Far from being what some Trumpkins called Ted Cruz crybabies, the #NeverTrump movement is not about conservatism. It is instead the last gasp of the GOP establishment, the Bushies, as well as the supporters of Jeb! and "Little" Marco Rubio who are having their public temper-tantrum after seeing that the public has tired of the "do-nothing" establishment and their milquetoast losers like McCain, Romney, Dole, et al.

So what did the #NeverTrumpers decided to do? They found their own candidate who they're rolling out two and a half months before the election, some guy named Egg excuse me, Evan McMullin.

But don't be deceived, McMullin is no conservative (National Review Online).
In three years of Facebook posts, he never commented on a domestic issue, economic or social. He never said anything on any specific issue that a diehard Democrat couldn’t applaud.  
When I was telling my boss Frank Cannon about McMullin’s Facebook page, he made a possibly unfair, or possibly telling, comment: “I find the people who post photos of Lincoln and Churchill are the least likely to actually be leaders like these men.” He meant that if you want to be a uniter, not a divider, you cannot be a leader in perilous times like Lincoln and Churchill were. Now, after their battles are long won, they unite us in admiration. But they were leaders precisely because they were willing to be reviled and despised at the time, not only by their opponents but by their fellow party members, if that was the price of defending core principles. Principles that turned out to be right. 
After I scoured Evan McMullin’s Facebook page, I went to his website, wherein he says he’s very pro-life, but the only policy he commits to is no taxpayer financing of abortion; he boasts of support for adoption; and he commits to virtually nothing concrete on any issue, much less religious liberty, trying, I suppose, to be a unifier through vagueness, as many consultants would no doubt advise. This may or may not help you win (I think not, in this instance, as voters are onto this game), but it definitely makes it almost impossible to have a victory worth winning, as the GOP majorities in Congress have proved time and time again.  
A few days later, consistent with his desire to be the new face of the Republican party that existing Washington GOP power players are longing for, McMullin was asked by Mark Halperin about gay marriage:  
“As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Rommey behind this??? MIM), I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I respect the decision of the Court, and I think it’s time to move on,” McMullin said, according to Lifesite News.  
When Halperin asked if a President McMullin would at least appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Obergefell decision, he replied, “I wouldn’t.”  
He could have evaded. He could have said he would look for constitutionalists like Justice Scalia. But he didn’t. He instead said its time to accept that the Left gets to decide what is in our Constitution and move on.  
No one who cares about or understands constitutional conservatism would answer that way.
Where have we heard an answer like that before? Um, let's see...John Kaisch? (Ding, ding ding!!!!) So according to Egg McMuffin and John Kaisch, the Supreme Court spoke and their word is Gospel. Leaders they're not! If we had poor excuses for leaders like that in our history, some of the worst decisions by the court might still stand today, such as slavery being found constitutional (see Dred Scott), as was segregation (see Plessy vs. Ferguson "separate but equal"). 

McMuffin's campaign is being pushed by a GOP-e consultant named Rick Wilson, who is obsessed with destroying Trump. But conservative he is not, as Wilson tweeted this obscene tweet out back in May (censored).

That tweet tells you all you need to know about why, for better or for worse, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee.

My personal opinion, seeing the polls how they are, the rebellion among the GOP establishment #NeverTrumpers, as well as conservatives who are planning to either sit out the election of vote 3rd Party, I have a painful feeling we will witness a blowout election that will cost not only the White House, but the Congress and ultimately the Supreme Court.

And I think this was by design. It was a con set up to help a candidate who most American see as unlikable and who is so ethically challenged defeating her should have been a cakewalk, just as defeating Obama in 2012 should have been easy. But a con-job needed to be planted who could win the GOP nomination and divide the party in the process. And the RNC leadership, who so wanted to destroy Ted Cruz or any similar candidate, fell for the con-job that came straight out of The Godfather (read between the lines for my theory about the Corleone, I mean Clinton family crime syndicate).

You can blame the Rinse Preebus led Republican Party for blowing yet another Presidential election, just to make sure a real constitutional conservative candidate is not allowed to run against an Alinskyite socialist extremist.

No I'm not blaming Donald Trump, I'm blaming the feckless Rinse Preebus (I misspell his name on purpose). Preebus has made it his mission in the last few years he led the Republican party to destroy the chances of conservatives and Tea Party types, making sure these people never rise to prominence within the party or as a candidate.

Need proof? When the handpicked choice for 2012, Flip Romney, faced opposition, the GOP-establishment attacked candidates like Newt Gingrich with a barrage of smear stories that violated the famous 11th Commandment (Never speak ill of any Republican) quoted by Ronald Reagan. None of these RINOs, Romney included, who attacked any conservatives in 2012 attacked Obama with the same vigor.

