I found this little gem while looking around on Pinterest. This video presents Black Republicans/conservatives explaining why they are Republican/conservative. For anyone who wants to understand, this vid is a short 'n' sweet intro into the "oxymoron" of being Black and Right. You'll find it enlightening.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 17, 2014
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Missed Opportunities?
Since the disastrous rollout of Obamacare that began on October 1 I haven't been impressed with the reactions of Barak Obama and his fellow Democrats. However, I've been even less impressed with the reaction of Republicans and conservatives.
The embarrassingly trouble plagued beginnings of Obamacare afforded the GOP and conservatives a golden opportunity to stop Obamacare in its tracks...if they really wanted to do that. For nearly three months now Americans' attention has been glued not only to Obamacare and its problems but to the broader issue of health care, health insurance, and how best to help those who have neither. The American people have never been more primed for alternatives to Obamacare, but the GOP and conservatives have offered them nothing.
Republicans and conservatives could and should have spent the last two+ months hammering home their health care solutions to an eager-to-listen public. Instead, the American people have been treated to a barrage of childish schadenfreude.
"Nah, nah, nah, boo boo! Your website don't work!"
That's essentially what Republicans and conservatives have been saying since the botched rollout of Obamacare's website healthcare.gov. CHILDISH!!!!! As I listened to these rants I kept asking myself what Republicans and conservatives were going to do once the website started working better, as it appears to be doing. What were they going to say then? Didn't the 2012 presidential elections teach the GOP and conservatives that they can't win just by carping on liberals' failures? Apparently not.
Conservatives, Republicans, you have to offer people something. You have to give them solutions, a vision, hope. That, not juvenile rants, is what the American public is hungering for. If you can't deliver then you'll lose in 2014, 2016, and beyond. And you'll deserve to.
The embarrassingly trouble plagued beginnings of Obamacare afforded the GOP and conservatives a golden opportunity to stop Obamacare in its tracks...if they really wanted to do that. For nearly three months now Americans' attention has been glued not only to Obamacare and its problems but to the broader issue of health care, health insurance, and how best to help those who have neither. The American people have never been more primed for alternatives to Obamacare, but the GOP and conservatives have offered them nothing.
Republicans and conservatives could and should have spent the last two+ months hammering home their health care solutions to an eager-to-listen public. Instead, the American people have been treated to a barrage of childish schadenfreude.
"Nah, nah, nah, boo boo! Your website don't work!"
That's essentially what Republicans and conservatives have been saying since the botched rollout of Obamacare's website healthcare.gov. CHILDISH!!!!! As I listened to these rants I kept asking myself what Republicans and conservatives were going to do once the website started working better, as it appears to be doing. What were they going to say then? Didn't the 2012 presidential elections teach the GOP and conservatives that they can't win just by carping on liberals' failures? Apparently not.
Conservatives, Republicans, you have to offer people something. You have to give them solutions, a vision, hope. That, not juvenile rants, is what the American public is hungering for. If you can't deliver then you'll lose in 2014, 2016, and beyond. And you'll deserve to.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Maximum Meaness
The Obama regime is despicable.
I'm sitting here watching Megyn Kelly's new show "The Kelly Files" on Fox News and I'm in a state of shock. I've learned that the families of five of our warriors killed in Afghanistan will be denied death benefits. Basically what that means is that the government won't pay for the warriors' funerals nor for flying the families to Dover Air Force Base to retrieve their fallen loved ones' bodies. And this is being blamed on the government shut down. Outrage doesn't begin to described my feelings on this. This is the Obama regime's policy of maximum pain in action. What is the policy of maximum pain?
Maximum pain is the Obama regime's strategy to rout the GOP by using the shutdown to cause as much hurt to Americans as possible and then blaming Republicans. It's pure political warfare being waged on the backs of the American people. Private businesses have been closed by the Parks Service. Park rangers have been told to make things as difficult for the public as possible. And now this outrage of denying death benefits to the families of our fallen heroes. Corrupt! Corrupt! Maximum pain is corrupt. The Obama regime is corrupt, headed by a Dear Leader wannabe utterly contemptuous of the limits on his power.
