Saturday, July 14, 2012

Phony Democratic Talking Points And Their Real Meanings!

 The Leftist agenda being espoused by the Socialists (AKA Communists, Marxists, Liberals or Progressives) is all so predictable and easily dismissed with a few common sense simple facts.
  1. We need to raise taxes on the rich and not cut spending.
  2. The so called war on women.
  3. All who oppose Obama or voter ID are racists.

Myth 1 - We need to raise taxes.

 This has been proven repeatedly to not work as every time it has been done any where that it has been tried that when you reach a tipping point revenue actually goes down (see the Laffer curve below)
Even if the government took 100% of everything the "rich" earned, effectively destroying the economy, it wouldn't even fund their out of control spending for 5 months. The only logical choice left is to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Myth 2 - The so called war on women.

Under President Obama, the number of women living in poverty has skyrocketed. 92 percent of job losses have come among women. Democrats know that today women face really no restrictions getting contraception.
"They know that Republicans aren't going to stop women from getting contraception. They know that nine in 10 employer-based health care plans already cover contraception. Of course the Democrats want to change the subject to a wholly contrived “War on Women” narrative. If there is a war on women, it's on women's pocketbooks and it's being waged by President Obama." Laura Ingraham

Myth 3 - Oppose Obama/Voter ID your racist.

 If one disliked Obama cause he is half black instead of the fact that he is a redistributing Socialist. Then how could those same so called haters on the right then support Condoleezza Rice, General Colin Powell, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West and Hermon Cain as these are all 100% black African American Conservative Patriots.


"So sensing the now very real possibility of significant losses of White voters as compared to 2008, Barack Obama is doing all he can to push the numbers of minority voters as high as possible in 2012 – including voters who may very well not be legal citizens – a number that might include hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-citizen votes.  In a close election that could prove the deciding factor between victory and defeat.
As we reported yesterday, there is great irony to be found in the fact that the Obama campaign requires all who attend an Obama campaign speech to  show proof of identification before being granted admission, and yet the Obama administration is aggressively fighting states that wish to require voters to show that same kind of identification before being allowed to vote.
And if Barack Obama runs out of non citizen voters – he can always count on the dead.
That’s the Chicago way…" on June 24, 2012 with 25 Comments in News

 Need I say any more. Anyone

Monday, July 9, 2012

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

Experts Agree Gun Control Works!

The defense of the right to keep and bear arms is a defense of the core of the American Soul. The San Francisco Bleat, Nancy “stretch” Pelosi is calling for gun registration. In an interview with Good Morning America (Good Grief, America; you actually watch that?) everyone`s favorite Bolshevik grandmother called for the registration of American firearms. According to the Washington Times: “The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats’ coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that “it’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she responded, “We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”
The above was pulled from a Timothy Birdnow article

They want you to say | It's better to say   
    (and you lose if you say): | (and they lose if you say)  
                       pro gun | pro rights
                   gun control |   crime control
             anti-gun movement | anti-self-defense movement
         semiautomatic handgun | sidearm
               concealed carry | carry or right to carry
      assault or lethal weapon | household firearms
                     junk guns | the affordability issue
       high capacity magazines | full capacity magazines
              Second Amendment | Bill of Rights
        the powerful gun lobby | civil rights organizations
      common sense legislation | dangerous utopian ideas
       reasonable gun controls | victim disarmament
              gun control laws | infringement laws
                      anti gun | anti-gun bigot
                      anti gun | anti-gun prejudice
                      anti gun | anti rights

                When they say: | You say:
                     Guns kill | Guns save lives
              Guns cause crime | Guns stop crime
                  Guns are bad | Guns are why America is still free
       Assault weapons are bad | Assault is a type of behavior
         Guns are so dangerous | Guns are supposed to be dangerous
 Guns are too dangerous to own | You should take a safety class
    People shouldn't have guns | Maybe you shouldn't have one
Guns should be totally outlawed | Let's try that with drugs first
The purpose of a gun is to kill | The purpose of a gun is to protect
        People don't need guns | Only good people need guns
           Guns should go away | Then you should personally sign up
                                  to never have a gun in your life, 
                                  as you would ask of me
         They should take away | Bad guys first
                  all the guns 
They should take away all the guns| Who exactly is "they" you would
    because they're so dangerous   you wold give all these dangerous
                                   guns to?
Gun owners should be registered | Bad guys first
Gun owners should be registered | So, how would writing my name on a
             to help stop crime   government list help stop crime?                        
          We need more gun laws | Criminal activity is already banned
Why would anyone want to own a gun? | You're kidding, right? You mean you
                                    really don't know? Well, why do you
                                    think we give guns to the police?
I'm not against people having guns | What sort of guns do you think
                                     people should have, and why?
     Do you really have a gun? | Of course, don't you?
                                                                  Alan Korwin
                            - Click New Stuff button