In 2013, the Virginia GOP nominated a real Constitutional conservative, Ken Cuccinelli, as the candidate for governor that year. But the sore losers in the establishment, like Bill Boilling, did not endorse Cuccinelli and Preebus sent financial support to Krispy Kreme in New Jersey instead, leaving Cuccinelli's campaign to wither on the vine, and giving us the head of the Clinton Hillbilly Mafia, Terry McAwful, as governor, which allows him the opportunity to put the Commonwealth in the Clinton column by hook or crook.

In 2014, when the establishment GOP incumbent senator Thad Cochran was nearing defeat by Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel. But Cochran was saved when the establishment came to his aid by attacking McDaniel using the bigoted language of the Left. And Preebus said nothing.

So, we had so many candidates spit the conservative vote, as a scheme to get the establishment's choice as GOP nominee. But it didn't work. Instead, we have Trump who foiled their plans but is not a conservative, but instead acts as the liberal's stereotype of what a conservative/Tea Party supporter is. But that was only part of Preebus' act for 2016. Also, in a move similar to 2012, the establishment steamrolled over any rules changes by the grassroots and orchestrated the uncivil attacks on Ted Cruz during his convention speech, after approving the contents beforehand. So Rinse got a twofer in 2016, destroy Ted Cruz in the eyes of the press and the Trump nomination, so when Trump loses, he can point the finger of blame at all those Tea Party types who aren't wise enough (in his view) to know what a great leader Jeb Bush, John Kaisch, or Little Marco Rubio are. And don't blame Trump for losing Congress, after two years of the Boehner/Ryan and McConnell white-flag leadership, why would anyone vote for a GOP majority who act like they're in the minority?

Which is why I've always said establishment Republicans are just as unpatriotic as liberals, but in a different way.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Patricia Smith vs. Khizr Khan -- A Tale Of Two Gold Star Parents

Thank goodness both clown shows that passed for political conventions are over.

For both of the Republican and Democrat Party conventions, there was a sea of difference in many ways between the two contentions, as well as a whole lotta hypocrisy.

I'll focus on at least one hypocrisy, since it involves parents of adult children who gave their lives in defense of this nation.

The Democrat Party brought to the stage  Khizr Khan and his wife, whose son,  Army Cpt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 protecting his unit from a car bomb. The Democrats, who spent the week honoring the mothers of fallen gang-bangers and dishonoring the police, decided to use Khan and his son's service to attack Donald Trump by wrapping themselves in the Constitution and our fallen, two things liberal Democrats thumb their nose at in disrespect 99.9 percent of the time.

The Hildebeast's lapdogs in her Super PAC known as the media, gushed over Khan's "powerful" speech, and are using it to attack Trump, who walked into the libs fire by saying he wished he'd heard from Khan's wife. The implication being that Muslim women are not supposed to talk.

Trump and his dingy cheerleader Ann Coulter have not helped matters in attacking the Khan family. If you're going to attack anyone, attack the Democrats and their own hypocrisy.  Because the DNC simply used Army Cpt. Khan's sacrifice to play their usual game of identity politics, implying that Muslims are just as patriotic, if not more, than all you white crackers who are going to vote for Donald Trump.

Contrast that with Patricia Smith, who spoke at the Republican National Convention.

As opposed to Mr. Khan, Mrs. Smith had a reason to speak at the RNC Convention and against Hillary Rotten Clinton specifically, because of how the Hildebeast not only lied about telling the families that a video was responsible for the Benghazi attacks, but attacked the families later as liars.

Here's proof how Hillary, as well as Barack Hussein Obama, lied about the Benghazi attacks being the result of an anti-Islamic video, when the bodies of the Benghazi Four arrived back in America after the September 11, 2012 attack. Keep in mind the Hildebeast told her daughter in an e-mail it was a terrorist attack.

And yet how did Hillary's Super PAC treat Patricia Smith? They attacked her. The LA Slimes claimed she "echoes the Republican party line," while the old drunk on MSNBC, Chris "Thrill up my Leg" Matthews, called Mrs. Smith a liar, and said that he didn't care how she felt.

But that just goes to show that if liberal Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Hypocrisy of Anti-Gun, Pro-Terrorist Democrats

The Democrat Party reminds me of one kind of person you might see at your high school reunion. You know, the kind that has done nothing since graduation, and can only talk about reliving high school days.

That is the modern Democrat Party, stuck in the 1960s, like it was some magical time that they never wanted to leave. Never mind what most of the 1960s (with the exception of the Civil Rights movement) wrought upon America was the start of hedonism, treason, and an erosion of the moral and social order that made America great and productive.

We see these aging hippies who traded tye-dye for suits again as they threw their temper tantrum on the House floor, but this time, instead of advocating for equal rights, they wanted to take rights away from Americans as a way of playing SQUIRREL to distract from their inability to fight Islamofascist terror.

And why is that? Because if you look at some of the names of these anti-gun Democrats, you'd do just a little bit of digging to find out how they support arming our enemies and/or support domestic terrorists.

