Should We Take Liberal Clowns Seriously?





Photo credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

When a clown asks to be taken seriously, should we do so?

As I have stated in the past, the Democrat Party is a big tent party.  The problem is that there are nothing but clowns inside.  Many of those clowns are complaining about the way men look at women’s breasts.  They are saying that men shouldn’t stare at them; and when Rush Limbaugh said that men should tell women to stop having their breasts stare at their eyes, they became UGLY women.  They must not have realized that looking at women often with lust in your heart, as Jimmy Carter confessed doing, has been hard-wired into the brain.  The survival of the species would be endangered if men didn’t desire women sexually.  If women are concerned about men staring at their breasts, maybe they should wear bulky clothes or move to a country where appearance isn’t a big deal (like a nation that honors Sharia law.  There, if a woman tries to reveal their breasts, they are at times stoned.  But since UGLY women are very vocal and resent men having control over women, they might be stoned for that.)

Liberal clowns complain about Conservatives waging war on women.  Let me make comparisons between Conservative and Liberal views concerning females.  Conservatives oppose the murder of female babies.  Liberals support it.  Conservatives believe females should truly be equal to men in many areas in order to succeed and oppose forcing women to fight in combat.  Liberals want equality in name only and would force mothers (and at times, their daughters) to fight and die in combat and be raped and murdered by their enemies if they are captured.  Conservatives are generally more moral than Liberals and want females to have self-control sexually, while Liberals don’t mind if women give their bodies to men to be used as a plaything as long as they have contraceptives (which sometimes fail.)  Conservatives know that responsible women are strong women, while Liberals think they know best about how women should act (they should let the government control them instead of being independent like Conservatives believe they should be.)  Conservative women often try to find Conservative men to be with because they are often better than Liberal men.  Liberal women take their chances with Liberal men unless they are gay.  Then they take their chance that they will have children if they want them.

I heard the Liberal clown Barney Frank say that Republicans in Congress should pass legislation that the Democrats in the Senate can pass because standing on principle doesn’t allow anything to be passed.  That is good advice in a totalitarian regime.  But agreeing with Democrats has cost this nation trillions of dollars and millions of jobs.  The recent budget deal has been an attempt to agree with Democrats, and I’m afraid it will make things worse in the long run. But with Liberal clowns being as they are, if they can keep convincing Republicans to do what they want them to do, when their actions bring disaster, Democrats can continue to blame them for problems the clowns produced.  The fools on the Hill brought us higher taxes and Smoot/Hawley during the early 30′s, and we had the Great Depression.  They again brought us the housing crises while Bush was President, and he gets the blame for the crash when he tried to prevent it.  Barney Frank said there was nothing wrong before he was proven wrong, and this nation paid for his mistake.

We might as well slap a permanent coat of grease paint on a lot of Liberals.  They are the ones who love increasing taxes, taking money from people who need it  The clowns think that Obama is probably the best President ever elected. Maybe they have brick-covered glasses and wear hearing aids tuned to the baloney station because they are laughably out of touch with reality.   Liberal clowns have tried to shrink the military for decades and have succeeded from time to time, like during the Clinton administration, when the clowns were more interested in a balanced budget at the expense of the Pentagon.  The money 9/11 cost us due to our willful lack of preparedness for a terrorist attack erased the possibility for surpluses for years.  The election of the Liberal ringmaster of the Washington circus could make surpluses an impossibility for decades more.  If our military is degraded enough, and Obamacare proves to be as bad as predicted, our economy may collapse; and our enemies will be able to wage war against America on American soil.

The clowns will be out in force in 2014 as they promote their candidates and try to convince the voters that the bad conditions they are experiencing are not real.  Maybe a little seltzer in the eye from the squirting daisy will make things look funnier.  They’ll pile into their little clown cars, roam the streets in search of Conservatives they can pummel with rubber batons and chickens, and proclaim the triumph of Liberal thought over that of Conservatives.  ”Higher taxes will help the poor succeed.  Global warming caused mainly by humans is a reality, even if only zealous clowns think they can prove it.  We need to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy immediately with the energy equivalent of starving poodles.   Trust us.  We know what we are doing” is what they say as they try to extinguish a house fire with a squirt gun.

It’s fine to laugh at clowns.  Don’t try to seek advice from them unless you want to cry.

 

Photo credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)





America 2019: Death Camps, Revolution and Censorship





Photo credit: CTPEKO3A (Creative Commons)

What The End Of The Filibuster Could Mean For America

A person can win every game they play if they can always change the rules to their advantage. Harry Reid decided to do that for President Obama.

There were three judges Obama wanted to place on the Washington, DC federal bench to tip the advantage toward the Left. Many of the same Democrats, who thought the Republicans were wrong when they were in the majority and wanted to approve of judge selections by a simple majority of Senators, now want what they wouldn’t give to Republicans and President Bush. I call the cancellation of the filibuster the “Dictatorship of the Majority Act.”

