Why is George Zimmerman being described as a "white hispanic"?
Because adding the word "white" fits the media template for what happened and gives Al Sharpton something to do.
Anyway, if George Zimmerman is a "white hispanic" because his father was white and his mother was hispanic, what does that make Barrack Obama?
A black white? Or a Kenyan white?
No?
Ever heard the media describe him that way?
Hmmm?
Why not?
Amazing what we're conditioned to receive in the disguise of "news".
More amazing the folks that would think such an observation is racist.
Our conditioning knows no bounds...
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Enemy of my Enemy...
My daughter asked me the day after our Primary why we had voted for Romney. It was in the tone of why did we vote for him and he lost.
I can understand her confusion. Santorum is more conservative than Romney. Hands down.
But I've been torn for months over who to vote for and headlines the day before had just sealed it for me.
It seems Santorum has realized he cannot defeat Romney. Romney already leads 2-to-1 over Santorum, his closest challenger. Newt is out and doesn't even know it. But, Santorum is openly stating his strategy is no longer to "win" but to deny Romney the "win"... keep Romney from getting this magic number of delegates to cinch the nomination. Seems his plan is get to the convention and try to convince everyone that, even though he couldn't win enough popular votes to get the nomination himself, that it should just be given to him.
I have a problem with that.
My first opportunity to vote was during the Baxley/Graddic debacle. I voted for Graddic. Graddic won the nomination for Governor. I don't remember if Baxley sued or just had the Democrat leadership give him the nomination, but it was taken from Graddic. I, along with enough other folks, voted for Hunt in that following election and he won. That Graddic vote was the first, last and only vote I have ever given a Democrat candidate. If you get the most X, whatever x is, you should win. 26 years and I still remember how mad I was over my vote not counting.
Again, I've already said Santorum, for all his faults, IS more conservative than Romney. But trying to steal during the convention what you couldn't outright win during the primaries is just plain wrong. If the magic number isn't reached, then he who has the most X should win.
Did I "settle" in voting for Romney. A little. He's done and said a lot of things in his public life that were wrong headed and just plain political. But, he's a politician. Reality is that politics is SO dirty only the fickle get in.
But, he's saying the right things now. And that's about all you can ever hope to get out of a politician. Agreement today. Because they will change tomorrow.
Romney is moderate. Yes he is. He was defeated in 2008 by another moderate. Yes he was.
But, there is something that he has going for him now that he didn't have then.
Three plus years of an Obama presidency.
The base WILL support whoever our candidate is. Yes we will. Yes you will. If Romney can reach these mythical "undecided" "independents", then great.
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA. Period.
I can understand her confusion. Santorum is more conservative than Romney. Hands down.
But I've been torn for months over who to vote for and headlines the day before had just sealed it for me.
It seems Santorum has realized he cannot defeat Romney. Romney already leads 2-to-1 over Santorum, his closest challenger. Newt is out and doesn't even know it. But, Santorum is openly stating his strategy is no longer to "win" but to deny Romney the "win"... keep Romney from getting this magic number of delegates to cinch the nomination. Seems his plan is get to the convention and try to convince everyone that, even though he couldn't win enough popular votes to get the nomination himself, that it should just be given to him.
I have a problem with that.
My first opportunity to vote was during the Baxley/Graddic debacle. I voted for Graddic. Graddic won the nomination for Governor. I don't remember if Baxley sued or just had the Democrat leadership give him the nomination, but it was taken from Graddic. I, along with enough other folks, voted for Hunt in that following election and he won. That Graddic vote was the first, last and only vote I have ever given a Democrat candidate. If you get the most X, whatever x is, you should win. 26 years and I still remember how mad I was over my vote not counting.
Again, I've already said Santorum, for all his faults, IS more conservative than Romney. But trying to steal during the convention what you couldn't outright win during the primaries is just plain wrong. If the magic number isn't reached, then he who has the most X should win.
Did I "settle" in voting for Romney. A little. He's done and said a lot of things in his public life that were wrong headed and just plain political. But, he's a politician. Reality is that politics is SO dirty only the fickle get in.
But, he's saying the right things now. And that's about all you can ever hope to get out of a politician. Agreement today. Because they will change tomorrow.
Romney is moderate. Yes he is. He was defeated in 2008 by another moderate. Yes he was.
But, there is something that he has going for him now that he didn't have then.
Three plus years of an Obama presidency.
The base WILL support whoever our candidate is. Yes we will. Yes you will. If Romney can reach these mythical "undecided" "independents", then great.
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA. Period.
Monday, March 12, 2012
I habe Papiere, seit ich 14 Jahre alt war!
I have no tolerance at all for people who oppose showing ID to vote.
Period. None. Nada.
