It seems so obvious, so logical; I mean it makes sense, doesn’t it? About thirty years ago was when I first encountered Libertarians through a local radio host. I listened to him and most of what he said made sense. He wanted less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom! Yes! That’s me! Other people I knew were also making the same observations about Libertarians, but then someone I knew said “they’re (Libertarians) a bunch of nuts!” Well, I just wrote that off to them being misguided about Libertarians. Then came the 92” election. Many Conservatives had a bad taste in our mouths. We wanted to see government shrinking under Bush Sr., taxes going down, and a continuation of the policies of Reagan that created prosperity, brought the USSR to its knees, and brought back pride and dignity to a country previously headed in the opposite direction. He might have survived giving in to the Democrats and raising taxes but he was never going to survive the pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Anyway, I found myself turning to the one person expounding my principles, that of Pat Buchanan. I not only align myself behind him, I joined the campaign and found myself driving the local campaign. Although there were many people in the campaign that were echoing my purpose for joining, there was a faction that seemed militant to defeat Bush. I mean they seemed to hate Bush; not the fact that he broke his oath, not that he was giving in to the Democrats, they just hated him in principle. Principle? Yea, that word is going to come up again, I promise you! I was opposing Bush on principle, but I knew that there was a difference between standing on principle and hiding behind it.

So when the primary was over and Buchanan lost, I said, “well, it’s time to back Bush, let’s hope that if nothing else, he got the message” . Most on the campaign agreed with me but there were those that militantly opposed Bush, who were now admitting that they never wanted Buchanan to win anyway, they wanted Andre Marrou to win. So I asked “Then why are you on the Buchanan campaign and not on Andre Marrou’s campaign?”  Their answer was to make sure Bush didn’t win. It begged the question “What if Clinton wins?” To which I got the oddest answer ever “That’s not my fault, you can’t blame me, I’m voting for Morrou”. This really turned me off as irresponsible and I mean that sincerely. If your plan is to sink Bush, then you are responsible for the results. Maybe not in total but at least take responsibility for your part.

As time went on I got to know a few Libertarians and then I found out that why my friend told me Libertarians were “nuts”. One guy I knew who was a Libertarian said something that I found outrageous. We were talking about a guy who was arrested for having sex with several young children (around 10-12 years old as I recall) to which he said “They have no right to arrest him for that”. WHAT? I couldn’t believe my ears, yes I knew he was for legalizing pot, and I knew he didn’t pay income tax (that caught up with him several years later), but this just floored me. I asked him to explain that and what he told me was ” as long as it’s consensual it’s none of the governments business. No one is being hurt!” I tried to explain to him that getting the consent of a 10 year old is not the same as an adult for quite obvious reasons that they can be controlled and manipulated by an adult and in fact it was doing damage to the child, all to no avail. So at this point I was reaching, trying to trigger logic in him, and the further I reached, the more I realized that nothing was going to work. I said “What if this guy drugged them to have sex with them?” to which he replied; “So what, drugs should be legal anyway”. Now I’ll admit that this guy was a little odd, so at the time I wrote it off as him just being him. He later got arrested for an over due a library book (no kidding) and then for failing to pay taxes and disappeared form the scene. But he was the first of many Libertarians I would meet with similar views.

As I started blogging years ago, I begin to come across people that would start out sounding like a conservative and then would post something really crazy. It got to be that I would automatically say to anyone who fit this description, “You must be a Libertarian” and without fail they would say “Yes” and explain to me why Libertarians were so much smarter then everyone else. And when I’m talking about crazy stuff, I mean really crazy. Everything is a conspiracy, WWII, Kennedy Assassination, Federal Reserve controls the world, NAFTA was a conspiracy, the Council on Foreign Affairs is really the brains behind the New World Order, 911 was a government set up, Ron Paul only lost New Hampshire because of voter fraud, Bob Barr was a Republican plant to cause chaos in the Libertarian party, etc… What’s really disturbing is that even the leaders of the party echo much of this craziness. You’ll find many quotes from Paul, Marrou, Browne, or Badnarik echo many of these same theories.

No I’m not implying that none of what they believe is true in some degree or other. Some of it may be and in fact I personally don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming. The difference is that I don’t believe in it based on scientific evidence, not on some crazy idea that people are out to get me. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t even have an issue if it were only the conspiracies, but its not. It’s the whole crazy notion that there shouldn’t be order of law that protects children from pedophiles or people from themselves. This is where they totally lose me.