Remember how Nancy Pelosi complained about Republicans obstructing what needed to be done when they were in the minority? I guess crashing the economy was something the Democrats needed to do when they regained control of Congress in 2007.

They also needed to pass Obamacare, which is now creating havoc in this country. I heard former Congressman Barney Frank complain about Republicans in Congress voting in favor of things they knew would not pass in the Senate. You could call his desire to have Republicans go along with the Democrats in the Senate the “Since Everybody Is Jumping Off A Bridge, You Should Do It Too” Strategy. When President Bush wanted to examine Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and their lending policies to see if they were fiscally sound, Barney Frank told Bush there was nothing wrong. Frank sounded like a stock trader during the second week of October 1929 telling everybody that investing in stock was a sure bet to get rich since the stock market was sound.

America 2019

Here is a scenario that is possible since filibusters are no longer a weapon to prevent the majority from easily getting its way. It is 2019, and President Hillary Clinton decides she has too many political opponents. The Senate passes the Federal Anti-Defamation Act, which declares all people who protest against the government as criminals subject to fines and imprisonment. A federal judge appointed by the President decides it’s Constitutional; and the Supreme Court that is then split into six Liberals and three Conservatives (since the mysterious death of Justice Scalia) leans leftwards.

Conservative broadcasters and programs are shut down. Even common citizens who dare talk against the President and government are imprisoned because Democrats who control the Senate say it’s for the good of the country. The Public Safety Act of 2019 which is declared Constitutional by a judge appointed to the federal bench, and the Supreme Court allows camps to be built to “re-educate” those who oppose the government. People are disarmed because another judge feels that only the police and military deserve to be armed.

Millions revolt against the government and march toward Washington and state capitols. President Clinton declares marshal law and orders the troops out to confront the protesters around the nation. The DC federal court says the police and troops have the right to shoot and kill protesters if they feel that Washington and government entities are being threatened. Some of the judges that make that decision would have been filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. But with a majority of Democrats in the Senate, the filibuster is no longer a threat.

What if a Republican Congress and President gain power in 2033 after the state of emergency declared by President Clinton in 2020, and judged Constitutional by the DC federal court and Supreme Court, is ended to allow Hillary to serve four full terms? Don’t you think the Republicans will want revenge? The internment camps formerly occupied by Conservatives are now being occupied by Liberals who hate the new government. And with Obamacare being dismantled and the high tax rates coming down or abolished altogether, the economy soars. But the ones who most depended on Obamacare are more likely to die. America goes from being a Liberal police state to a Conservative police state; and it started with the Dictatorship of the Majority Act, as it has been nicknamed.

The Electoral College hasn’t been abolished so that small states still matter at election time instead of a handful of heavily populated states deciding who should be the President. The filibuster was meant to prevent the “wrong” people from controlling the justice system and perverting justice. Destroying a tradition that has worked for nearly two and a quarter centuries may bring down the Democrats because the public will consider them a bunch of dictators, with the “Dear Leader” being the most threatening. And if one day the Republicans regain total control of the government, you know the Democrats will want the law changed. And since many Republicans respect the Constitution and many traditions more than most Democrats do, the filibuster will make a comeback. Just hope and pray that the tyranny of the majority doesn’t have irreversible consequences.

 

Photo credit: CTPEKO3A (Creative Commons)





Frank In The Senate? Bad Idea , Says Massachusetts Activist

Barney Frank7544 Frank in the Senate? Bad Idea , Says Massachusetts Activist

A Massachusetts-based pro-family activist thinks it’s likely that recently retired Democratic Congressman Barney Frank will be appointed as a replacement for Senator John Kerry should he become Secretary of State.

Frank has confirmed to The Associated Press that he asked Governor Deval Patrick last week to appoint him as interim senator until a special election is held to fill Kerry’s seat. Under state law, the governor must appoint an interim senator if the Senate confirms Kerry as secretary of state. A special election would then be scheduled about five months later.

Frank says he is well suited to the job because he will not need a long time to get acquainted with how things work on Capitol Hill. But Brian Camenker, president of the pro-family organization MassResistance, believes it would be “horrible” for the state.

“He hates Republicans, hates conservatives, [and] he is very, very radical,” Camenker tells OneNewsNow. “Now if the governor. who is pretty much a radical Democrat himself, were to appoint him, we’d be stuck with him for two or three months and it would be ridiculous. It would be horrible.”

Read More at onenewsnow.com .  By Chad Groening.

Backward Banking

Obama Democrats Bank Patrol SC Backward Banking

I don’t know if it’s Dodd-Frank. Or if it’s Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd themselves. Or if it’s just the big bankers.

But the reality is, our banking system is completely screwed up when it comes to getting a home loan.

The problem used to be that the banks, in collusion with a federal government, made bad loans to bad people. That’s what helped bring us the housing bubble and the inevitable bust that followed.