"The Chinese, the Russians, the Nazis and Saddam Hussein all agree! Gun Control Works!"
 Dean Armstrong

A little Gun History Lesson:
* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
 * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities.
Daniel Schmutter (b. 1964)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 
United States Constitution, Amendment II Bill of Rights
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that 
all power is inherent in the people; that... 
it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." 
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. 
The communist party must command all the guns, that way, 
no guns can ever be used to command the party." 
Mao Tse Tung Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
Lenin (1870-1924)
 "Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. 
I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. 
Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. 
We'll see who wins." 
Sammy "the Bull" Gravano (b. 1945) Asked about Gun Control in an interview in Vanity Fair
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device
 to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." 
 Lenin (1870-1924) "The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia"
I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Pigs Fly

Wow is all I can say about this article from CSN!

Feds: Airlines Must Let Passengers Fly With Pigs for 'Emotional Support'

Pot-bellied pig. (AP Photo)
( – Pot-bellied pigs must be granted passage on airplanes if they are used for “emotional support” by their owners, states the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) draft manual on equity for the disabled in air travel.
The DOT published its “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Draft Technical Assistance Manual” in the Federal Register on July 5, providing guidance that allows swine on airplanes if they are determined to be service animals.
The manual is designed to "help carriers and indirect carriers and their employees/contractors that provide services or facilities to passengers with disabilities, assist those passengers in accordance with" the Air Carrier Access Act. The manual open for public comments until Oct. 3.
Under the “Service Animal” section, the department lays out a scenario for airline carriers entitled “Example 1.”
The manual states: “A passenger arrives at the gate accompanied by a pot-bellied pig. She claims that the pot-bellied pig is her service animal. What should you do?”
“Generally, you must permit a passenger with a disability to be accompanied by a service animal,” reads the manual.  “However, if you have a reasonable basis for questioning whether the animal is a service animal, you may ask for some verification.”
The manual instructs airline carriers and their employees to begin by asking questions about the animal, such as, “What tasks or functions does your animal perform for you?” or “What has its training been?”
“If you are not satisfied with the credibility of the answers to these questions or if the service animal is an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you may request further verification,” the guidebook states.  “You should also call a CRO [Complaints Resolution Official] if there is any further doubt as to whether the pot-bellied pig is the passenger's service animal.”
If the answers are satisfactory, pot-bellied pigs, which can weigh as much as 300 pounds, must be accepted aboard the plane.
“Finally, if you determine that the pot-bellied pig is a service animal, you must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger to her seat provided the animal does not obstruct the aisle or present any safety issues and the animal is behaving appropriately in a public setting,” the manual states.
Last November, ABC News reported that a 300-pound pot-bellied pig flew on a US Airways flight from Philadelphia to Seattle because the animal was deemed a therapeutic companion pet.
Pot-bellied pig. (AP Photo)
Wendy Ponzo, vice president of the North American Potbellied Pig Association, said that the pigs can be used as service animals and can be trained to open and close doors and use a litter box. “They also seem to have a sense if the owner is not feeling well to stay by them,” said Ponzo, who has multiple sclerosis.
“They help me a great deal when I feel at my worst,” she said.
The DOT’s technical assistance manual is designed for airlines and passengers with disabilities under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).  The ACAA was passed in 1986 and bars discrimination against the disabled in air travel.
“It is designed to serve as an authoritative source of information about the services, facilities, and accommodations required by the ACAA,” the manual states.  The DOT says that the manual “does not expand carriers' legal obligations or establish new requirements under the law.”
In its definition of service animal, the DOT includes creatures that provide “emotional support.”  The manual defines a service animal as an “animal individually trained to perform functions to assist a person with a disability; Animal that has been shown to have the innate ability to assist a person with a disability…or Emotional support or psychiatric service animal.”
“You should be aware that there are many different types of service animals that perform a range of tasks for individuals with a disability,” the manual states.
"Be aware," it says, "that people who have disabilities that are not apparent may travel with emotional support, psychiatric service, or other service animals," it says.
Though pot-bellied pigs are permissible, the DOT forbids some animals from aircraft.  “As a U.S. carrier, you are not required to carry certain unusual service animals in the aircraft cabin such as ferrets, rodents, spiders, snakes and other reptiles,” it states.
Miniature horses and monkeys, which the manual describes as “commonly used service animals,” are also permitted.
On a case-by-case basis, the DOT says, animals can be turned away if they are “too large or heavy to be accommodated in the aircraft cabin; would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others; would cause a significant disruption in cabin service; or would be prohibited from entering a foreign country at the aircraft's destination.”
As previously reported, under new Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines businesses also must permit miniature horses for use as service guide animals on their premises.
According to the DOT guidebook, if an animal is not accepted, the carrier must document the decision in writing and provide it to the passenger within 10 days.
Foreign carriers only have to accommodate dogs as service animals, unless the flight is code-shared with a U.S. carrier.
Carriers must also provide “relief areas” for service animals.  “With respect to terminal facilities you own, lease, or control at a U.S. airport, you must, in cooperation with the airport operator, provide relief areas for service animals that accompany passengers with a disability who are departing, arriving, or connecting at an airport on your flights,” the manual states.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security prohibits many items from being carried onto airplanes, including sporting goods, liquids over 3 ounces, and snow globes.  The TSA has faced criticism after several incidents involving its treatment of the mentally disabled.
In June 2011, for example, at Detroit’s McNamera Terminal, the TSA confiscated a 6-inch plastic toy hammer from Drew Mandy, a severely mentally handicapped man who carried the toy for security.  Mandy, who is 29-years old but has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old, was subject to a thorough pat down by TSA agents, who then threw away the toy after they considered it to be a weapon.