 

Now here is where they alienate me: As you well know, we have part of that fringe trolling around here. They love to jump on a blog and tell us how much they know about us and tell us what we think (even though they are never right) and they love to tell us how smart they are by referencing propaganda as if it is historical documentation. And then they tell you how smart they are and how stupid we are for not believing their crazy conspiracies and ideology. I’d call them narcissist but it would be a compliment to these truly moronic wackos.

 

So where am I going with this? Well I had to share a laugh with all of you. I’m sure you all know our famous Libertardian Troll who suffers from gender identity disorder as well as Multiple Personality Disorder and is a pathological liar? Yes I’m referring to anarchosherryneoxxxxxertinePOLDpedophilePutz or wackjob

. In case there are any of you that don’t know where he/she/it derives the name, it seems that it was using many monikers such as Recovering Liberal, Proud Obama Liberal Democrat and many others some of you may recognize but only by one name; “Sherry” and enjoyed inciting confrontation on various blogs and I believe even had a few arguments with its self! Well anarchosherryneoxxxxxertinePOLDpedophilePutz or wackjob just posted the most incredibly stupid thing I’ve ever seen by saying “Republicanism is the worst of both worlds: Democracy in the hands of an oligarchy.” OK, you get that? It thinks our form of government is an oligarchy! I’m sure Sherry just learned that word and It doesn’t know what It means which for anyone that has followed anarchosherryneoxxxxxertinePOLDpedophilePutz or wackjob know that it suffers from serious mental issues. What was more amazing is that Sherry’s cell mate sir Moshe (you know, with the fake girlfriend) posted several times immediately after in the same blog, and didn’t take issue with this stupidity.

I guess the bottom line is this: It’s not the Libertarians; it’s the crazy mentally challenged fringe element of the Libertarians that believe in drugging and raping young children that are alienating everyone from them. If you’re a libertarian and not a drug pusher or pedophile, you may want to start denouncing these wackos or seriously consider changing parties.

 

It more then just a double standard, it’s a NEW standard! Simply put it’s a war on the police. Let’s face it, when we heard about Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and his actions in defiance of the police who were simply doing their job. His outrageous actions as he ranted and raved with the obvious attempt to create an incident; we all said to ourselves “if that were me, I would have been tasered, arrested and no one would have lifted a finger to help”. But we all know why he not only got away with it, but got the media behind him, it’s because he’s Obama’s friend and because he’s black. Not that being black alone would have gotten him off the hook and it shouldn’t have, but being Obama’s friend made it front page news for the mass media. So does Obama do any fact finding? Did he investigate what happened before he opened his mouth? No! He instead makes the statement that “police acted stupidly” and later after the facts were know, did he act responsibly and admonish his good friend for act disrespectful to the police? For making a scene that would have had you or I arrested in a heart beat? No! He has a “beer summit”.

So the message has been conveyed; you no longer need to respect cops. They no longer deserve to be treated as the law. The message was sent, and it was received. So why is anyone surprised now when since that incident the murder rate of cops has soared? In fact since the Cambridge incident, in 2010 murder rate of cops went up 20% and this year already it’s up over 95%. This year at this rate would see more officers murdered in the line of duty then any year in history. Yesterday St.Petersburg, Fl., a city that hadn’t had an officer murdered in 30 years had it’s third officer gunned down in less then a month. So the public was given the message not to respect the law and here is the result.

But at the same time the IRS orders shotguns and adds enforcement officers. So what is the message? If Obama had acted as a president should have, his message of July 23^rd 2009 should have been that it’s never OK to resist the police when they are doing their job properly. But of course he did not. In spite of the fact that Tim Geitner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Hilda Solis, Rahm Emanuel, and Kathleen Sebelius didn’t pay their taxes, when the Obama tax squads start collecting, nothing will hit the media in opposition unless the person is killed (then of course they’ll be portrayed as an anti government nut) but that the IRS will be made to look like the good guys.

So where is this going? Well it looks to me like the president wants you have disdain for local law enforcement but not the federal government. Any of you that still believe he’s a good and honorable man, please call the family of  Officer David S. Crawford and explain to them why President Obama felt the  police never deserved to be defended.

Of late I find myself ever increasingly defending myself and other conservatives against the unfounded charge of racism. What is truly sad is that we are doing so from the same people that were the group of people that historically have been the practitioners not only of racism, but many other racist practices far more vile then that one word connotes. Of course this serious charge requires some kind of foundation of basis to substantiate such allegations. To this end we will need a quick history review minus the omissions the left has enacted over the last 50 years. Please forgive my simplification for if I don’t shorten this up, I’ll be writing a history book which I have no desire to do.

Since the time of the revolution there was a deep division in our country over slavery. Even though many of our founding fathers owned slaves, most of them believed that slavery should be abolished. However because of a staunch group of plantation owners from the south which vowed to kill the vote on independence if slavery was abolished, the realization of abolition would have to wait.