Let's start with the tax-cheating Charlie Rangel, who thinks law abiding Americans don't need guns, but he needs armed security.

Who recently met with Congressman Rangel?

The daddy of the Orlando Jihadi, that's who.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler from New York, said during the Party of Treason's temper tantrum that the Congress “is drenched in blood and the only way we can cleanse it is if the speaker of the House allows us to vote on this legislation. Every day that we don’t commit to a vote, the blood is on the leadership of this House.”

But Nadler supported Baraq Hussein Obama's arming of America's long-time enemy, Iran, with nuclear weapons. At one Hillary Rotten Clinton rally, Nadler said "Nine-eleven was an act of war. The villains aren’t the terrorists. The villains live in the White House," obviously referring to the Bush Administration.

Nadler, like Obama, has a soft sport for anti-American domestic terrorists. He played a role in the 2001 Presidential Pardon of a Weather Underground terrorist suspected in a deadly 1981 bombing (NY Post).
A Manhattan congressman and his rabbi played a crucial role in President Clinton’s controversial pardon of former Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, aides said yesterday.
Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon of Temple B’nai Jeshurun showed Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler “compelling information from [Rosenberg’s] parole hearing” and “passed on the concerns of her family,” said Nadler spokesman Eric Schmeltzer.
That intercession played a key role in Clinton’s decision Friday to commute the 58-year weapons-possession sentence for Rosenberg, long a suspect in the deadly 1981 Brink’s robbery in Nyack. She was never convicted on that charge.
“What [Nadler] did was to pass on the materials to the White House counsel’s office and say, ‘I’d like you to take a look at this,'” Schmeltzer said.
Neither the rabbi nor Nadler, who was well-regarded at the Clinton White House because he was one of the president’s most ardent defenders during Sexgate, could be reached for comment yesterday.
... Though the Brink’s robbery happened nearly 20 years ago, for those touched by the tragedy, it is still an open wound.
“The whole family is very disappointed,” said Crowley’s son, John Hanchar, who spoke with O’Grady’s widow, Diane O’Grady, after the pardon.
“She’s just stunned and hurting,” Hanchar said.
So are officers who worked side-by-side with the slain cops.
“I’m not happy about it at all,” said retired Officer Brian Lennon, Brown’s partner at the time. “Shame on President Clinton. Shame on him for moving to New York and letting her go.”
Southern California race-baiting corruptocrat Maxine Waters was quoted as saying she would take part in the sit-in for gun-control, "until hell freezes over." This is the same Maxine Waters who voiced opposition to a resolution calling for the communist hellhole of Cuba to extradite several criminals, one of them named Joanne Chesimard. Waters wrote to Pinko Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro in 1998.
I, and some of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, mistakenly voted for House Concurrent Resolution 254 which called on the Government of Cuba to extradite to the United States Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who have fled the United States from political persecution and received political asylum in Cuba. Joanne Chesimard was the birth name of a political activist known to most Members of the Congressional Black Caucus as Assata Shakur.
For the record, I am opposed to the resolution.
...the most vicious and reprehensible acts were taken against the leaders and organizations associated with the Black Power or Black Liberation Movement. Assata Shakur, was a member of the Black Panther Party, one of the leading groups associated with the Black Liberation Movement. The Black Panther Party was the primary target of U.S. domestic government political harrassment and persecution during this era.
This illegal, clandestine political persecution was wrong in 1973, and remains wrong today.
What Maxine Waters didn't say is that Chesimard/Assata Shakur, is on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list, wanted for the 1973 killing of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster twice in the head with his sidearm. Chesimard served time in prison until 1979, when Black Liberation Movement terrorists  "making a prison visit drew pistols, took guards as hostages and commandeered a prison van, spiriting Chesimard to a waiting getaway car — all in broad daylight. She emerged five years later in Cuba, given asylum by Fidel Castro, who cast her as a victim of U.S. racism."

For a bunch of Congresspersons who claim to hate guns and violence sure have a history of being comfortable supporting gun-toting, Left-wing terrorists. It appears that the modern Democrat Party has more in common with the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) than they do JFK and FDR.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

This Is What A Leader Sounds Like: Ted Cruz Takes On Obama & Democrats On Terror, Gun Control

This is Ted Cruz today on the Senate floor, with some moral clarity that has been missing since the horrific jihadist terror attack in Orlando this past Sunday.

“Madam President, our nation is at war. Five days ago, we saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, Florida. From 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. As the facts have unfolded, it now indicates that the Orlando terrorist has pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub.

“All of us, our hearts go out to those who were murdered, to the families of those who were victims and who are grieving. We stand in solidarity. We lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism.

“But it is also a time for action. We need a Commander-in-Chief who will speak the truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.

