Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sean Hannity: I Have Never Tired When You Blasted Wright; Why Are You Tired When I Blast Al Sharpton?
Sean Hannity has expressed his frustration and weariness today on his radio show over the conservatives who are constantly criticizing the Republican presidential candidates be it regarding Romneycare, candidates' association with controversial characters, fifty-second brain freezes, and so on and so forth.
He explained his tiredness and opposition against enumerating the candidates' flaws by countering that Obama had never been properly vetted so why the scrutiny of the Republican field.
I remember listening back in 2008 to Hannity, Limbaugh, and the few others who haven't been afraid to discuss Obama's shady and non-patriotic background. I had found Hannity's constant replays and reminders of the characterless characters like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers an extremely vital and critical part in the effort to vet the unknown and record-less Obama.
Character is an absolute requisite in order for a president to lead in a virtuous and truthful matter. In governing, one must often choose between one's personal benefit and the benefit of those who have put them into office, and politicians lacking character have caused devastating destruction to this country especially during last couple of decades.
I, and so many others, have therefore never tired in hearing about Obama's Reverend of twenty years or of Ayers at whose house he had held his first political fundraiser. It is therefore incomprehensible to me how a true conservative like Hannity, who had been one of very few who seriously vetted Obama, can dismiss the necessity of vetting our current primary candidates.
Hannity had understood the necessity of character and had focused considerably on Obama's relationships with shady individuals since those were the clearest indicator of Obama's characterless character.
Yes, it is imperative that Obama go in 2012 and this an objective which is shared by all conservatives. Thus, as in 2008, we will all unite behind the Republican nominee even though he/she may not be our first choice for we have not lost sight of the larger picture.
Now, however, is primary time and not general election time.
None of the candidates are flawless which is why vetting them is even more important. Since no one's perfect every individual must choose which flaws they are most comfortable with when casting their ballot. But if we don't vet them, how can we know what the choices truly are? We can't just listen to what the media and talking-heads have got to say precisely because, as Hannity had said, they've refused to vet Obama and aren't trustworthy. We therefore must do the work on our own and spread the word with whatever we discover.
Primary time is a time-period during which we are SUPPOSED TO VET OUR CANDIDATES and choose the candidate whose ideology and values are closest in line with our own. For me, character had been my strongest card against Obama in 2008 and has remained at the top of my list when seeking a candidate I can support in the 2012 primaries. So yes, Hannity; Newt's association, partnership, and praise for questionable characters like Al Sharpton, who is directly responsible for the murder of over a dozen innocent individuals, clearly equals a lack of character on Newt's part, as I've already discussed in detail last week in a post titled "Resist We Much...Mr. Gingrich for he's Character Assassination for Conservatism."
Additionally, although the primary season may feel like it's been going on forever for some of us, it has only seriously taken off a couple of months ago and many primary voters have only tuned in recently. Many are not aware of the ins and outs of each candidate, and it is the job of those who are in the know to spread the word.
I therefore respectfully disagree with you, Sean Hannity, and hope the discussion and vetting over our current candidates continues straight until primary day. Of course, the day after one candidate emerges victorious, be it after the primaries or after the convention, all focus must turn towards Obama. Now though, although we can't forget about Obama, we are rightfully focused at the candidates and their records.
Prior to the super-committee’s creation when all were still in the midst of heated arguments whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, I, like many others, have argued that the right shouldn’t compromise, for the end result would be that the right will give in without receiving anything in return from the left.
How true that has proven to be.
The Democrats remain steadfast in their desire to constantly increase taxes, seemingly until all are equally impoverished and reliant on government. In order to present an image of reasonability, they’ve adopted a bipartisan attitude and have actively promoted the slashing of spending, though only of one department: the Department of Defense.
Defending and protecting this country is one of the few basic obligations that the federal government has been granted as is clearly outlined in the constitution. Defense spending had amounted to close to fifty percent of the federal budget from 1792-1860 and as recently as the 1950-s and 60’s, forty – fifty percent of all federal expenses were allotted for the defense department. Fast forward to 2010 and only twenty percent of our total budget has gone for defense despite the two wars we are still in the midst of.
Despite the proportionate shift and tremendous increase of spending during the last half a century, which has greatly weakened the dollar, Democrats consider defense as the only federal expense which it could do get by with far less funds. Their indifference towards national safety isn’t quite that surprising when one remembers that the left’s main objective for all federal spending is the purchase of votes. Since soldiers and veterans have always voted and currently still vote in overwhelming percentages for the Republican Party, it only makes sense for them to use federal funds to further grow the food stamps base or welfare bloc which are largely loyal to the hand that feeds them yet stifles their opportunity for individual success.