Today the problem is reversed. The banking system is so nuts it won’t even allow banks to make good loans to good people. An example of our new backward banking system in action is what’s happened to the daughter of a friend of mine.

She’s a 29-year-old schoolteacher. When she was 24 she went out and bought herself a townhome that a bank had ended up owning after a foreclosure.

The bank was buried in the townhome for $560,000. The schoolteacher got the house for $360,000 and put $110,000 down. Her interest rate five years ago was 6¾ percent.

Today the townhome is worth more than what the teacher paid for it and now she wants to refinance and get a low-interest loan. But she’s just been told by Big Bank that she doesn’t qualify for a 3 or 4 percent loan. They’ve even told her she shouldn’t have been able to qualify for her original loan.

Think about this: Here is a teacher who has never missed a house payment. She has her monthly mortgage payment taken out of her bank account automatically. She’s never missed paying her taxes. She’s never missed paying her homeowner’s dues.

Yet she is treated as though somehow she’d suddenly stop making her mortgage payments if the bank gave her a new loan at 3 or 4 percent. The schoolteacher is looked at by the bank as if she was a future criminal.

I come from a generation where people were allowed to have a personal relationship with their bank. I used to be able to go down and talk to my local banker about a loan.

I’d tell him what I wanted to do and how much money I needed. The banker would say, “Mike, I’ve known you for 30 years. I know you’re good for it.”

Now there’s no such thing as a personal relationship with your banker. The “local” bank is owned by a bunch of international mega-corporations and the management changes every 3 minutes.

Dodd-Frank has created a situation where only the large banks will survive. Small banks are essentially being outlawed. That means our ability to ever have a personal relationship with a banker is also being outlawed. And one bad result of that will be to create more people who become upside-down on their mortgages.

If we want to bring the U.S. economy back to life we have to do it through the housing industry. But there’s no way in hell housing is going to recover if banks are no longer even giving good loans to good and rightful people.

The big bankers and politicians co-produced the meltdown of the economy. They’re the criminals, not the honest schoolteacher looking for a better interest rate on her mortgage.

If we’re going to bring this country back, the Dodds and Franks of Washington are going to have to rewrite the laws so we can have personal relationships with local banks again.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Related posts:

  1. Holder Renews Attacks On America’s Banking Industry:When Will Banking Chairman Bachus Stop Him? Both Eric Holder and his boss Barack Obama are clearly…
  2. Backward Runs ‘Newsweek’   by Michael Kinsley, the New Republic   Having recently…

Obama: The Lester Maddox of Gay Marriage

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Although he has grown Washington more than any president in a generation, Barack Obama is talking like a Jeffersonian states rights champion — in the one night, in the one state, on the one issue that would promote his top-down rejection of traditional morality. As Barack Obama prepares to attend a sold out, $1,250-per-plate campaign fundraiser before a large homosexual group in New York (the “Gala with the Gay Community”), the state legislature in Albany seems poised to pass a bill approving same-sex marriage. Some speculate this evening Obama will endorse marriage destruction. But Obama’s handlers are rolling out a new and, for him, novel tactic: wrap himself in states rights. An unnamed White House official told The Huffington Post, “Although the president believes that this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also firmly believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal protection under the law.” (Emphasis added.)

(Update: Here’s video of the speech. Obama has done precisely as I reported. Story continues following the video.)

At last, Barack Obama has discovered states rights, which constitutes a significant act of rhetorical hypocrisy even by his standards. Obama’s left-wing allies have equated a belief in the Founders’ view of government with “racism” and derided those who believe in states’ rights as “Tenthers.”

The Obama administration is suing Indiana on behalf of Planned Parenthood, since that state prohibited tax dollars from funding abortion providers. The showdown could cost the state $4.3 billion. Obama not only sued but hauled the state of Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council over its immigration law. He sent 400 federal agents to harass poll watchers enforcing state election laws during the 2010 midterms. (It didn’t help, much.) His National Labor Relations Board is suing (see a trend?) Boeing, because it planned to build one plant in South Carolina, a state that has chosen to adopt “Right to Work” laws. ObamaCare marks his largest legislative trampling of states rights. Now that Republicans control the House, Obama is increasingly ruling by executive fiat.

But allow a blue state to consider redefining the fundamental building block of society, and suddenly Barack Obama is the Lester Maddox of gay marriage. (Both constituencies have significant experience bicycling backwards.)

The move is a down payment on the debt Obama owes this voting bloc. The LGBT lobby has been a pillar of his re-election fundraising. As 2012 draws closer, Obama has hinted his views on same-sex marriage will “evolve.” White House spokesman Jay Carney followed this line when pressed for clarification on Monday. Obama “was very clear in the campaign,” when he claimed to oppose it, Carney said. “He’s very clear about the fact that his position is evolving.”

For those who are confused, Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is simple….

Read more.