Obama must be made to know that he's no Dear Leader. He's the president of a free, representative republic with a loyal opposition legally and morally entitled to block policies they don't like. That's how America works. If Obama and his Democrats don't like that then they need a BIG dose of their own medicine. Maximum pain for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. YEAH!!!!
I'm sitting here watching Megyn Kelly's new show "The Kelly Files" on Fox News and I'm in a state of shock. I've learned that the families of five of our warriors killed in Afghanistan will be denied death benefits. Basically what that means is that the government won't pay for the warriors' funerals nor for flying the families to Dover Air Force Base to retrieve their fallen loved ones' bodies. And this is being blamed on the government shut down. Outrage doesn't begin to described my feelings on this. This is the Obama regime's policy of maximum pain in action. What is the policy of maximum pain?
Maximum pain is the Obama regime's strategy to rout the GOP by using the shutdown to cause as much hurt to Americans as possible and then blaming Republicans. It's pure political warfare being waged on the backs of the American people. Private businesses have been closed by the Parks Service. Park rangers have been told to make things as difficult for the public as possible. And now this outrage of denying death benefits to the families of our fallen heroes. Corrupt! Corrupt! Maximum pain is corrupt. The Obama regime is corrupt, headed by a Dear Leader wannabe utterly contemptuous of the limits on his power.
Obama must be made to know that he's no Dear Leader. He's the president of a free, representative republic with a loyal opposition legally and morally entitled to block policies they don't like. That's how America works. If Obama and his Democrats don't like that then they need a BIG dose of their own medicine. Maximum pain for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. YEAH!!!!
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
He's the Man!
Go Ted Cruz!
Ted Cruz, freshman senator from Texas is, as I write, conducting a filibuster on the Senate floor to stop Obamacare in the Senate as Republicans in the House voted to do this past Friday. I'm proud to say I voted for Ted Cruz and the more he conducts himself as a senator, boldly and fearlessly standing up for conservative principles, the happier I am that I cast my ballot for him.
Yes, I've complained about conservatives relying too much on politics to solve problems and defeat the left. However, there are times when political action is needed, and when those times come we on the right need a leader like Ted Cruz is emerging to be. In order to stand up for what he believes is right, Senator Cruz is having to stand against many in his own party--shame on them!--as well as those on the left, and he has the cojones to do it.
This is just what I wanted and needed to see. When politics is called for conservatives have had a pronounced tendency to cower, hem and haw, and eventually cave in to the left. Not tonight. Tonight, one conservative is standing Texas strong for the principles he believes in, principles he promised voters he'd stand for. That conservative is Ted Cruz, a total breath of bold and fearless fresh air. Ted Cruz, my senator. He's the man!!!!
Ted Cruz, freshman senator from Texas is, as I write, conducting a filibuster on the Senate floor to stop Obamacare in the Senate as Republicans in the House voted to do this past Friday. I'm proud to say I voted for Ted Cruz and the more he conducts himself as a senator, boldly and fearlessly standing up for conservative principles, the happier I am that I cast my ballot for him.
Yes, I've complained about conservatives relying too much on politics to solve problems and defeat the left. However, there are times when political action is needed, and when those times come we on the right need a leader like Ted Cruz is emerging to be. In order to stand up for what he believes is right, Senator Cruz is having to stand against many in his own party--shame on them!--as well as those on the left, and he has the cojones to do it.
This is just what I wanted and needed to see. When politics is called for conservatives have had a pronounced tendency to cower, hem and haw, and eventually cave in to the left. Not tonight. Tonight, one conservative is standing Texas strong for the principles he believes in, principles he promised voters he'd stand for. That conservative is Ted Cruz, a total breath of bold and fearless fresh air. Ted Cruz, my senator. He's the man!!!!
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
What's In A Name?
Time can change things.