Several months ago, the left, the establishment, and the majority of Washington have revealed their callous attitude towards wasting American dollars and towards the country’s defense when they’ve thrown fifty billion dollars under the bus through the dumping of Mubarak. Mubarak had been an American ally and a fighter of terrorism, and his military’s main funding stemmed from the U.S. government. With Mubarak overthrown and dead the military has currently taken control of the country until conditions are stable enough for election, to the anger of the Muslim Brotherhood. Stupidly, the U.S. White House has recently called for "the full transfer of power to a civilian government" despite the obvious results which will follow. A speedy election in Egypt at this time is equivalent to handing over the power to the only organized group, the power-hungry Muslim Brotherhood who is drooling with hatred against the U.S. and Israel and will use the U.S. funded military to fight against democracy. But hey, fifty billion is kids talk when dealing with trillions, no?
To all who have been following politics and aware of the ways of Washington, The Super Committee’s failure to do its job has therefore not come as a surprise. The 1.2 trillion dollars of cuts which they’ve been unable to agree upon at the congress-imposed deadline will therefore be split evenly between cuts in the defense department and cuts in domestic programs, to be implemented throughout the next ten years. These 600 billion dollars of automatic cuts from defense spending are on top of the 350 billion dollars Boehner had compromised to Obama during the raising-the-debt-ceiling-talks. Thus, despite the global turbulence and weakened state of our military, defense spending is scheduled to undergo a total cut of 950 billion dollars.
The decision to cut half of the 1.2 trillion dollars from defense and half from domestic programs, if the Super Committee failed –which it had, benefits Democrats from both angles; defense as highlighted above and domestic programs (entitlement programs) because it reinforces their false message that the right wishes to cut Medicare, etc. In truth, conservatives wish to reform these programs since they are doomed to collapse if they are left as is. Reforming them will hopefully result in less money spent, but conservatives aren’t simply seeking to cut care and “throw grandma under the bus” as portrayed by the false picture the left has painted of them.
The total disregard the left has shown for the defense of this country goes hand in hand with their obvious contempt for the constitution. Sadly, this isn’t even news to most. The entire debt-ceiling deal though, has shown that congress lacks basic decency such as creating deadlines which are actual deadlines and not simply a phony front.
What do I mean? As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has explained, although the Super Committee’s deadline has passed thus leading to the automatic cuts, none of those cuts will be effective prior to 2013. Therefore, the Congress still has an entire year to figure out a way to avoid or circumvent the cuts from ever taking place without substituting them with serious substantial cuts. Thus deals can still be worked out, and the deadline was no deadline. It was an outright hoax and game played on the American people solely to have enabled Obama to receive his additional trillions to frivol away. This allowed them to present an image of balance and responsibility despite the ZERO dollars in cuts prior to 2013 and possible Zero cuts after 2013.
Although the news that the deadline wasn’t a real deadline may benefit the defense department if a circular route to avoid the cuts is created, it once again illustrates the false nature of both parties in congress and the game they play with average Americans. They peer down at us ordinary Americans with contempt and derision, ignore the voice of the people, and treat the people as ignorant bumbling fools who aren’t capable of understanding such complex matters, all while high-fiving and back-slapping one another on another job well done.
Even if the current Congress doesn’t pass legislation which will halt the cuts from ever taking place, since the delayed deadline will take place after a new Congress is sworn in and (hopefully) a new president has taken oath. The new congress can thus prevail, twist, and pass legislation which will prevent any of the cuts of actually taking place. Either way, Obama’s trillions of dollars will have been spent to the last drop before a single penny of responsible action to counterbalance the raising of the debt ceiling is implemented, and will likely join the rest of the debt which will fall upon the shoulders of future generations.
The current congress’s actions have spoken louder than words; deadlines are worth less than the ink used to write them up while the defense of this country doesn’t matter that much. The president and John Boehner, the current minority leader, have jointly created these phony spending cuts which will or will not take place, depending on the upcoming congress and they are both guilty of its consequences. The entire super-committee was a cowardly excuse which Boehner created solely to exonerate himself for having handed the left all they wished for on a golden platter. The tough action he claimed to have taken was a pretense created to satisfy the conservative base, and is now visible to all. John Boehner, we are far from stupid, although the left and you believe us to be.
The time has therefore come to “throw them all out” as Peter Schweitzer has so eloquently explained in great detail in his book.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Obama must have breathed a sigh of relief audible throughout the entire White House at receiving the news of their release.
Yes, the hostages were British and not American, but the effects of a prolonged story would've further reconfirmed the image of Obama relieving Carter of the title "Worst U.S. President Ever." Not that Obama hasn't upstaged Carter for the title even with this story ending positively after a few short hours. He's beat him to it a long, long time ago, actually within the first hundred days of his presidency with the passage of his monstrous stimulus.
Never mind Obamacare and the rest of his luggage.
Here's the drama of this morning in a nutshell for those of you who have missed it or received only some murky details, as reported by The Daily Caller.