During the mid 1800s there where several movements to abolish slavery, few of which gained much traction until factions of the Whig party, the Free Soil Party, the American Party (Know Nothing) and anti-slave Democrats combined and formed the Republican Party. With a firm belief that free-market labor was superior to slave labor and the modernization of American through education and industrialization, they immediately became a threat to the slave owner way of life and the Democratic Party. The election of Abraham Lincoln gave Republicans a great deal of traction and with legislation passing that favored the new movement they became a threat the south would no longer tolerate. Post Civil war the Democrats hate of blacks and Republicans grew fueled by Republican support of big business, tariffs and large pensions for Union soldiers. During this time was when the KKK (Klan) first appeared for a short stint from 1865 through 1877 but quickly died out. However during that time the KKK began their policy of lynching Republicans both black and white. Trials were held in absentia, the Republican was found guilty and sentenced to death. The Klan actually handed out push-cards with pictures of the "convicted" and their names to assist members in hunting them down. No Republican was above this treatment as on May 21, 1870 John W. Stephens, a white state senator was murdered and Dr. John Winsmith also a white Senator was gunned down in the middle of the night although he survived to testify to Congress what happened to him. To date the Klan has lynched 4800 Republicans, 0 Democrats, with 1300 of those hanged being white and 3500 black. Yes, that right, one in four Republicans lynched where white. I point this out because revisionist history doesn’t tell this story.

Around the turn of the century a new group entered the mix. The Progressives brought a new ideology that government held the answers and that people were not smart enough for self determination. Out of this belief that the ruling class was superior to the lesser class, and fueled equally by the strangle hold Republicans had in Washington, the old core hatred of the post Civil war Democrats reemerged in the rebirth of the KKK. This time though because of the flood of immigrants escaping post WWI Europe it was hated against immigrants and Jews as well as blacks. From this time on through the 60s the Klan became a wing of the Democratic Party. You couldn’t get elected without their endorsement. George Wallace didn’t get elected on his first bid because he refused their endorsement. Miriam "Ma" Ferguson also had to a long battle because she refused their endorsement. Woodrow Wilson took office there were a number of blacks that held federal office, he got rid of them. He also had the first film ever shown in the White House, and that film was….Birth of a Nation, the film that depicted the KKK as heroes that saved the country from blacks.

After WWII there was little change, Lyndon Baines Johnson and John F Kennedy didn't even support civil rights legislation until it became politically convenient to do so. Neither supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (pushed by REPUBLICANS). In fact, the same president we thank for Great Society, LBJ said, "President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill." Even as late as the 1960 it was still very dangerous to register Republican as proved by Martin Luther King.

That brings us to the new strategy. The Democratic Party’s strategy of using handouts to garner the black votes, while working to keep blacks mired in poverty, was described as "plantation politics" by President Barack Obama on pg. 147 of his book Dreams From My Father. As a result of the politics of poverty practiced by Democrats, including Obama, the firm belief is now deeply rooted in the black community that the government must "do something" for blacks. Democrats for the past 40+ years have turned the black community into economic and social wastelands with their failed socialist policies. While African Americans comprise a mere 13% of the population, 45 percent of all murder victims in 2009 were black. Of the 45% who were murdered, 93% were killed by other blacks. Before liberals destroyed the influence of the Black father, over 80% of black children in 1960 were born in wedlock. In 1940 the illegitimacy rate amongst Blacks was 19%. Today, post the liberals monopoly in the poor urban areas, the illegitimacy rate is over 70% and almost 90% in the inner city. Surprisingly, between 1890 and 1940 Blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than Whites. According to Herbert G. Gutman author of "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom (1750-1925)"-- for every 6 children under the age of under the of 6-5 of them lived in two parent households. In Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3% of all families were headed by a woman under 30. In this same time period, 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Now the black community faces unemployment numbers that are staggering. Black men under thirty are looking at an unemployment rate of about 38%, arguably the highest ever.

Unbelievably, Democrats still have the balls to blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions caused by their policies. Democrats also accuse Republicans of doing nothing to help poor blacks a charge that resonates with victim mongers.
Democrats have spebt over $ 9 trillion on poverty programs. Results, things have gotten worse in the black community. Notably, only 25% of blacks are poor and living in those dilapidated neighborhoods run by Democrats. The remaining 75% of blacks are prosperous and living in society at large. Most deplorable of all Democrats fight school choice tooth and nail in spite of the proven results which can only lead one to conclude that Democrats don't want blacks to have an equal opertunity in educaationnor in anything else. The "gift" of "SPECIAL" treatment has been their excuse to not treat them as equals.