“In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, and it was sadly the same political tale we have seen over and over again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words ’radical Islamist terrorism;’ that they would suggest this attack was yet another isolated incident, one lone criminal not connected to any global ideology, not connected to any global jihad, and that even worse they would try to use it as an excuse to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Madam President, I wish when we predicted that that we had been proven incorrect, but this week played out all too predictably. Yesterday, we saw a political show on the Senate floor. Democrat after Democrat standing for hours incensed, not at ISIS, incensed, not at radical Islamic terrorism, incensed that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. This is political distraction. This is political gamesmanship. And I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dungeon that we’ve got to restrict the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to shift for their favorite hobby horse of taking away the Bill of Rights from law-abiding citizens.

“...Now, in response to my criticism and that of many others, President Obama gave a press conference where he said, echoing the words of Hillary Clinton, ‘what difference does it make if we call it radical Islamic terrorism?’ Well, Mr. President, it makes a world of difference because the failure to address the enemy impacts every action taken to fight that enemy, and I want to talk in particular about three areas where this Administration and the Senate Democrats’ refusal to confront radical Islamic terrorism has made America less safe and what we need to do about it.

“Let’s start with prevention. Over and over again, we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack, and yet because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that won’t even say the word ’jihad,’ won’t even say the words ’radical Islamic terrorism,’ they look the other way and the attacks go forward.

“In my home state of Texas, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan, the Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had been in communication with a radical Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. All of that was known beforehand, and yet they did nothing. They did nothing, and on that fateful day, Nidal Hasan murdered 14 innocent souls, yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he pulled the trigger. And yet, just to underscore the blindness of this administration, even after the terror attack, the administration insisted on characterizing that terror attack as ‘workplace violence.’ That is nothing short of delusion, and it’s a delusion that cost 14 lives. If we know of a U.S. service member who is communicating with a radical Islamic cleric and asking about waging jihad against his fellow soldiers, MPs should show up at that individual’s door within minutes. And if we didn’t have an administration that plunged its head in the sand like an ostrich and refused to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism, Nidal Hasan would have been stopped before he carried out that horrific act of terrorism.

“Likewise, the Boston bombing: the Tsarnaev brothers. Russia had informed the Obama administration they were connected with radical Islamic terrorism. We knew that. The FBI had gone and interviewed them. And yet once again, they dropped the ball. They stopped monitoring them, so they didn’t even note when the elder Tsarnaev brother posted on YouTube a public call to jihad. Now, mind you, this was not requiring complicated surveillance. This was YouTube. Anyone with a computer who could type in Google could see this. And yet, because the administration will not acknowledge that we’re fighting radical Islamic terrorism, they were not watching and monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers; so when they called for public jihad, they then carried out that public jihad with pressure cookers at the Boston marathon. Yet another example where we knew about the individual beforehand, and if we had focused prevention on the problem, we could have stopped it.

“A third example was San Bernardino. San Bernardino, that horrific terror attack. Once again, we had ample information about the individuals in question. The female terrorist who came to San Bernardino had given the administration a fake address in Pakistan, and yet the so-called vetting that this administration tells us they do had failed to discover that it was a fake address. She had made calls for jihad, and yet the administration failed to discover that. In San Bernardino, we saw yet another horrific terror attack.

“And how about Orlando? Let’s talk about what the facts are in Orlando. Now, we’re only five days in. The facts will develop further as they’re more fully developed, but here is what’s been publicly reported. What’s been publicly reported is that Omar Mateen was interviewed not once, not twice but three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014; that one of the reasons why he was interviewed by the FBI was because he was talking in his place of employment, which ironically, which shockingly enough, was a contractor to the Department of Homeland Security, and he was talking about being connected to terrorist organizations including the Boston bombers.
Do you think Donald Trump, aka Sideshow Bob, would give a speech like this? He's already finding ways to surrender the Second Amendment.  Sorry Trumpkins, he will let you down. He does not have a track record you can trust.

We need a leader who is like Churchill or Reagan now, not Trump or Hillary, who would be nothing more but the same old/same old.

All we need now is a delegate revolt, and we can get a real nominee with moral clarity.

Democrats: The Party of Islamofascist Terrorism Denial


That's the label that Democrats and liberals throw around to those of us who question the newest tenet of their man-made religion: Climate Change, aka GloBULL Warming. Earlier this year, 20 attorney generals (all of them Democrats) have begun an inquisition into "climate change deniers."

The Washington Free Beacon put this video together of how Barack Hussein Obama, Hanoi John Kerry and Clueless Joe Biden drone on about climate change being our biggest threat. Indeed, as points out, Obama has made that claim at least 22 times.

What is missing from that video, and can soon be added to it, is the horrible terror that happened in Orlando this past Sunday night, once again committed by a Muslim fanatic, and the pivot from Democrats to blaming guns, the NRA and anything else but the ideology behind it...Islamofascism. I've not heard anyone outside the conservative blogopshere comment on this video that I saw passed around Sunday morning when we were waking up to news of the terrorist attack.