Hard-line Iranian students stormed the embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, bringing down the Union Jack flag, burning an embassy vehicle and throwing documents from windows in scenes reminiscent of the 1979 attack on the U.S. embassy there.
As mentioned above, six employees were taken hostage but were released after two hours after the Iranian police, who had been standing by all this time, finally intervened.
Obama has condemned Iran (finally!) and British Foreign Minister William Hague said amongst others that the British hold the Iranian government responsible for the storming of its embassy, and warned that there would be "further and serious consequences."
In other news regarding Iran, an explosion occurred yesterday at a nuclear plant causing serious destruction. This explosion follows an explosion that occurred two weeks ago at the site of another nuclear plant which satellite images show to be totally demolished.
Although no clear information is available as to what has led to the blasts plenty of speculation abounds. You can visit Yid With Lid for more details.
The New Hampshire Union Leader Tells Us We Need a Leader – Even if He Leads us in the Wrong Direction
The Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich and explained within the endorsement that although they don’t agree with him straight down the line, he’s still better than those who say whatever one wants to hear without saying their true opinion on the matter, thus taking a swipe at Romney. They lauded Newt for his “positive leadership” he has shown capable of providing and which, they informed their readers, is what we currently are in critical need of.
The Union Leader, the largest and only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire, is absolutely correct in one aspect of their endorsement: leadership is crucial and sorely lacking. However, in addition to leadership, one must weigh whether the leader will lead in the right direction. Harry Reid is a hell of a leader, but I sure don’t want him to ever be president.
It’s easier to understand where I’m heading in this article with the following scenario.
Suppose you need to travel east, have no car for whatever reason, and are given a choice between the following three drivers: The first is a top notch driver who is traveling west. The second driver is a seasoned traveler who is traveling east but insists on racing down the highway against the wrong side of the traffic. The third guy, who has recently received his driving license, will also be driving east and promises to abide all laws, stay within the speed-limit and proper lane, and be really careful.
Which one would you choose?
Any sane individual would choose number three despite the greater qualifications of the other two since one is heading in the wrong direction while the other is heading straight into the face of danger.
The Union Leader has thrown their support behind a true leader, but where has he led us to in the past?
He’s led to the destruction of Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. It may have taken lots of guts, experience, and leadership to brand his plan “right-wing social engineering” but is that what we are seeking? He’s led the way to "Green Conservatism" and boldly proclaimed the need to act upon global warming on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. That was speeding down the road against the wrong side of traffic while weaving between the cars rushing straight into him.
Only a leader like Newt had been capable to convince enough Republicans to vote for Clinton’s bill, The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which placed many restrictions upon the 2nd amendment and increased the scope and power of the federal government. Newt was the leading conservative to fight a Tea Party candidate who ran in NY-23, by endorsing his opponent Scozzafava; a big-government radical who ran wearing GOP clothing.. (Perhaps he identified with her for he too has donned conservative clothing despite its clash with his interior.)
Examples of Newt’s leadership are countless though the results have often proven to be positive for the left and not the right.
The Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt should not be reason enough for a true conservative to change their mind and follow blindly. We can and should all choose a leader but one which we can trust will drive this country in the right direction.
Monday, November 28, 2011
At last David Frum has come to the conclusion that he is the one who has left the Republican Party and not the other way around.
H/t to Legal Insurrection for alerting us to David Frum's latest article which is, as usual, loaded with nonsense. For a change though, I along with many conservatives have applauded the resolution he's reached, announcing that "It's Romney, Huntsman, Or Bust. "
As Mark Levin has offered via twitter, Frum can not only leave the party but take it a step further and leave the country as well!
Frum's "threats" to abandon the Republican Party is a far cry from an article he's written just a couple of weeks ago where he had lambasted conservatives who criticize Romney's endless flip-flopping as the ones truly guilty of flip-flopping, explaining that the Party had flip-flopped on its ideology thus leaving Romney with only one choice: to flip-flop along with it.
His original reasoning was so false and twisted as I've explained in this previous post, that I was shocked to see him admit in this week's article that Romney's positions are indeed unknown. Frum though explained that he doesn't see it as a substantial negative, and made certain not to mention Romney's flip-flops as the cause for the uncertainty.
Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.
Unlike Frum, most conservatives are seeking to support someone whose policies are clear-cut and whose positions are well-known.
Obama's White House is extremely well run. Democrats have attempted to pass Health Care reform for close to a decade, and the passage of Obamacare resulted from Obama's tenacity to accomplish his goal no matter what.
Is that reason enough to vote for him?
I can't wait for the 2012 primary results if only for the possibility to wave goodbye once and for all to the phony fraudster, David Frum.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
There are not too many political bloggers of whom I can say that I’ve agreed almost everything they’ve written the last several years. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is one such an individual whose articles I read daily and generally nod along in agreement. It has therefore been a great honor for me, some time ago, to have been named as the “blog of the day” on his site.