This is a great article by John Wallace you must read. I can not beleive how the mainstream media ignores this!

08-01-2010 9:16 pm - John Wallace
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.

To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement's consent decree.


The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, "farm ownership" loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" $50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called "Track A".[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.


Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.

Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. $995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including $760 million disbursed as $50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.


Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 additional petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement." A provision in a 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, the number of total claims filed by Black people claiming to be farmers not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA's estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977! One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who "attempted to farm" and did not receive assistance from the USDA. So Black people who were thinking of going into the farming business, but never did, were also eligible for the $50,000 fraud award, because they might have been discriminated against. It sounds like "Black Repartions" to me. Paying off the latest group of Pigford fraud application cases is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration.


Remember the recent case involving a woman by the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named "Picford" case. In a special article written for the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explained that Shirley Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under the Pigford case.

Her organization, New Communities, is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and her husband Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit.

What makes this even more interesting is that Charles Sherrod, Sherill's husband, appears to be the same Charles Sherrod who was a leader in the radical group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s. The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.

In his article, Blumer had some interesting questions about this settlement and about Sherrod's rapid departure from the USDA

•Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?

•How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?

•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?

•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are some other questions to consider:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?

•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?

•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

Here is another area for concern: In her position at the not for profit, "Rural Development Leadership Network," a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford? Did she put Black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA?

As many of you may know, there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike. Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots. A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries. I wonder how many of the these owners claimed they had farmed, attempted to farm, or thought about farming such acreage to score a fast $50,000 Black Farmer Fraud Award from Uncle Sam?

I guess if you are or were a poor White, Asian, Native American or Hispanic farmer, you're just out of luck in collecting your $50,000 fraud award.


1. Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.
2. "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
3. "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].

Saturday, July 7, 2012

The so called War on Women

Below is an excellent article I found on please do enjoy

780,000 More Women Unemployed Today Than When Obama Took Office

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Obama the post turtle!

Obama The Post Turtle!
You know he didn't get up there by himself, doesn't belong up there, doesn't know what to do while he is up there and you wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there?