Yet the Democrat Party Response? Denial

From Obama's Astorturf Organization:

And then Mayonnaise hair Debbie Wasserman Schulz came to come spew her venom.

Do you think being from Florida that Wasserman Schultz would have known about this Imam, but nooooooooooo! She immediately points her crooked finger at Donald Trump and calls him a bigot, probably because Debbie has a problem with men anyway.

The Democrat tantrum and attack on our right to defend ourselves from such Islamic madmen (and their denial of that problem) continued. Interrupting a moment of silence led by the putrid House Speaker, Paul Ryan, and then the Senate Democrats held their own temper tantrum about guns, until the GOP Senate eunuchs gave in to the spoiled children. Democrat Chris Murphy can say they're doing this about the children, but it's hypocritical to claim, especially since they're the biggest supporters of liberalism's sacred blood sacrament: abortion on demand.

And don't get me started on the media. I have never seen as much dishonest reporting with such an agenda since the Tea Party and Sarah Palin were blamed for the Gabby Giffords shooting, or the time that the Congressional Black Caucus claimed the Tea Party called them the n-word.

Instead of fulfilling their oath of office to defend America from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" the Democrat Party show they're more concerned about defending one group of people, while demanding the rest of us give up more of our liberties. Trust us they say, but I cannot trust this government, who has let Islamic terrorists slip under their radar multiple times because they've given into pressure from the Muslim grievance organizations.

So if we're going to talk about "deniers," lets talk about Islamofascist Terrorism Deniers and where it resides: the Democrat Party and liberalism. The last few days show the truth in that statement. All the proof from not just the last nearly 15 years since 9/11/2001, but world history show that Islam is an ideology bent on world domination and submission. Yet liberals and Democrats deny the facts of history because of "racism" and "diversity." Democrats, unlike FDR and Truman, no longer let politics "stop at the water's edge" when it comes to attacks on our citizens. Instead of the knowledge that we're all in this together, they look for more ways to pit one group of Americans against the other.

You think I'm kidding? Look at how liberals so-called patriotism lasted after 9/11, just about 30 minutes. Nearly half of Democrats are so unhinged they believed the loony 9/11 Troofer theories that Bush knew about the attacks. Because Bill Clinton was the first Islamofascist Terrorism Denier. From the first World Trade Center attack a month after he took office to the USS Cole, Slick Willie cautioned us never to "rush to judgement," and was too busy dropping his pants instead of bombs on al-Queda training facilities when they were planning 9/11. So, naturally, after 9/11, the Democrats decided Muslims were the real victims and saw another group they could pander to for votes and pit against the rest of us. Because they thought the cowboy Bush wanted to blame the Middle East and go after their oil or something like that.

And what has all the butt-kissing to the Islamic world by Obama gotten us? Certainly not peace, but a more dangerous world. And Democrats are not only putting more lives at risk with their Islamofascist Terror Denial, they are, by proxy, aiding the enemy who has been at war with us.

Isn't that called treason?

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

He Proved It Again Today, Obama More Angry At His Fellow Citizens Than Our Enemies

Let me preface what I'm about to say by showing a video I've posted several times in the past of David Beamer from 2010, the father of United 93 hero Todd Beamer.

"What is going on in this country is unbelievable. Cannot be fathomed hardly. And, most of our fellow Americans are asleep, still. ...I don't know if Obama is a Muslim or not. But he sure is a Muslim sympathizer. He has the track record to prove it."
Well, judging from his reaction the last couple of days, and especially today, Barack Hussein Obama showed once again how one can argue he is a Muslim sympathizer.

His first reaction to the terrorist attack in Orlando was not only to attack the Second Amendment rights of every law abiding American in defending themselves against another Jihadist, but to blame this nation, saying “we need the strength and courage to change.”  Today he sunk deeper, sounding more passionate against Donald Trump and any political opponent who dares to question his ability to fight terrorism than against radical Islamists who have attacked this nation several times under his watch.
“There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label ‘radical Islam.’ Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once,” Obama said. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.” 
Obama, who emphasized that he has previously detailed how “extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism,” said language like Trump’s would reinforce the claim that terrorists speak for the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims. 
“That’s their propaganda; that’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them,” Obama scolded.
We are inspiring terrorism by calling it by knowing our enemy? YOU gave birth to ISIS by retreating on the battlefield in the War on Terror, with your constant butt-kissing to radical Islamist grievance groups and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as mocking ISIS as a JV team. We should be glad you weren't President in 1941-1945, because you'd have been too afraid to go after Imperial Japan. For that matter, we saw how you were willing to go to Hiroshima as a disrespectful swipe to those who served (and died) fighting Japan from Pearl Harbor to the end of World War II. Not only that, for all your talk at Hiroshima of a world without nuclear weapons, you and your party were willing to help the Islamic state of Iran get nuclear weapons with your appeasement deal.