It is precisely because of the respect and admiration that I have for his opinion that I’ve opted to pen this open letter directly to him though it’s applicable to all conservative Newt supporters.
Newt’s negatives won’t receive much scrutiny from his supporters, since they claim that his negatives are known, often twisted out of proportion, and apologized for. The most-oft repeated reason cited by conservative Newt supporters, is that they’ve chosen to disregard his flaws out of a lack for an alternative candidate whom they feel they can support. However, supporting a candidate for the presidency only because one has no one else to support isn’t a good enough excuse.
Yes, perhaps no one else is as articulate, polished, and experienced as Newt, thus resulting in anticipation for an Obama/Newt debate at which they envision Newt squashing Obama. However, anyone who has watched the 2008 debates will recall that Obama is actually an extraordinarily talented bluffer. He coolly and smoothly recited one outright lie after another, often prefaced with additional untruths like “I’ve always said that…” He created facts at the spur of the moment and openly contradicted past statements without the slightest hint of unease. If Newt is the candidate, Obama may simply have to spin some more lies, content in the knowledge that the media will cover for him.
Even if Newt makes minced meat out of Obama, in supporting Newt one has got to consider the consequences their support will have on the conservative brand.
Many conservatives had blasted the Democrat Party during the primary of 2008 for their shameless support of the radically liberal Obama. The conservatives who protested an Obama candidacy did so despite his almost nonexistent voting record since Obama’s voted “present” at every opportunity presented to him. With no record, what had caused conservatives to write him off as a radical left wing creature? Quite simply. They looked at the individuals he has associated with, for it is known that if one wishes to know what type of person an individual is one should look at those they associate with. Since his associates were of the most radical nature possible, it was obvious Obama was cut of the same cloth.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others therefore delved into the non-repentance of terrorist William Ayers and played audios of Obama’s reverend, Jeremiah Wright, cursing America, followed by Obama’s refusal to condemn them.
Majority of the right were unable to grasp how one can trust an unknown guy with such extreme radical ties with the presidency of the USA only because it was the cool thing to do and because it allowed one to be part of an historic event. Arguments of supporters included praise over his intelligence, articulation, ability to unite all fractions, and guarantee to victory, but conservatives wouldn’t accept any as a valid excuse to condone the Democrat Party’s support of Obama.
Couldn’t conservatives comprehend that putting Obama on the ballot provided an opportunity for many white people to assuage their guilt over their racist past by allowing them to pull the lever for a (half) black individual? Why couldn’t the conservative movement understand that no other Democratic candidate except for Obama would be able to accuse the other party for mocking his name and his looks? Was it so difficult to accept that no other candidate would have received the complete pass and adoration of the media that Obama got? Or that only he was capable of exciting the masses, drawing record-breaking crowds, attracting unheard of number of college students, give a voice to minorities, and be heralded as the messiah?
As a conservative, the responses they’ve given for supporting Obama had been incomprehensible to me, and I was glad and proud to be part of the conservative movement which valued character. Barely three years have passed, and to my utter dismay and disappointment I am shocked to watch as many within the conservative movement have expressed their support for Newt despite his association and praise for an individual whose hands are smeared with blood. How can one condone their support for Newt with excuses such as he’s the most intelligent, articulate, smooth talker when three years ago we wouldn’t accept a similar argument?
As a New Yorker I have been and am constantly exposed to the atrocities of Al Sharpton, and understand it’s pretty likely that many of you are unaware of his hatred-inciting nature and violent background. I’ve therefore penned a lengthy article detailing the atrocities of Al Sharpton, Newt’s chumminess with Sharpton, and the hypocrisy of the conservatives who are supporting him.
I therefore plead of you, William Jacobson, and all other Newt supporters to take the time and read the article, Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich, with an open mind, give the matter careful consideration, and then decide whether you can continue supporting Newt.
The argument for Newt that he’s got a long record of accomplishments (including many non-conservative items) may be a valid one (though he’s also got a record of lobbying and not necessarily for conservative interests). However, even with a perfect record, his association with Al Sharpton is outright despicable and enough of a cause for conservatives to distance themselves from Newt.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A new DNC ad titled "Oops" blasts Perry and Romney for blasting Obama's calling Americans "Lazy"! It criticizes Perry for having been the #1 job creator of minimum wage jobs, while Obama has actually acknowledged that "we need to do more to bring jobs to America."
You see, Obama must be credited for having been the #1 unemployment insurance president, while Perry created measly jobs. For those of you unaware in the greatness of extending unemployment which is paid for by taxpayer money, Nancy Pelosi in all her greatness has said the following:...Let me say about unemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator. And for that reason, for those two reasons, at least, it should be passed, and I am optimistic that it will.
Anyone still dare disagree with the DNC?
