Sunday, January 29, 2012

The "Occupy" Movement - Rebels Without a Clue

So once again this morning while checking the news, I see a news report about 300 "Occupy" protesters being arrested in San Diego, and once again I wondered just how long it was going to be before this group of clueless liberal nutjobs realize that they're not accomplishing anything of value with their continued lawless protests, except to prove to the nation what a bunch of idiots they really are. I'd say they're proving it to the rest of the world as well, but it seems that the rest of the world has realized that the time for the "Occupy" protests have come and gone, so they're not happening anywhere but here.

At this point one cannot help but compare this bunch of clowns with their conservative counterparts, the Tea Party. And I'll warn you right off the bat that yes, I'm a member of the local Tea Party chapter, and damned proud of it, so yes, you can expect my views to be a tad one-sided. If that bothers you, then stop reading and go look at something else on the Internet; if not, then read on.

In my humble opinion as seen from "downrange," the major difference between the beliefs of the Tea Party and the "Occupy" movement is that the Tea Party is concerned about what's happening to the nation as a whole, and they're demonstrating for the government to fix what's wrong to benefit ALL of the American people. We believe in limited Federal government, less taxation for ALL Americans, balanced budgets, personal responsibility, and a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. In short, we want to make America the nation that our Founding Fathers envisioned, and make it a better place for ALL of us.

The liberals in the "Occupy" movement, on the other hand, don't seem to give a damn about anybody or anything except themselves. They're more concerned with getting what they think they're "entitled" to for some damned reason or another, and will do whatever they want whenever they want - and break whatever laws they want to along the way - to get what they think they deserve. They want MORE Federal intervention and control over our lives, MORE regulations, MORE taxes (so just where do you think the money to pay for the services you think you're 'entitled' to is gonna come from?), and they don't want to have to work for it. They want what they want, and they want it NOW.

To me, this sounds like nothing more than the ranting of a spoiled child who's being told 'NO' for the first time, and is pitching a fit because he isn't getting what he wants.

If you want the perfect example of the differences between the ideals, morals, and actions of the two groups, then take a look at some of the statistics concerning the demonstrations that have been held over the course of the past three years or so:

Number of days spent protesting: Tea Party, 989 "Occupy," 40
Arrests: Tea Party, 0 "Occupy," 2,511
Rapes: Tea Party, 0 "Occupy," 4
Costs: Tea Party, 0 "Occupy," $2,400,000.00


And those arrests were for robbery, rape, drug use, drug possession, assault, and trespassing - ALL of which took place either INSIDE the "occupy" camping area or inside the buildings that they illegally entered and took over.

When it comes time for the Tea Party to stage a demonstration or a protest, they go to the Town Hall, get a permit, PAY THE FEE, hold the protest, follow the rules and laws of the location in regards to where, when, and how long they can LAWFULLY assemble, and then leave. When they leave, they don't leave a mess behind them for the town to clean up.

On the other hand, when the "Occupy" groups decides it's time to protest, they show up at a location without getting any needed permits, set up camp whether the local laws prohibit it or not, impede the flow of traffic into local businesses and drive some of them out of business (like the coffee shop in NYC), trash the area that they camp in, use the bushes as bathrooms, and ignore orders from the police to depart when the city administration finally decides to ENFORCE THE LAW and throw them out. When the cops show up there's violence because the "Occupy" protesters refuse to leave, saying it's their "Constitutional right" to be there, which forces the police to move in and use force to evict them - which results in arrests. Then, once it's all over, the city is stuck cleaning up the mess that the protesters left behind.

BIG difference between the two groups, huh? And oh, yeah, about that "Constitutional right" to be there? Well, that right stops the moment you break a law, including the one that says overnight camping is illegal and/or an order to disperse from the police because you're there without a permit as required by local law. And at that point you are no longer "peaceably assembled" as the Constitution says you have the right to do, so that right no longer applies.

And the really sad thing about all this is that the "Occupy" protesters had a good idea - at first. I'm all in favor of free enterprise, but I'm also vehemently opposed to corporate greed - which is what the original "Occupy Wall Street" protest was all about. They had the right idea and they had the nation's attention, all for the right reasons - and then they ruined it when they failed to realize that it was time to go home. Instead of being a poignant statement, their protest became a joke and an embarrassment, and it only got worse with each successive "Occupy" protest. Obviously the liberals in the "Occupy" movement aren't as smart as their European counterparts, who knew when it was time to quit protesting and go home.