The Democrat Party Slogan since 2001

It's beyond Muslim sympathizer, Obama is a sympathizer of America's enemies. He has more anger and contempt for anyone who dares oppose or criticize him, but no willingness to defend the nation and the Constitution he swore an oath twice to defend.

Which reminds me of another video...

"If you want to be president you have to work for everybody not just for some."
Well you certainly are not working for all Americans, Mister Obama, if you're doing nothing but attacking Americans and their civil liberties, and those who defend us (police and the military) while you stand on the side of the terrorists, criminal gang-bangers, and illegal aliens.

And yet Obama and the Democrats claimed to be such big champions of the gay community?

And don't get me started on Hillary Rotten Clinton. We've found out that the Butcher of Benghazi's state department shut down investigations into the Orlando jihadist's mosque. Just like Obama, she's pushing gun control just like she pushed the lie about Benghazi being inspired by an anti-Islamic video. Meanwhile, Hillary employs a pathetic creep who tweets an obscene response to the NRA for an editorial in USA Today.

This is the modern Democrat Party, empathy for our enemies and harsh words for their fellow Americans.

How many more Americans have to die before we have leaders who are serious about defeating this enemy and the Quislings in the nation who enable them?

Friday, May 06, 2016

On A Personal Note...All Good Things Must Come To An End

I was going to tag this at the end of my last post about the 2016 primary, but it seemed that this was more deserving of its own, stand-alone post. I want to address a decision I've made in the last few days that has been on my mind the last couple of years, and even more so the last few months. I've been blogging for the last 10 1/2 years and I feel like I've taken this project as far as I can take it.

I've had a lot of fun doing this, met a lot of people I would have otherwise never met, and made a number of friends along the way. But in the last couple of years, I've undergone various personal challenges, including separation/divorce, the near death and miraculous recovery of my father, and professional upheavals that have taken an emotional toll, as well as sapping the energy, passion and desire I had to blog. The clown show that was this year's primary was the final straw. Though I still plan on using my Twitter and Facebook accounts linked with this blog (I'm not going away entirely), it's time for me to suspend blogging to recover, do the things I find fun to restore my soul, be a co-parent and role model to my son, and seek God's will in finding out what my next move should be.

But I have some people to thank and times to recall.

Melanie Morgan (now at KSRO in Santa Rosa) gave me my first exposure in my early days as a blogger when I was going up against the liberal loons in the Bay Area when she was on KSFO with the late, great Lee Rodgers. They were both an inspiration to me to get involved in activism back in 2000. I'm eternally grateful and indebted to her for her support and friendship over the years, even after leaving the Bay Area.

Michelle Malkin was an inspiration to read as a blogger, and I don't think I would have started this blog had it not been for reading her work. I've never had the chance to meet her, but when she's given me some link exposure over the years, I was wow'ed be noticed by someone who was an influence on me as a writer and thinker.

So many bloggers and activists have been great support over the years. Kristinn Taylor at, Alana Burke who interviewed me when she was on the radio up in Redding, CA, Donald Douglas at American PowerJonn Lilyea at This Ain't HellTania Gail (aka Skye, the former blog host of Midnight Blue) Sister Toldjah, John Ruberry at Marathon PunditAaron WorthingRobert Stacy McCain, Dana (and Chris) LoeschJosh PainterErica at Conservative JunkieszombietimeWilliam Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, Larry O'Connor (formerly of now on WMAL in Washington, DC), Bookroom Worm, Brandon Darby, Lee Stranahan, and I'm probably going to leave out so many so please forgive me, but you know who you are!

If I were to be asked what was my proudest moment in blogging, it was the accidental moment I took a nine-second video on March 20, 2010, as well as a follow up video about an hour later, both on Capitol Hill. Those videos were among a few which showed that the "Tea Party called us the n-word" accusation pushed by Andre Carson and the Congressional Black Caucus (with a little help from the liberal media) was nothing but a flat out, blatant lie in an attempt to tar and feather opponents of Obamacare. It was due to the first video I took that I came in contact with the late Andrew Breitbart. If you haven't yet, go to Netflix and watch Hating Breitbart. Thanks also to Andrew Marcus for using the video in the movie and for including the time Breitbart and I met in Washington DC at a Tea Party rally.

Most of all, to all of you (especially you, Mom! my biggest fan), who took the time to read my writings, e-mail, like my FB page or Twitter account, I cannot thank you enough. I am a Blessed man.

Please feel free to e-mail me, send a Facebook message or Tweet and I'll get back with you.

Until we meet or talk again, maybe some future time?

Thoughts On The 2016 GOP Primary And Its Aftermath

The 2016 GOP Primary for the party's Presidential nominee ended Wednesday, when Ohio Governor John Kaisch pulled out of the primary, clearing the path for "Sideshow Bob", aka Donald Trump, to be the party's nominee.

Kaisch's move came the day after the Indiana primary that Trump won, and caused contender Ted Cruz to suspend his campaign.