Newt Gingrich was confronted by a African American in South Carolina about his declaration that teenagers should work. Newt replied that "I know Al" and he'd be glad to discuss it with him. In the article below you will see Newt's relationship with Al Sharpton and exactly what's so wrong with that.
After election night of 2008 had passed with Obama having emerged victorious, many conservatives were disappointed to hear that a powerful McCain ad had gone unaired due to McCain’s refusal to mention Obama’s anti-American Pastor. The ad, leaked after the elections were over, highlighted the very different paths the two candidates had taken as young men.
Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp. The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.
Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!
Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.
No candidate is perfect since no human being is without flaws. It is therefore crucial for every individual to carefully research the strengths and flaws of each candidate and then choose to support a candidate despite his or her flaws. Obviously each individual will tolerate different flaws. For instance, some consider social issues to be a major deciding factor while others focus on a candidate’s voting record and yet a third individual look at executive experience as a priority. For most conservatives all of these are pretty high on the list.
There is one vital component, however, which a candidate must have and which takes absolute priority above everything else; character. Character is what has made this country a beacon of light amongst the nations and what gives a person the strength to choose right from wrong. How can an individual be trusted to practice what they preach, fulfill their promises, and to make the correct choices in the unknown future if they lack basic character?
In 2008 McCain was of the minority amongst the conservative movement who opposed airing the above ad and who refused to denounce the fact that the Obamas had attended Wright’s church for over twenty years. The 2012 primary though is revealing that a considerable chunk and perhaps even a majority of the conservative movement no longer view character as a vital component of a candidate. With their support for a characterless candidate, they inevitably condone Obama’s friendship with terrorist William Ayers and the fact that Jeremiah Wright was privileged to have the Obama’s attend his church for over two decades.
Newt’s campaign has recently been gaining an increasing amount of traction as more and more conservative express their support for his candidacy. He has made a favorable impression on many thanks to his expert debating skills, his steadfastness to conservative talk, and his dignified presidential manner at the debates when he refused to engage in petty attacks against the others. These are indeed positive qualities and the excitement for an Obama/Gingrich debate is easily understood. However, it is crucial to stop and consider while one is still able, whether the serious implication that will result if the bulk of the conservative movement throws its support behind Newt is worth it, even it leads to victory. For Newt’s character is seriously lacking.
Two short years ago Gingrich had proudly teamed up, at the behalf of Obama, with the rabble-rousing demagogue Al Sharpton to promote the Obama administration’s education policies. Awareness of their joint project was accomplished via rallies across the country and appearances on Sunday TV Shows.
I couldn’t imagine where and what has qualified Al Sharpton to be an education expert until I remembered Obama’s response when questioned about his association with the terrorist William Ayers. Obama spoke of a guy he knew who worked in the education field with nary a mention of Ayers’ terrorist past, his continued support of terrorism after 9/11, or their true relationship. With education experts such as Ayers and Sharpton one has got the answer to the problems plaguing the education system at one’s fingertips.
Several months prior to the Gingrich/Sharpton education stint, Gingrich graced Al Sharpton’s annual National Action Network Conference. For those unfamiliar, the National Action Network serves as Sharpton’s front, is used by Sharpton to promote racial division, and whose actions often fall into the violent and criminal category.
Gingrich’s readiness to team up with an individual such as Al Sharpton, who has no experience in education or any other field except for stirring up violence and racial divisiveness, is appalling. With their project completed, Gingrich continued to act chummy with violence-inciting Al Sharpton. This past October, Gingrich surprised Sharpton by calling into his TV show to wish him happy birthday. He praised the opportunistic, race baiting, hatred-inciting, narcissist, Al Sharpton, as one who “did a lot of good things.”
For those unfamiliar with Al Sharpton’s rabble-rousing violent history, here’s a sprinkling of the many acts he’s directly responsible for.
1987: Sharpton spread the incendiary Tawana Brawley Hoax despite his knowledge of the true facts. He heatedly played defendant of the 15-year-old black girl who was supposedly abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men, and singled out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor, as guilty of a crime which never occurred. Despite Sharpton being aware of Pagones innocence, he taunted him, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones courageously fought for his innocence, sued Sharpton, and eventually won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day though, Sharpton refuses to recant the slander or apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1989: Al Sharpton also led a vitriolic campaign to vilify the young white woman who had been raped and viciously beaten in the Central Park "wilding" case, since the rapist was black. He led demonstrations against the victim and accused her boyfriend of being the real assailant. Here too Al Sharpton never owned up to the facts despite the criminal’s admittance of his guilt and the DNA testing which proved the black rapist to be guilty of the crime.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child. An anti-Semitic riot erupted, and thanks to Sharpton’s arrival, it lasted for three full days. At Gavin’s funeral he railed against the “diamond merchants” -- code for Jews – who have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilized and led hundreds of demonstrators who marched through the Jewish neighborhood and chanted “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by a frenzied mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and was stabbed to death. Two weeks later, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, whose full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew, was dragged out of his passing car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death.