Now, it's to the point where the absolute best thing the liberals in the "Occupy" movement could do is to just stop protesting and move on to another strategy - but I ain't holding my breath.

They are, truly, "Rebels Without A Clue."

IHC

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

More Empty Promises from The Great Pretender

I had a friend of mine send me an e-mail last night in which she asked me if I had watched the State of the Union address given by The Great Pretender. My reply to her was NO, I hadn't watched it and had no intention of doing so EVER. Just the mere sight of the man makes my stomach turn, and the sound of his voice would be just too much for me to bear. So no, I didn't watch the address last night, but the first thing I did this morning was read the transcript of the address. It takes less time since I don't have to sit through the applause by all of the Kool-Aid drinking simpleton liberals in Congress who think this buffoon is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I can go back and re-read something if I need to.

And trust me, I needed to several times. Here's why.

First and foremost, NObama has been very quick to lay the blame for his failures on the shoulders of his predecessor, yet he is just as quick to take the credit for things that his predecessor either did or set in motion. He did this with the killing of Osama bin Laden in May, and he did it again last night when he mentioned the bailout of the American auto makers. He took credit for killing bin Laden when it was actually his predecessor, George W. Bush, who set the wheels in motion; NObama just happened to be the sitting President when it finally happened. And last night NObama took credit for "saving" the American auto industry by bailing out Ford, Chevy and Chrysler when in fact it was George W. Bush who first gave the auto makers the bailout; NObama simply added more money to it when the original bailout wasn't enough.

But the really disturbing thing about this claim is that part of it is an out-and-out lie, although I'm sure NObama believes it. The fact of the matter is that Ford never took a bailout; they were offered but refused, pulling through all by themselves without Federal assistance. So for NObama to claim that ANYONE bailed out and "saved" Ford is simply wrong, period. One would think that the sitting President would be smarter than to make claims such as this which can easily be proven to be a lie, but then again his whole administration has been nothing but one great big lie from the start - so why should we expect anything less?

Another thing about this speech was that it sounded more like a campaign speech than it did a State of the Union address. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "State of the Union" address should tell us how the county is doing and why - or why not. That's not what we got last night - what we got was a campaign speech containing yet more empty promises of things he intends to do. And only then IF he gets re-elected, because any fifth grader with a calculator can tell you that NObama only has 11 months left in office, and that's not enough time to do anything of any significance, much less deliver on the promises he made last night.

And speaking of not being able to deliver, NObama hasn't been able to get Congress to pass a budget in THREE YEARS, even when the Congress was Demoncratically controlled before the Republican takeover of 2010, so why in the hell should we believe that he's gonna be able to get them to do half of the stuff he told us he was going to do last night? Unless he intends to violate the Constitution - AGAIN - and do it by Executive Decree, the answer is that he can't. Like I said, more broken promises in a meaningless campaign speech.

Then there's the direct threat he made to the Republican party in Congress. This took place when he said, "I will meet opposition with action" when referring to the grand and glorious plans he wants to set in motion. So just what, exactly, does he plan to do when Congress shoots down his proposals? Take away their lunch money? Berate them with harsh language? Or use the provisions of the NDAA that he just signed into law to label them as "suspected terrorists" and lock them away until he's out of office? The truth of the matter is that the ONLY thing he'll be able to do is piss and moan about how the mean old Republicans won't play by his rules; other than that, he can't do a damned thing - and he knows it. If not, he's dumber than I think he is.

He also tells everyone that he's tired of the inability of Congress to get things done, stating that they need to stop acting like Demoncrats or Republicans and start acting like Congressmen. Then in almost the very next breath he states, "I am a Democrat" and then proceeds to tell the Republicans that they need to do things HIS way in order for him to really believe that they're "cooperating." So much for everyone stopping being a Demoncrat or a Republican. This is a President who thinks that the Republicans are "right" and "cooperating" with him only when they do things the way HE thinks they should be done - and each time he does this, his lack of leaderhip ability and experience shines through like the sun.