So we know what Kaisch's role in running for President was, to do the bidding of the GOP establishment, who hate conservatives more than they do liberal progressives and put self-interest instead of the best interests of the nation.

From the time he became the first to announce he was running for President, Cruz was relentlessly under attack from not just the libs, but the GOP establishment. In preparing for the 2016 primary, RNC Chair Rinse Prewash (Reince Priebus) and the party "leadership" (I use that term loosely) showed themselves as so woefully inept they couldn't produce a fart at chili and bean cookoff, much less a winning Presidential campaign.

The party allowed so many conservative/Tea Party candidates in the race in an effort to split the conservative vote so their handpicked guy, Jeb Bush, the hapless Fredo Corelone of the Bush family, would be the nominee.

But along came Sideshow Bob (Trump), who stole Bush's thunder and upset the establishment. Trump hit on the right points (illegal immigration, voter discontent). I wasn't a big fan of the way how he first went about doing it, but kept an open mind to him because of the way he took on the establishment. So many people, including many who claimed the conservative mantle, liked his blunt talk, his politically incorrect way of saying things, that to them, Trump could do no wrong.

My mind closed to Trump when he decided to employ personal attacks against his opponents, using vile language, threats, birtherism (remember when that was once considered "racist?"), attacking spouses, and in the end, conspiracy theories against the father of his main rival. Trump also signaled a willingness to work with the "establishment." While claiming to oppose him, the establishment made it clear (in the words of George W. Bush, the sobbing drunk John Boehner, and the IRA terrorist sympathizer Peter King), that they viewed Ted Cruz as a bigger threat to the party. When Dirty Donald used Birtherism against Ted Cruz, the US Senate and Rinse Preewash did nothing to defend Cruz.

Principles Before Personalities

My endorsement and support for Ted Cruz had nothing to do with him as a person or a personality. I supported Cruz because he was the one candidate I felt who best articulated and defended not just in words, but deeds, the Constitution and the conservative principles we last saw in Ronald Reagan. In fact, Cruz was the most conservative candidate since The Gipper.

Far too many who have made a living or have billed themselves as "conservatives" sold the movement out, however, and cast their lot in with Donald Trump, a man who had no record of conservatism. Sarah Palin, Phyllis Schlaffly, Sean Hannity and the Faux News Network, Laura Ingraham are a few of the names. I could never trust them again after the way they betrayed conservative principles.

What Would Breitbart Say?

The same goes for many conservative forums and websites I've long patronized, even linked too, which became outlets for Trump and were willing to carry his Kool-Aid for him. I quit reading so many of them because of the Trump lovefests, and regurgitation of his rants and wacky conspiracy theories.

In 2008, a decade after the Cult of Clinton, we saw another Cult of Personality when Obama rose to prominence with the help of an adoring press who refused to vet or question his background. I expected more of conservatives and Republicans to make cult-like figures of leaders, but that's what happened with Trump. Everything we didn't like about Obama, many "conservatives" were willing to do and make this narcissistic bully their Obama, their Cult of Personality, and they'd attack you with the most vile language if you dared attack their new god.

More at this link.

Too many abandoned rational thought because of their anger (much of it justified) at the GOP establishment, and now we are stuck with a nominee who was not only a good friend of the Clinton's, but is now going back on so much of what he sold himself on.

I hate believing in conspiracy theories, but you couldn't think of a better one to help the Hildebeast. Have your good friend mount a third-party run as a Republican, and deeply divide the party, which would guarantee you, a deeply flawed candidate no one trusts or likes, the election.

If the stakes weren't serious, it would be a joke. But it is angering. This isn't the "lesser of two evils" we had to choose in 2008 or 2012. This is a choice between a socialist progressive and a populist progressive who are both equally as destructive to the future of this nation. In other words, we as conservatives have no choice in this election, we are just told by Rinse Preewash to get in line and goosestep behind someone whom most GOP primary voters voted against.

Do you feel disenfranchised yet?

This is the last election that can make or break whether or not this nation will return to its founding principles of liberty, or if the Constitution will be finally shredded by a liberal Supreme Court which will erode individual liberty for the "common good," and we will "spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." And if you think Donald Trump will prevent a liberal takeover of the court, what proof do you have to rest that on?

In a time when we have been devoid of leaders, our nation is breathing it's final gasps of air, killed by the self-interests of a narcissistic billionaire who saw the party's nomination as his own personal prize, and the once Grand Old Party whose "leaders" are more interested in preserving what power they can hold onto, instead of preserving liberty for our children and their children.

What's Next?

So where do we go from here? With the exception of down-ticket races, I don't feel like I can vote for a person who does not hold my values. It may be a third-party vote or a write in, but I cannot justify voting for Trump just because "he's not Hillary."