1995: The United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raised the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Freddy’s white Jewish owner was therefore forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensued and before one could blink an eye Sharpton had arrived at the scene and jumped at the opportunity to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton proclaimed. He ignored the original cause of the rent hike and the lack of racist action from Freddy’s, and had \the National Action Network, set up picket lines. They spat and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms” anyone who dared shop at Freddy’s, and shouts of “Burn down the Jew store!” were heard. Protestors simulated the striking of matches while Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell kept the frenzy going with lines like “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers.” On Dec. 8, one of the protesters burst into Freddy’s, shot four employees point-blank, and then set the store on fire. Seven employees died in the inferno.
Al Sharpton has also shared a stage with gay-bashing, Jew-hating, anti-Catholic racist Khalid Muhammad and praised him as “an articulate and courageous brother."
Fellow conservatives, we don’t need such an individual to be associated with a candidate of ours. Besides for it disqualifying the campaign led against Obama, it brands us as hypocrites and portrays us as morally equivalent to liberals. Carefully vetting a candidate’s record is of extreme importance. Greater priority though should be given to the character of the individual.
Newt proudly referred to his partnership with Al Sharpton as the original “odd couple” and explained his actions with the “education comes before party” lines. Noble sounding indeed except that the left is notorious for having implemented and supported action which raised the bar for the teachers union bosses, not the bar of education. Obama wrongly stopped the DC school vouchers Scholarship Program which had greatly benefited minorities who were stuck in under-performing public schools.
The program had been economically smart since the government paid per voucher less than half of the price they currently spend for each child which is educated in a failing D.C. public schools Additionally, after the Department of Education researched eleven programs, they found that scholarship programs achieved the largest gains. Despite all these facts, Obama found it more important to curry favor with the teachers unions, and his Education Secretary, Duncan, revoked the scholarship of 216 students already on the program. Education “specialist” Al Sharpton who is usually the very first to protest any act with the slightest smell of racism, remained shockingly silent and did not utter a whimper in protest of Obama’s decision which hurt minorities most.
With the closure of the D.C. vouchers program, Obama’s, Duncan’s, and Sharpton’s true colors were exposed yet Gingrich agreed to join teams with these very same individuals in an effort to promote better education for minorities. It would be quite hilarious if the results wouldn’t be so pathetic. After meeting with Obama, Gingrich praised Obama’s stance on education. Throughout the tour, Gingrich didn’t find it necessary to question Sharpton for his inaction. Nor did he take to task Obama’s education Secretary Arne Duncan, who had joined them as a direct representative of Obama in their endeavor to publicly laud Obama’s efforts to reform public education.
Was Newt so stupid as to really think Obama, Duncan, and Sharpton are the type of people who would take positive action to help minorities stuck in failing public schools after their blatant disregard to the minorities in D.C.? Gingrich’s actions can be understood in one of two ways:
A- He’s often turned to government for solutions especially in regard to education. He voted for and helped gather the necessary support Carter needed in order to pass the legislation which created the Department of Education. Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history, a whopping $3.5 billion dollars! At times, his persuasive skills have sure come to use … for the Democrats.
B-His quest to expand the Republican tent have often led to compromises and bipartisan acts which somehow amounted to conservatives giving in to Democrat demands. (See below)
Either way, his recent actions are in direct contradiction to the image he’s attempted to create of himself throughout his current campaign.
In addition to his lack of character, which unfortunately is no longer considered as a deciding factor for many, Newt’s record is far from unblemished. Since some of his actions are downright disturbing, here’s a handful of some of the Newt controversies, both well-known and lesser -- known.
In a speech given to the Center For Strategic and International Affairs in 1995, Newt Gingrich said this: "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.”
He stumped for Bush's prescription drug bill and urged all conservatives to vote for it despite it having created an additional seventeen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is one more of many instances where Newt’s smooth talk was used not to promote conservatism, but to promote big government.
Newt agreed with John Kerry regarding the urgency to take action to stop global warming and a need for "Green Conservatism." He also participated in a global warming ad created by Al Gore’s company, in which he sat one couch with Pelosi (and for which he apologized after having launched his presidential campaign.)
Newt’s firm received 1.6 million dollars from Freddie Mac for “consulting services” and another $312,000 from the ethanol lobby (which may explain his confusion regarding the myth of global warming.)
He had been the recipient of President Clinton heartfelt thanks for his support of The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which placed many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment Right and federalized certain crimes involving a firearm. This increased both the size and the scope of the Federal Government, and wouldn’t have passed without Gingrich.
Newt has endorsed moderate and questionable individuals such as Dede Scozzafava, an ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend radical Republican who ran against a solid conservative, Doug Hoffman. Newt defended his endorsement of Scozzafava (before backtracking once she backed out of the race) saying that “If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” thus revealing his true colors and history of compromising with the left rather than sticking to one’s guns. Never mind that it wasn’t even applicable in this case since NY-23 is a Republican district.