So about now you're asking yourself, "when is he going to get to the bottm line and tell us why blacks vote Democrat"? Well the answer is this, I don't understand it. Is it because their parents registered Democrat from fear of being lynched and old habits are hard to break? Is it because They really beleive that keeping them edicted to poverty hand outs is better for them? Is it the black community leaders like Jesse Jackson or AL Sarpton? I'm afraid it makes no sense to me either and it frustrates the hack out of me when I heard a black person arguing for Democrats but they can't explain why all these hand outs from the Democrats have made blacks go backward except to blame it on Republicn racism.

Well there you have it, we've gone full circle. But maybe this will help you the next time someone ask you why blacks vote Democrat.

 

 

Let me translate for you... Welcome to Florida, Come Back Soon!

The president is getting ready to Replace Out of Date Documents aspart of his CHANGE!
Hope and change! What a great concept! When Obama ran for president this was what he promised, in fact he promised to "Fundamentally change America. He promised many things to many people some of which he has broken, but some he has not. The irony is that all of the promises that he broke were the promises aimed at getting independents to vote for him and the promises he kept were to the extreme Marxist core. I'm not going to more you with a 50 page list of the promises he broke but rather remind you of what he said and who he's said it to.

To the youth of America his message wsa one of fairness, how America was evil and full of greed, how America's past was evil and that he would finally end divisiveness and bring people together. That parents will dumb and didn't understand the world of today.

To the independents he promised an end to run-away government and to stop the direction Washington has been heading and that he would end bi-partisanism, bring the economy back.
, reduce unemployment and bring a new respect to America from the rest of the world. To the left he promised change, fundamental change. Social and economic justice or redistribution of wealth and power.

These are all promises we've all heard before and changes we've all seen before. Where?

Russia 1917
Germany 1938
Vietnam 1945
Korea 1948

In the late eighties the Dimocrits approached the executives of the auto industries. They basically told them "We have you by the nuts, either you play ball and we make you, "Mr.CEO rich, or we regulate you right out of business". If you remember back in the late eighties/early nineties they regulations on paper that would have crushed the auto industry, then they suddenly disappeared. GM and Chrysler were forced to play ball so the regulations went away. Ford would play, they threatened to move out of the market (they have more plants abroad then Chrysler and GM combined) and eventually compromised. The CEO did get rich, but look what happened to those two car companies. They were made to look like villains and got slammed by the government.

In the mid nineties the banking industry got approached by the Dimocrits, they were given the same kind of choices, make bad mortgages or else. The bank CEOs played ball, they started getting rich, and they even started to fund the Dimocrits campaigns. They got fully in bed with Dimocrits and even helped them hide the massive bust that was on the horizon.

If you've watched Carl Levin's grilling of Goldman Sachs it sounds like a replay of what happened to GM and Chrysler. They are being lambasted by the people they played ball with and supported. They are being made the fall guys and the light at the end of the tunnel is government takeover.

The truth of the matter is that anytime business plays ball with the Dimocrits, they get bent over in the end. So Jay, the punch line should have been four Dimocrits fell out of his pocket and upon a cavity search Bawny Fwank was found. But I guess that's why I'm not a comedian; I'm too grounded in reality.

 

The Marxist-In-Chief is once again attempting to pull a slight of hand as he has so many times in the past. He announced today that he is lifting his ban on oil exploration in an attempt to pressure Conservatives to either sign off on his crap and trade and complete another takeover of yet another industry or to become the villains blocking what he will characterize as sweeping reform to save the planet. Once again as he did with healthcare, he plays his little game of lies and deceit.

We all know what’s coming here; it’s a shell game, Three Card Monty, a con job. First of all, he has no intention of allowing any drilling. Before drilling can take place environmental impact studies will have to be done followed by approval from the EPA, the same EPA that labeled CO2 (a necessity for all carbon based life forms, i.e. all life on Earth) a toxic pollutant which they have the power to regulate. Chance of that approval? Zero! Then it has to go through the Dept. of Interior where Ken “Cancel the lease” Salazar has to approve the lease. Chance of that happening? Zero!

So why did he do this? So he can say the Republicans “I’m giving you nuclear power and off shore oil drilling, so you need to go along with Crap-n-Tax. To which of course the Republicans will say resoundingly “NO” so he can turn around and proclaim that once again the Republicans are only blocking, he met them in the middle and they are only interested in playing politics and blocking real reform to save the planet. Of course the media will fall lockstep in line and praise Obama for his heroic efforts to once again compromise with Republicans who again refuse to compromise.