The phrase "show their papers" is purely meant to bring hysteria, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
I was issued "papers", i.e. my motorcycle license, when I was 14. I've never hesitated to show them to anyone who asked, from the video rental clerk to the occasional police officer. My grandparents continued to renew their licenses up to the day of their death.
The peak of my rebellion regarding ID is that I had my Social Security number removed from them.
This idea that showing a state issued picture ID is equivalent to Jim Crow laws is just ludicrous.
If you want to vote in OUR country, you should HAVE to show SOME standard form of OUR ID.
"Rights" must bear some small smidgen of "responsibility" or they're worthless. If you're too lazy to bother getting an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Afraid to get an ID because you're already in trouble with the law? All the more reason you shouldn't be voting.
Why the current administration and Democrats in general are hell bent on guaranteeing the supposed "right" of illegals to vote is just brazen.
Justice Dept opposes Texas voter ID law
Period. None. Nada.
The phrase "show their papers" is purely meant to bring hysteria, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
I was issued "papers", i.e. my motorcycle license, when I was 14. I've never hesitated to show them to anyone who asked, from the video rental clerk to the occasional police officer. My grandparents continued to renew their licenses up to the day of their death.
The peak of my rebellion regarding ID is that I had my Social Security number removed from them.
This idea that showing a state issued picture ID is equivalent to Jim Crow laws is just ludicrous.
If you want to vote in OUR country, you should HAVE to show SOME standard form of OUR ID.
"Rights" must bear some small smidgen of "responsibility" or they're worthless. If you're too lazy to bother getting an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Afraid to get an ID because you're already in trouble with the law? All the more reason you shouldn't be voting.
Why the current administration and Democrats in general are hell bent on guaranteeing the supposed "right" of illegals to vote is just brazen.
Justice Dept opposes Texas voter ID law
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
They're All The Same... Aren't they?
I keep hearing folks say that it doesn't really matter who goes to Washington, because they're all crooks. Funny thing is, it is immediately followed by the statement that your crooks are worse than theirs...
I've referenced before the concept put forth by Mark Twain that if the only tool you have is a hammer, soon every problem begins to look like a nail. I've also pointed out that ALL politicians perceive themselves as only having one tool: spending your money. The difference is what they spend it on and, the point of this post, how fast they spend it.
Liberals want to spend money (not their money, your money) on every bleeding heart cause under the sun. They parade an endless stream of victims past the cameras in Washington to explain why they need to fling funds at every sad-sack situation in the world. This usually equates to dumping the money down a hole for deadbeats, slackers and con men.
Conservatives want to spend money on the Military. You know, those folks who have signed the dotted line that they will die in service to their county.
Moderates want to do both so as to not tick either side off. Look under the word moderate in the dictionary and you will see a photo of John McCain.
Here is the point. During the election of 2008, we had to choose between a liberal and a moderate. Both wanted, ultimately, the same thing. The rub was how fast to get there. I don't remember there being a large difference in McCain and Obama, it's just McCain was content to slowly drive the country to financial oblivion by spending countless sums on every sad situation in the world, while Obama was going to kick in the afterburners and get us there in a hurry.
I looked up some numbers. I didn't get these from Pelosi's office, like some sham of a graph spreading around FaceBook. I went to the governments own official websites and pulled this info.
The day Clinton took office, the country was 217 years old. In that amount of time the debt had accululated to $4.2T.
During the eight years of Clinton, he increased that to $5.7T, an increase of $1.5T.
During the eight years of W, he increased that to $10.6T, an increase of $4.9T. (True conservatives were railing against this spending excess. For the record, W was a social conservative but a fiscal moderate, a la McCain.)
During the first three years of O, he has increased that to $15.5T, an increase of $4.9T.
O has increased the debt as much in three years as Bush did in eight.
Stop. Go back. Read that part again.
$4.9T over eight years was appalling. What do you call $4.9T over three?
All politicians are driving us to financial ruin. It is the only tool they see in their bag, spending our money. But the RATE at which O has hurried us down the road is just staggering.
So, you tell me... Are they all the same?
I've referenced before the concept put forth by Mark Twain that if the only tool you have is a hammer, soon every problem begins to look like a nail. I've also pointed out that ALL politicians perceive themselves as only having one tool: spending your money. The difference is what they spend it on and, the point of this post, how fast they spend it.
Liberals want to spend money (not their money, your money) on every bleeding heart cause under the sun. They parade an endless stream of victims past the cameras in Washington to explain why they need to fling funds at every sad-sack situation in the world. This usually equates to dumping the money down a hole for deadbeats, slackers and con men.
Conservatives want to spend money on the Military. You know, those folks who have signed the dotted line that they will die in service to their county.
Moderates want to do both so as to not tick either side off. Look under the word moderate in the dictionary and you will see a photo of John McCain.