Newt supported individual mandates in his book released in 2008.
Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” despite Ryan’s bravery in being the very first to actually present a plan (and for this too he later apologized after receiving heavy flak from conservatives.)
Gingrich had been the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for ethics violations.
Newt Gingrich has been a member for the past twenty one years of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has been single-minded and dedicated to the goal of undermining our National Sovereignty in order to promote a One World Government!
My sincerest apologies for any Newt apologies inadvertently not mentioned. They are slightly difficult to keep track of. One thing is certain though. He hasn’t apologized for his teaming up with the Obama team, Obama’s education secretary, and most importantly, Al Sharpton. In fact, he honored Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show with a surprise happy birthday call this past October in which he cited the time they’ve worked together as memorable and unforgettable. He then heaped lavish praise upon Sharpton’s head including saying that Sharpton “did a lot of good things.” Newt correctly assumed conservatives and family members of Sharpton’s victims weren’t listening to the show, thus providing him with the opportunity to reveal his chumminess with Al Sharpton without receiving any heavy backlash.
Last June, Newt Gingrich gave a speech for the Maryland Republican party in which he said that one only needs the courage to enter and communicate with the African American communities as to how Obama’s policies have caused their unemployment figures to rise and have only hurt the black people.
Mr. Gingrich, although you’re above statement is true there’s an additional reason why black communities’ sufferings are worse than that of the rest of the country, and you are part of the problem. Black communities are hurting precisely because of rabble rousers like Al Sharpton whose entire career is built through the suppression of blacks. He ensures they remain victims in their minds forever so that they remain thankful and faithful to their masters who provide them with food stamps and other programs in exchange for votes. Instead of denouncing and decrying these despicable racists, you’ve teamed up with him and continue to praise, embolden, and encourage Al Sharpton. This further validates this criminal and hurts the African American communities to no end, as detailed in a past article I’ve written.
If you truly seek better education for minorities, denounce Al Sharpton. Additionally, recognize that The Department of Education which you’ve supported from the start and the ridiculous union demands are the main components why minorities suffer from worse educations. Therefore, your promotion of additional government control and federal spending are not only not the solution, but actually part of the problem.
Conservatives have always stood a notch above liberals since conservatives are individuals with character. Conservatism dare not stoop to the level of liberals for America simply cannot afford another characterless president. We’ve got to prove that our values are not for sale. Vehement opposition against Gingrich’s association with Sharpton is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth behind our support of the unaired McCain ad and our opposition of Obama’s troubling past. Perhaps if character would have been given stronger focus in 2008 we wouldn’t be stuck now with our current president. The clock can’t be turned back, but the future is still open and waiting to be molded.
You will also want to read my article which appeared on American Thinker:
What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?
Monday, November 21, 2011
As reported by New Jersey:
An "al Qaeda sympathizer" who plotted to bomb police and post offices in New York City as well as U.S. troops returning home has been arrested on numerous terrorism-related charges, city officials said today.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced at a news conference the Saturday arrest of Jose Pimentel of Manhattan, "a 27-year-old al Qaeda sympathizer" who the mayor said was motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What care has been taken in referring to him as an "Al Qaeda sympathizer!" So long as you don't call him Islamic extremist, Muslim, terrorist, or any other term which may offend some sensitive souls.
And did you notice? It's all Bush's fault cause this radical extremist resented the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesn't he know Obama's bringing home the troops?
The mayor said Pimentel, a U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic, was "plotting to bomb police patrol cars and also postal facilities as well as targeted members of our armed services returning from abroad."Terrorism is always an isolated incident with no apparent connection between one Al Qaeda member and the next. What about that terrorist propaganda which motivated him? Was that self-written?
Authorities have no evidence that Pimentel was working with anyone else, the mayor added.
"He appears to be a total lone wolf," the mayor said. "He was not part of a larger conspiracy emanating from abroad."
Pimentel, also known as Muhammad Yusuf, is accused of having an explosive substance Saturday when he was arrested that he planned to use against others and property to terrorize the public.
At last! Only towards the end of the article did the writer find it necessary to slip in his Muslim name hoping no one would notice.You surely noticed that his country of origin which isn't Middle Eastern or Arabic was deemed more important than the guy's current name since that was written right at the top of the article. And besides for this one mention, his Spanish name was written repeatedly throughout the entire article.
The charges accuse him of conspiracy going back at least to October 2010, and include first-degree criminal possession of a weapon as a crime of terrorism, and soliciting support for a terrorist act. He was to be arraigned later today.