I recently changed the name of this blog from "Sinistra's Bane" to "Heart of the Wise". I made the change to reflect a shift in some of my ideological views. My basic outlook hasn't changed but certain things have. Consequently, I feel I need to change what I call myself, something more important than what to call a blog that hardly anyone reads. *ss*
For nearly 20 years I've proudly called myself a conservative but now that label doesn't suit me anymore. Why not? It seems too...limiting, too..."small". It doesn't encompass the whole of what I now believe.
I know that conservatives and conservatism have long been divided into 3 main "denominations": social conservatives, who favor traditional, Bible-base morality and values; foreign policy conservatives, who favor a strong defense and an America active on the world stage; and fiscal/tea party conservatives, who're committed to lower taxes, balanced budgets, and limited, constitutional government. I've always considered myself to be all of the above but it was social issues, especially abortion, that helped me to define myself as "conservative". While fiscal and foreign policy are very important to me, social issues top my list of concerns. And that's why I have a problem with continuing to call myself a conservative.
For that last decade or so, and especially since Obama was first elected in 2008, the conservative movement has, in my view, distanced itself from social issues and become focused on fiscal issues. This shift was especially apparent in the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections, with seemingly all major strategists on the right calling for conservative/Republican candidates to ignore social issues and focus on the economy. That strategy failed in 2012 and many conservatives seemed to conclude that traditionalist positions on social issues, especially the hot button issue of gay marriage, is what did Mitt Romney in.
Now we have more and more conservatives supporting gay marriage and worse, expressing the same disdain for traditionalists that liberals do. It's like they can't get to a microphone or tv camera fast enough to reveal their new found "enlightenment" and "tolerance". Such caving to the left is disgusting to me. I always thought that the conservative movement would be a place where traditionalists would be accepted, respected, understood, and heard. I was wrong.
The left has convinced a huge swath of Americans, particularly the young, that opposition to gay marriage is diabolical bigotry and "extremism". Rather than resist this lie too many conservatives have taken the easy way out and have caved. But it's all to win elections, I've heard. Younger voters, so the argument goes, won't give conservative/Republican candidates a chance so long as they're seen as "intolerant". They must moderate or censor their social views so they can win and stop Obama from imposing his nanny state and bankrupting the country, the only cause that really matters. Yeah, right. That logic is just an excuse for cowardice in the face of leftism.
If liberals managed to convince enough Americans that advocating smaller government and lower taxes was "extremism" and hate, would conservatives change their stand on those issues, too? Would they suddenly discover a "conservative" case for big government and sky high taxes as they've found a "conservative" case for gay marriage? Methinks they would.
That's why I can no longer and will no longer call myself a conservative.
This is hard for me. I feel adrift. As I said at the beginning of this post, I've been calling myself a conservative for nearly 20 years. Now, I don't know what to call myself. There doesn't seem to be a single term that encompasses the whole of my socio-political belief system. Maybe I'll have to cobble together a new, multiple word term for my worldview. Or maybe I'll have to resurrect some long forgotten label from history. Or maybe you, my readers, have some good ideas. All I'm certain of right now is that "conservative" is out. I'm still on the right, though, the side of the wise. That, my friends, will never change. Of that you can be sure.
I recently changed the name of this blog from "Sinistra's Bane" to "Heart of the Wise". I made the change to reflect a shift in some of my ideological views. My basic outlook hasn't changed but certain things have. Consequently, I feel I need to change what I call myself, something more important than what to call a blog that hardly anyone reads. *ss*
For nearly 20 years I've proudly called myself a conservative but now that label doesn't suit me anymore. Why not? It seems too...limiting, too..."small". It doesn't encompass the whole of what I now believe.
I know that conservatives and conservatism have long been divided into 3 main "denominations": social conservatives, who favor traditional, Bible-base morality and values; foreign policy conservatives, who favor a strong defense and an America active on the world stage; and fiscal/tea party conservatives, who're committed to lower taxes, balanced budgets, and limited, constitutional government. I've always considered myself to be all of the above but it was social issues, especially abortion, that helped me to define myself as "conservative". While fiscal and foreign policy are very important to me, social issues top my list of concerns. And that's why I have a problem with continuing to call myself a conservative.