I think it is time for conservatives to start a third-party. The GOP, as seen this election, as well as in Mississippi in 2014 and Virginia in 2013, is hostile to real conservatives and only talks the talk in order to get us to vote for them. But not a party for the sake of a party. Conservatives need to educate the American voter and explain why conservatism is in the best interests of all voters, how the nation will be more prosperous and free under our philosophy. The Republican Party has not educated the voting public on conservatism (save for Reagan and the 1994 Contract with America), and too many times has seemed ashamed and apologetic toward conservatism, letting liberals label us as "racist" or any number of slurs.

The Article V Project (read Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments) is probably one of the last tools humanly possible for us to save what is left of this nation, should as I fear we see another liberal win in 2016.

But in the end, what will save this nation is not a new political party, or man or woman. Our nation has turned its back on God. Our leaders have followed self-interest instead of what the best interests of the nation are. Our society has become obsessed with celebrity and pop-culture, hypnotized by "reality TV". We've become worshippers of the Golden Calf and our own finite intelligence, so is it no wonder we've fallen for cultish leaders like the Clinton's, Obama, and now Trump?

Erick Erickson Is Right About The GOP's Hypocrisy On Bill Clinton With Trump As Nominee

Well, the most pathetic GOP Primary is over, and Erick Erickson, one of the voices who warned America about Donald Trump, as well as a leader in the #NeverTrump movement, thinks Slick Willie Clinton is owed an apology (The Resurgent).
Seventeen years after Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for covering up an affair, they are handing their party over to a man who has openly bragged about his affairs. On the day the Republicans first meet in Cleveland, Donald Trump will be taken to court for allegedly defrauding hard working Americans through Trump University.
What voters have already learned about Donald Trump during the primaries should give them pause. Many of his business dealings have left others worse off while he has played the bankruptcy courts to keep going. While investors in various Trump enterprises lost money, Trump made fortunes.
On the campaign trail, Trump was more a pathological liar than Bill Clinton ever was. He smeared his opponents, their wives, and their families. He embraced 9/11 trutherisms that George Bush was to blame for the attacks, he peddled malignant, false stories about Ted Cruz’s father, and few Republicans ever called on him to account. Many gave him passes on the lies they would never give to Bill Clinton.
Republicans owe Bill Clinton an apology for impeaching him over lies and affairs while now embracing a pathological liar and womanizer. That apology will not be forthcoming. In fact, for years Republicans have accused the Democrats of gutter politics and shamelessness. Now the Republicans themselves have lost their sense of shame.
As Marco Rubio withdrew from the Republican primary in Florida, Trump supporters showed up to heckle him as he was giving his withdrawal speech. In South Carolina, a Trump supporter refused to help a disabled woman who had been in a car wreck because the woman had a Bernie Sanders sticker on her car. The man actually said he thought the Lord came to him. But these people have learned this behavior from their party’s new political leader.
If so much were not on the line, it would be somewhat humorous to watch. But the Supreme Court hangs in the balance; the relationship between the states and federal government hangs in the balance; and our relationship with our allies hangs in the balance. All of these things are at stake and the party that fancies itself as the grown up party has handed itself over to a huckster with a cult of ill behaved children.
Many conservatives and people of common decency will support neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. They will hope for a third party. But even if all the Republicans voted for Donald Trump, he would make no more gains than Mitt Romney on the electoral map and is putting in play states that would otherwise be solidly Republican.
Angry voters made a terrible miscalculation in the Republican primary. They presumed that the rest of the nation shared their anger. They were wrong and now, with so much on the line, the Republicans will field as their Presidential nominee the least popular Presidential candidate in American history. God save the republic.
I've seen quite a few people attacking Erickson for making this commentary. I've disagreed with Erick a few times but agreed with him for the most part. Here, I'm in full agreement with what some GOPers would label as Erick's "heresy."

Why?  In the effort to defeat the Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rotten Clinton, in the effort of voters to express anger at the GOP establishment for surrendering to Richard Milhous Hussein-Obama time and time again, why did the Republican Party (specially so-called "conservative" leaders) not only abandon the "family values" torch it has carried, as well as any semblance of the conservative values of Ronald Reagan, by nominating Donald Trump?

The endless conspiracy theories, bragging without any shame of extramarital affairs, implying he'd like to date his daughter. That's who is the GOP standard bearer is, and Bill Clinton was impeached over lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an affair?

Now, you might tell me, "Wait a minute. No one is perfect." I'm not saying that. All of us are broken people. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's grace. But there's a difference in recognizing that and outright being proud of it. Donald Trump has said he doesn't feel any need to ask God for forgiveness. I thought that would be enough to finish him. Nevertheless, so many evangelical Christians and their leaders cast their lot behind him, a guy who thinks the book of 2 Corinthians is "Two Corinthians" and thought a communion plate is where you put the offering.

Not to say that the anger the American voter feels isn't justified. I'm just as angry. But Trump wasn't the person to lead the charge, and I think we're on the verge of losing what's left of America because of it.