Soliciting support? Wasn't he a lone wolf? My! These liberals do their utmost to protect the image of these poor terrorists and future terrorists to the extent that they can barely write two sentences without contradictions galore.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
As time slips by, it seems as though not a single bill or action that Obama has taken or supported has occurred without some hidden crony capitalist deals or the involvement of some other shady factor. Most federal contracts his administration has given, a straight line can be formed to a fundraiser, donator, or other personal involvement which was true cause for the company to receive the bid.
Despite all these news it has come as a shock to discover that Elana Kagan, Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama, had possibly helped ensure Obamacare would meet constitutional requirements.
Here's an excerpt of the story from the Daily Caller.
Newly released emails have renewed calls for inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in defending the Obama administration’s health care reforms while she was solicitor general.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions issued a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday requesting answers to Kagan’s involvement after emails revealed Kagan enthusiastically supporting President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as possibly orchestrating legal defenses for the act.
The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch and originally reported by CNSnews.com, show Kagan and other administration officials setting up meetings to discuss how to counter legal challenges to the health care law.
In a March 21, 2010 email exchange with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who also served in the Justice Department at the time, Kagan expressed enthusiasm — so much so that it apparently required two exclamation points — at the news of the law’s impending passage through Congress.
“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote to Tribe in one of the emails.
At issue is whether Kagan, if she did work on the Obama administration’s legal defense strategy for the law, should recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court case to determine its constitutionality.According to 28 USC 455, Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says justices must recuse themselves if they have “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while serving in government employment.
During her confirmation process in July, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kagan if she had offered or been asked her opinion on the health care law or its underlying constitutionality.
When will conservatives learn that liberals can never be trusted in saying the truth?She answered, “No."
But the same day as her emails with Tribe, Kagan had an email exchange with her deputy, Neal Katyal. This email chain, titled “Health care litigation meeting,” regarded a meeting the next day with a group of Justice Department lawyers to plan for expected litigation challenging the law.She was obviously afraid to respond via email in case would ever be used as a future reference against her. In the above article, additional emails are also quoted, all pointing to Kagan's support and active role during the health-care debate which took place prior to her judicial appointment. These emails have resulted in increased pressure for Kagan to recuse herself due to prior involvement and outright support for Obamacare.
Katyal forwarded the email chain to Kagan, writing: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”
“What’s your phone number?” Kagan replied.
This despicable cover-up, in originally denying involvement and not releasing emails, gives us yet one more vital reason why we can't afford a second Obama term. This is because whoever will win the 2012 elections will probably end up appointing 2-3 Supreme Court Justices and we can't afford more of the same. I, like many, sure had enough of Obama's sliminess and shameless behavior. Such outrage shall not remain unaccounted for. November 6th, 2012 is reckoning day. Americans! Make sure to vote against the most unscrupulous president ever!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Obama attended the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, which was hosted this year by the U.S. in Hawaii. Once again, Obama served as an embarrassment for his country, and spoke disparagingly of its people.
“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.”
How utterly false and inappropriate, especially when coming from a president whose actions (or in-actions) throughout his presidency and especially the last week have explained why he’s always voted present as senator.
After delaying a decision regarding the Keystone Pipeline project which will create thousands of jobs and provide America with fuel from Canada, a friendly country, the Obama administration has finally made public their decision … to delay the decision once again until 2013! This delay doesn’t stem from laziness, though that would be bad enough. Rather, it has been deliberately delayed until after the 2012 elections so that Obama doesn't receive too heavy of a backlash from the unions and public. Once he wins his reelection he can then refuse the entire project due to environmental concerns without giving a hoot to the angry masses.
The Obama administration has also been delivering prolonged delays to hand out permits for offshore drilling despite having removed the moratorium placed after the BP oil spill. Previously approved projects were forced to submit and wait to be re-approved, causing continuous delays and resulting in ten deep water rigs having left the Gulf of Mexico after having received contracts elsewhere.
Obama’s expertise in delaying legislation crucial to the well-being of the economy while speeding up legislation crucial to destroying the economy and country leaves one puzzled whether these occurrences are due to laziness, ineptness, cowardly behavior, or purposeful calculations.
Either way, while Obama has scolded American entrepreneurs who are successful despite the many obstacles and regulations government has placed upon them, he pretended to be oblivious to the scoldings directed at him from the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who spent some time discussing a possible increase in exportation of oil to China with Chinese president Hu Jintao. These discussions have only come about due the Obama’s decision to once again delay the seven billion dollar pipeline.
So who’s at fault for less foreign business on American shores/offshores? The average hardworking American or a guy named Barack Obama whose only worries are his reelection and his next golf game?
Here’s a newsflash Mr. President. Since you consider us to be so lazy, don’t expect us to take the effort to vote for you. That would be too difficult for us lazy guys. We will rather spend hours of our time and energy promoting whoever your eventual opponent will be. You will then be free to lazy upon the beaches in Hawaii without feeling compelled to create excuses for us “lazy” Americans.