For that last decade or so, and especially since Obama was first elected in 2008, the conservative movement has, in my view, distanced itself from social issues and become focused on fiscal issues. This shift was especially apparent in the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections, with seemingly all major strategists on the right calling for conservative/Republican candidates to ignore social issues and focus on the economy. That strategy failed in 2012 and many conservatives seemed to conclude that traditionalist positions on social issues, especially the hot button issue of gay marriage, is what did Mitt Romney in.
Now we have more and more conservatives supporting gay marriage and worse, expressing the same disdain for traditionalists that liberals do. It's like they can't get to a microphone or tv camera fast enough to reveal their new found "enlightenment" and "tolerance". Such caving to the left is disgusting to me. I always thought that the conservative movement would be a place where traditionalists would be accepted, respected, understood, and heard. I was wrong.
The left has convinced a huge swath of Americans, particularly the young, that opposition to gay marriage is diabolical bigotry and "extremism". Rather than resist this lie too many conservatives have taken the easy way out and have caved. But it's all to win elections, I've heard. Younger voters, so the argument goes, won't give conservative/Republican candidates a chance so long as they're seen as "intolerant". They must moderate or censor their social views so they can win and stop Obama from imposing his nanny state and bankrupting the country, the only cause that really matters. Yeah, right. That logic is just an excuse for cowardice in the face of leftism.
If liberals managed to convince enough Americans that advocating smaller government and lower taxes was "extremism" and hate, would conservatives change their stand on those issues, too? Would they suddenly discover a "conservative" case for big government and sky high taxes as they've found a "conservative" case for gay marriage? Methinks they would.
That's why I can no longer and will no longer call myself a conservative.
This is hard for me. I feel adrift. As I said at the beginning of this post, I've been calling myself a conservative for nearly 20 years. Now, I don't know what to call myself. There doesn't seem to be a single term that encompasses the whole of my socio-political belief system. Maybe I'll have to cobble together a new, multiple word term for my worldview. Or maybe I'll have to resurrect some long forgotten label from history. Or maybe you, my readers, have some good ideas. All I'm certain of right now is that "conservative" is out. I'm still on the right, though, the side of the wise. That, my friends, will never change. Of that you can be sure.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
The Year of No Fear
It's here. 2013.
Today, Tuesday, January 1st begins a new year for the world and, for us Americans, the start of the second term for the Obama regime, and a regime it is.
In the final days of 2012 the Obama Supreme Court ruled against the religious freedom of the Green family, owners of the crafts store Hobby Lobby (and the office supply store Mardel's). The Greens, devout, pro-life Christians, sought a religious exemption to Obamacare's HHS mandate which requires businesses to pay for contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their employee insurance packages. They also sought an injunction against the enforcement of the mandate pending their court fight. Obama Supreme Court judge Sotomayor refused, meaning Hobby Lobby has to comply with the mandate or face millions of dollars in fines. The Greens are standing their ground even though it could put them out of business. They are committed to their faith. I greatly admire the Green family but they are only the beginning of the Obama regime's assault on our constitutional freedoms. Gun owners are next.
In the wake of the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school Obama and his leftist cohorts are gearing up to go after our Second Amendment rights. Of course, they're claiming they just want "common sense" gun control to "protect the children", but we know what that really means. Obama's victory in the presidential election last November has emboldened him and we can expect him to start revealing just how far left he really is. We conservatives have to man up and stop him.
For far too long we conservatives have been afraid, yes, afraid to stand up for our values and beliefs to the fullest. We have lived in abject terror of being branded racist, sexist, extremist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. by the left. Those words have been their most potent weapons against us, wielded from their pulpits in academia, media, and entertainment. The result has been that we conservatives have too often censored ourselves, modified our beliefs, hemmed and hawed, or did nothing when the times screamed for our action. NO MORE!!!!