Here is the point. During the election of 2008, we had to choose between a liberal and a moderate. Both wanted, ultimately, the same thing. The rub was how fast to get there. I don't remember there being a large difference in McCain and Obama, it's just McCain was content to slowly drive the country to financial oblivion by spending countless sums on every sad situation in the world, while Obama was going to kick in the afterburners and get us there in a hurry.
I looked up some numbers. I didn't get these from Pelosi's office, like some sham of a graph spreading around FaceBook. I went to the governments own official websites and pulled this info.
The day Clinton took office, the country was 217 years old. In that amount of time the debt had accululated to $4.2T.
During the eight years of Clinton, he increased that to $5.7T, an increase of $1.5T.
During the eight years of W, he increased that to $10.6T, an increase of $4.9T. (True conservatives were railing against this spending excess. For the record, W was a social conservative but a fiscal moderate, a la McCain.)
During the first three years of O, he has increased that to $15.5T, an increase of $4.9T.
O has increased the debt as much in three years as Bush did in eight.
Stop. Go back. Read that part again.
$4.9T over eight years was appalling. What do you call $4.9T over three?
All politicians are driving us to financial ruin. It is the only tool they see in their bag, spending our money. But the RATE at which O has hurried us down the road is just staggering.
So, you tell me... Are they all the same?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
One Born Every Minute?
When George Stephanopolous asked a question regarding banning birth control during one of the Republican Primary debates, the candidates fumbled the question. Why? Because the question was so far out of left field that they were just, well, dumbfounded at it.
Nobody was talking about birth control. Nobody was talking about banning it. It was a complete red herring.
But now, jump a few months forward.
George, former (and likely current) Democratic operative, has completely fabricated out of thin air a non existent issue that Obama is more than willing to capitalize on.
Obama decreed (unconstitutionally) that ALL insurance must pay for birth control and abortion pills. Even insurance provided by Catholic institutions, which oppose birth control and abortion, MUST provide it to their employees. At the time, one was left with complete befuddlement as to why he would attack the Catholic Church in this manner.
This is being framed as "why are you against birth control" type questions now to all the candidates. Nobody is against birth control, except maybe Santorum, but even that is his personal view for his personal family. The question should be "who does the President think he is thinking he can issue a mandate this way"...
Jump forward to this weeks testimony in congress regarding law students having to pay for their own contraception. Imagine. College students having to buy their own birth control pills and condoms to hook up. The numbers quoted were $1000 per year for birth control. That's 5 condoms per day, per student, every day of the year. And wanting someone else to pay for it. Basically, having someone else pay for them to have unimaginable amounts of sex. It is that analysis that led Rush Limbaugh to point out that people who are paid to have large amounts of sex are "sluts", a tongue-in-cheek conclusion meant to flamboyantly point out the fallacy in the policy.
Now, for the first time I can remember, even Rush has been forced to retreat and offer an apology.
All of this furor stemming from George's off-the-wall question.
Now, Obama has invited himself to a women's college to give their commencement (see below). Gee, wonder what he's gonna talk about? Am I the only one that sees this as a contrived, invented cause?
P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. I hope women in general don't fall for this. If they do, well, P.T. nailed 'em.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213955-obama-asks-to-
Nobody was talking about birth control. Nobody was talking about banning it. It was a complete red herring.
But now, jump a few months forward.
George, former (and likely current) Democratic operative, has completely fabricated out of thin air a non existent issue that Obama is more than willing to capitalize on.
Obama decreed (unconstitutionally) that ALL insurance must pay for birth control and abortion pills. Even insurance provided by Catholic institutions, which oppose birth control and abortion, MUST provide it to their employees. At the time, one was left with complete befuddlement as to why he would attack the Catholic Church in this manner.
This is being framed as "why are you against birth control" type questions now to all the candidates. Nobody is against birth control, except maybe Santorum, but even that is his personal view for his personal family. The question should be "who does the President think he is thinking he can issue a mandate this way"...
Jump forward to this weeks testimony in congress regarding law students having to pay for their own contraception. Imagine. College students having to buy their own birth control pills and condoms to hook up. The numbers quoted were $1000 per year for birth control. That's 5 condoms per day, per student, every day of the year. And wanting someone else to pay for it. Basically, having someone else pay for them to have unimaginable amounts of sex. It is that analysis that led Rush Limbaugh to point out that people who are paid to have large amounts of sex are "sluts", a tongue-in-cheek conclusion meant to flamboyantly point out the fallacy in the policy.
Now, for the first time I can remember, even Rush has been forced to retreat and offer an apology.
All of this furor stemming from George's off-the-wall question.
Now, Obama has invited himself to a women's college to give their commencement (see below). Gee, wonder what he's gonna talk about? Am I the only one that sees this as a contrived, invented cause?
P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. I hope women in general don't fall for this. If they do, well, P.T. nailed 'em.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213955-obama-asks-to-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)