We are in a new year, 2013. It will be the year of no fear. There is too much at stake for us to be controlled by fear. Yes, leftists will continue to war against us with all the ferocity that they always have, counting on our fear to paralyze us at crucial moments. That must not happen. The Obama regime is poised to transform our beloved nation into a government dominated, socialist, welfare state. That will be the death of America. We cannot let that happen! Courage must now be the blood that flows through our veins. Courage and cunning and absolute faith that we are RIGHT. Nothing else, nothing less will save our great Republic. Lock and load, conservatives; it's time to fight!
Happy New Year. NO FEAR!!!!
Today, Tuesday, January 1st begins a new year for the world and, for us Americans, the start of the second term for the Obama regime, and a regime it is.
In the final days of 2012 the Obama Supreme Court ruled against the religious freedom of the Green family, owners of the crafts store Hobby Lobby (and the office supply store Mardel's). The Greens, devout, pro-life Christians, sought a religious exemption to Obamacare's HHS mandate which requires businesses to pay for contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their employee insurance packages. They also sought an injunction against the enforcement of the mandate pending their court fight. Obama Supreme Court judge Sotomayor refused, meaning Hobby Lobby has to comply with the mandate or face millions of dollars in fines. The Greens are standing their ground even though it could put them out of business. They are committed to their faith. I greatly admire the Green family but they are only the beginning of the Obama regime's assault on our constitutional freedoms. Gun owners are next.
In the wake of the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school Obama and his leftist cohorts are gearing up to go after our Second Amendment rights. Of course, they're claiming they just want "common sense" gun control to "protect the children", but we know what that really means. Obama's victory in the presidential election last November has emboldened him and we can expect him to start revealing just how far left he really is. We conservatives have to man up and stop him.
For far too long we conservatives have been afraid, yes, afraid to stand up for our values and beliefs to the fullest. We have lived in abject terror of being branded racist, sexist, extremist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. by the left. Those words have been their most potent weapons against us, wielded from their pulpits in academia, media, and entertainment. The result has been that we conservatives have too often censored ourselves, modified our beliefs, hemmed and hawed, or did nothing when the times screamed for our action. NO MORE!!!!
We are in a new year, 2013. It will be the year of no fear. There is too much at stake for us to be controlled by fear. Yes, leftists will continue to war against us with all the ferocity that they always have, counting on our fear to paralyze us at crucial moments. That must not happen. The Obama regime is poised to transform our beloved nation into a government dominated, socialist, welfare state. That will be the death of America. We cannot let that happen! Courage must now be the blood that flows through our veins. Courage and cunning and absolute faith that we are RIGHT. Nothing else, nothing less will save our great Republic. Lock and load, conservatives; it's time to fight!
Happy New Year. NO FEAR!!!!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
A Looming Victory For Republicans and Conservatives
After the hugely disappointing loss to Obama for the White House on November 6, Republicans and conservatives got news today which shows that capturing the presidency isn't the be-all-and-end-all of political power in the United States.
Today, Michigan's Republican-dominated House of Representatives approved bills that will make that state the 24th right-to-work state in the country. Republican Governor Rick Snyder is poised to sign the bills into law within a few days, but union protestors are out in force trying to stop him, so it's not a done deal, yet. However, the shrillness, meanness, and irrationality of the protestors--they compared right-to-work supporters to Nazis and Japanese militarists--reveal desperation induced by impending defeat. So, yes, I think Republicans and conservatives can go ahead and celebrate.
The results of the presidential election caused much angst among conservatives and Republicans. Lost in the grieving was the reality that the GOP controls not only the majority of the nation's governorships but also the majority of the state legislators. That is power. And Republicans in Michigan have used that power to give freedom of choice to the workers of that state.
Celebrate good times! Come on!
Today, Michigan's Republican-dominated House of Representatives approved bills that will make that state the 24th right-to-work state in the country. Republican Governor Rick Snyder is poised to sign the bills into law within a few days, but union protestors are out in force trying to stop him, so it's not a done deal, yet. However, the shrillness, meanness, and irrationality of the protestors--they compared right-to-work supporters to Nazis and Japanese militarists--reveal desperation induced by impending defeat. So, yes, I think Republicans and conservatives can go ahead and celebrate.
The results of the presidential election caused much angst among conservatives and Republicans. Lost in the grieving was the reality that the GOP controls not only the majority of the nation's governorships but also the majority of the state legislators. That is power. And Republicans in Michigan have used that power to give freedom of choice to the workers of that state.
Celebrate good times! Come on!
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
The Election
I'll admit it. I'm a coward. I'm not watching the election returns because it's too nerve wracking. The stakes in this election are higher than for any other presidential election in my life. And not only the presidency but the stakes for Congress are high as well. For the first time in my life I'm actually fearful of the outcome of a presidential election. When Obama ran in 2008 I was apprehensive about a victory for him because I knew he was way more radical than he was letting on. Still, I didn't know precisely how he'd govern so I wasn't scared of the idea of an Obama presidency. Now I know what Obama in power looks like, and that's why I'm scared, not just apprehensive, this time around. Four more years of Obama can damage this country almost beyond repair. I really believe that and that's why I'm too nervous to watch the returns. I will find out tomorrow who won tonight. I will listen to talk radio on the way to work and I will learn if sanity resides in the White House or if the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
And The Winner Was...
...Romney!
It's been declared for almost a week now that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate which took place last Wednesday night. I can't really say if that's true or not because I didn't watch the whole thing. I had to go to bed in the middle of the debate because I had to get up at 3am for work. On the way to work Thursday morning and on the way home from work Thursday afternoon the radio talk shows were all abuzz with debate analysis and reactions. Apparently some mainstream media commentators, particularly Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews, didn't take Obama's lackluster performance very well. On the other hand, some conservative radio talk show host were almost gloating. I think that's uncalled for. So Romney won the first debate; that's good, but there are two more debates to go and Obama can quickly get back on game. Conservatives should be praying that Romney will beat Obama in the next two rounds and gain the lead among independents, especially those in the swing states, that he needs to win. In other words, it ain't over till it's over. Save the gloating for November 7.
It's been declared for almost a week now that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate which took place last Wednesday night. I can't really say if that's true or not because I didn't watch the whole thing. I had to go to bed in the middle of the debate because I had to get up at 3am for work. On the way to work Thursday morning and on the way home from work Thursday afternoon the radio talk shows were all abuzz with debate analysis and reactions. Apparently some mainstream media commentators, particularly Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews, didn't take Obama's lackluster performance very well. On the other hand, some conservative radio talk show host were almost gloating. I think that's uncalled for. So Romney won the first debate; that's good, but there are two more debates to go and Obama can quickly get back on game. Conservatives should be praying that Romney will beat Obama in the next two rounds and gain the lead among independents, especially those in the swing states, that he needs to win. In other words, it ain't over till it's over. Save the gloating for November 7.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Be BOLD!
Tomorrow the first of the three presidential debates if scheduled to take place. Due to my early work schedule I will miss most of it so I can get much needed sleep. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I suspect this debate is going to be a nail biter and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm up for the suspense. Of course, I want Romney to win but I fear he won't. I fear that Romney will play it safe and be "civil" to Obama so as not to appear racist, elitist, heartless, out of touch, and whatever else liberals' accuse him of being. I think that would be a big mistake. If I could offer Mitt Romney one piece of advice about tomorrow's debate it would be: BE BOLD!!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Saturday, September 01, 2012
It's Really That Simple
Many conservatives realize the growing power of the Hispanic vote and are almost desperate to grab an election-winning piece of it. To do that some are opining that the GOP needs to move to the left on the issue of illegal immigration. No, they don't say it like that but that's what it boils down to. The GOP needs to ditch its "hardline", claim these conservatives, and soften its message. I say no. The GOP's position on illegal immigration is not hardline, nor is it complicated. In fact, it's quite simple; we just need a simple, direct explanation of it to Hispanics and anyone else who leans left on this issue. And I think I have it.
Imagine America is a store. Imagine you're the store owner. Like any businessman you love paying customers but hate shoplifters. Paying customers build your business up, so you welcome them. Shoplifters, on the other hand, tear your business down so you do anything you can to keep them out of your store. And no one would blame you for that. It's the same with immigration. Come to America legally, learn our language, respect our culture, i.e., be a "paying customer", and you'll be welcomed. Come to America illegally, impose your language on us, disrespect our culture, i.e., be a "shoplifter", and you will NOT be welcomed, nor should you expect to be. And that goes for foreign nationals of every race. That's the Republican position on immigration. It's really that simple.
What objection can you raise to that, liberals?
Imagine America is a store. Imagine you're the store owner. Like any businessman you love paying customers but hate shoplifters. Paying customers build your business up, so you welcome them. Shoplifters, on the other hand, tear your business down so you do anything you can to keep them out of your store. And no one would blame you for that. It's the same with immigration. Come to America legally, learn our language, respect our culture, i.e., be a "paying customer", and you'll be welcomed. Come to America illegally, impose your language on us, disrespect our culture, i.e., be a "shoplifter", and you will NOT be welcomed, nor should you expect to be. And that goes for foreign nationals of every race. That's the Republican position on immigration. It's really that simple.
What objection can you raise to that, liberals?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Todd Akin And The Politics Of Hypocrisy
Everybody's talking about it. The "legitimate rape" statement made by Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate, Todd Akin. Democrats are salivating over his remark, believing it's given them
ammunition to defeat Akin and smear all Republicans as anti-women. Top Republicans, also scared of the impact of Akin's gaffe, are practically demanding that he withdraw from the Missouri race.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Conspiracy?
So, I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday. It was open line Friday and wasn't very interesting, actually. But then Rush related something he'd heard from another source (sorry, didn't catch the source). This source speculated that rising unemployment could help Obama in November. I know. That sounds totally counterintuitive. How could a worsening economy help Obama? But Rush explained it. He pointed out that more and more unemployed and underemployed people means more and more people looking to government for help. And who is promising more and more government entitlements? Obama! People who are on the edge, scared, and feeling like there's no hope can be very susceptible to Obama's class warfare, government-is-here-to-help-you message. Such people would be very tempted to vote for benefits over values. That's how a weakening economy could help the president on election day. And I'm sure the preceding scenario hasn't escaped Obama and his team. So, is Obama deliberately letting, or even making, the economy run down to help his re-election chances? I don't want to be conspiratorial but I can't put anything past the current occupant of the White House.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Just What Will This Mean?
It's been about two weeks now since the Supreme Court upheld Obama's health care reform law and I'm still trying to digest it. The Court's decision certainly wasn't expected by me and the more I think about it it seems more and more shady. I'm starting to wonder if all is at it seems here.
The Court found the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", constitutional which seems like a straight forward victor for Obama, but the way the Court found Obamacare constitutional poses problems for the president. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by defining the most hated part of the law, the individual mandate, as a tax in contrast to the administration's 3 year long insistence that it was not. So now the president's victory will force him and his supporters to sell this newly defined tax to a nation that hates taxes even more than big government. In short, his "victory" has Obama in a bind.
I've heard speculation from conservative talking heads that this conundrum for Obama may have been planned. I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts was being "crazy like a fox" with his decision, making Obamacare constitutional but in a way that a) put Obama on the spot and b) gave Republicans a weapon to deploy against him in the election. And it energized the conservative/Republican base to boot. Some conservative talking heads seem to think that the Supreme Court's decision not only isn't so bad but is a net positive for Republicans. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
Yes, the Court's decision energized the conservative/Republican base, which is good, but that's the only good thing I see in it. I don't see calling the individual mandate a tax as a good thing at all. Sure, it gives the Republicans a weapon against Obama but I fear that it also expands the taxation power of Congress. By labeling the individual mandate a tax the high Court set a precedent that makes Congress' taxation power pretty much limitless when it is intended to control behavior. Think about it. The federal government passes a law that forces Americans to buy health insurance and financially punishes them if they don't, and the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional because the financial punishment is a "tax". The feds can now "tax" us for not doing pretty much anything they tell us to do.That's frightening, and my fear is not assuaged just because this expansion of federal power has energized the base.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm glad, thrilled actually, the conservative/Republican base is energized like it hasn't been since the Tea Party protests of 2009-2010. We need that energy to get out our message and, more importantly, our vote. But if we fall short in November, despite all this new energy, and fail to oust Obama from the White House and the Senate Dems from their majority, Obamacare will remain the law of the land. What then? Will conservatives/Republicans have enough energy to keep fighting this insidious law? Will we have enough energy to use uncomfortable (for us) tactics, e.g. civil disobedience, if necessary? We don't know the answer to those questions and that scares me as much as the federal government's unprecedented power grab.
So, what does this all mean? Where will the Supreme Court's decision lead? It will lead, I believe, to either the restoration of American freedom and self-reliance or to the transformation of America as Obama promised. I want the restoration of America, not Obama's Marxist-inspired "change". Conservatives/Republicans can restore America if we choose to. We have the energy, but do we have the tenacity to win? Time will tell, and I pray it's on our side.
The Court found the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", constitutional which seems like a straight forward victor for Obama, but the way the Court found Obamacare constitutional poses problems for the president. The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by defining the most hated part of the law, the individual mandate, as a tax in contrast to the administration's 3 year long insistence that it was not. So now the president's victory will force him and his supporters to sell this newly defined tax to a nation that hates taxes even more than big government. In short, his "victory" has Obama in a bind.
I've heard speculation from conservative talking heads that this conundrum for Obama may have been planned. I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts was being "crazy like a fox" with his decision, making Obamacare constitutional but in a way that a) put Obama on the spot and b) gave Republicans a weapon to deploy against him in the election. And it energized the conservative/Republican base to boot. Some conservative talking heads seem to think that the Supreme Court's decision not only isn't so bad but is a net positive for Republicans. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it.
Yes, the Court's decision energized the conservative/Republican base, which is good, but that's the only good thing I see in it. I don't see calling the individual mandate a tax as a good thing at all. Sure, it gives the Republicans a weapon against Obama but I fear that it also expands the taxation power of Congress. By labeling the individual mandate a tax the high Court set a precedent that makes Congress' taxation power pretty much limitless when it is intended to control behavior. Think about it. The federal government passes a law that forces Americans to buy health insurance and financially punishes them if they don't, and the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional because the financial punishment is a "tax". The feds can now "tax" us for not doing pretty much anything they tell us to do.That's frightening, and my fear is not assuaged just because this expansion of federal power has energized the base.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm glad, thrilled actually, the conservative/Republican base is energized like it hasn't been since the Tea Party protests of 2009-2010. We need that energy to get out our message and, more importantly, our vote. But if we fall short in November, despite all this new energy, and fail to oust Obama from the White House and the Senate Dems from their majority, Obamacare will remain the law of the land. What then? Will conservatives/Republicans have enough energy to keep fighting this insidious law? Will we have enough energy to use uncomfortable (for us) tactics, e.g. civil disobedience, if necessary? We don't know the answer to those questions and that scares me as much as the federal government's unprecedented power grab.
So, what does this all mean? Where will the Supreme Court's decision lead? It will lead, I believe, to either the restoration of American freedom and self-reliance or to the transformation of America as Obama promised. I want the restoration of America, not Obama's Marxist-inspired "change". Conservatives/Republicans can restore America if we choose to. We have the energy, but do we have the tenacity to win? Time will tell, and I pray it's on our side.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
A Pyrrhic Victory?
Dick Morris said it best: Obama won the battle but lost the war. That was Morris' assessment of the Supreme Court's shocking decision today upholding Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". On the surface this is a big victory for Obama, but it can and will ultimately prove his undoing. Just a few hours after the ruling Romney had received nearly $3,000,000 in campaign donations. Yes, the Republican base is fired up and ready to take down Obamacare by taking down Obama. The president's big victory may be one big backfire. But I'm getting tired; need to get to bed. More on the Supreme Court's decision anon.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Shocker
Shocked.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!
A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Clarence Thomas Redux
It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)