Lastly, he talks about wanting to create jobs, get America back to work, and end our dependency on foreign oil. This, right after he vetoes the pipeline bill that would have contributed to all three - yet he wants us to believe what he told us last night.

In a pig's ass.

I published something a year or two ago called, "The Real Barack Obama," and now that The Great Pretender has been in office for three years that article is more relevant than ever. At the time it first came out it was nothing more than a set of predictions based on an analysis, but after three disastrous years as President, NObama has proven all of the predictions to be right on the money. This man is an egomaniac, a power-hungry man who is intent on doing things his way no matter what, even if it means destroying everything around him in the process. As long as HE gets HIS way, everything else is secondary.

In my humble opinion, Barack Hussein Obama is the biggest threat to our nation today, bar none.

And come November, I'm going to do my part to kick his skinny ass right out of the Oval Office by voting against him.

IHC

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Who I'm Not Voting For and Why

Well, the political circus that takes place in our nation every four years is starting to crank up, with all of the Republican candidates busily smearing the reputations, records, and personalities of the others running against them. Even those that pledged NOT to run a "negative" campaign have reneged on that promise, so with the primaries in South Carolina but two days away things here in the Palmetto State are getting intense to say the least.

If you've been following my blog you know my disappointment with Herman Cain. He was the one candidate that I thought would absolutely make a good President, and would absolutely knock The Great Pretender right out of the Oval Office on his skinny ass. Alas, good ol' Herman has a thing for the ladies and was foolish enough to think that he could run for office and not have his sins come back to visit him, and thanks to the rabid dog of the Demoncratic party, Attorney Gloria Allred, he's now out of the running for good ala John Edwards. Too bad, he'd have made a good President.

So I spent some time about a month ago doing some research on who I was going to vote for and who I wouldn't vote for if my life depended on it, and I've come to a decision. But first, let's go over who I won't vote for and why not. We'll start with the obvious one first.

Newt Gingrich In short, Gingrich is the stereotypical politician in that he's two-faced, a liar, has the morals and ethics of "Slick Willy" Clinton, and is a bigot. He is also the only person ever to be sanctioned and fined by Congress for ethics violations while serving as Speaker of the House, and in my book that puts him even lower than Nancy Pelosi. And speaking of Nancy Pelosi, he actually sided with her while Speaker on a bill that the rest of the Republican party was opposed to, so I guess you can call him a traitor as well. In any event, if he wins the Republican nomination I'll vote for Bucky the Dancing Mule before I'll vote for him. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Mitt Romney Anyone who serves on the board of directors of a company whose business is to close down other businesses and put people out of work and then claims in his campaign that he's "pro-jobs" is either demented or a moron. He also is hesitant to release his tax reports from years past, and that makes me and the rest of the civilized nation think he's hiding something. Maybe he doesn't want us to know just how rich he really is, but to be honest I really don't care about that. It's his integrity and honesty that concerns me, and right now I just don't see it. If he wins the Republican nomination I'll vote for him, but only because he's just one step above Bucky.

Rick Perry Two BIG things against him: first and foremost, in one of the early debates last year he said that while serving as Governor of Texas he was in favor of and would sign a bill that would give financial assitance to illegal aliens over American citizens. Sorry, Rick, but that right there assures you that I'd cut my own arm off before I'd vote for you, you friggin' traitor. The other thing is that I'm a loyal listener of Pandora Internet Radio at work, and Perry has been running political ads on that station once an hour for the past week in which he claims it's his faith in God that makes him the best candidate. And that's all he says - not a word about any other redeeming quality that he has which would cause us to vote for him. Sorry, Rick, but that's an immediate turn-off for me - after all, what about the Americans who don't believe in God? Nah, you really should leave religion out of it, because folks lik me will shun you like bad news.

Rick Santorum Veteran or not, this guy's a loser with a capital "L." He voted for the "bridge to nowhere" among other things, and has the personality of a limp noodle. He lost his Senate seat several years ago by a margin of 17% because the voters in Pennsylvania - his home state - thought he was "too conservative" for them, largely in part because of his stands on abortion rights and homosexuals. He's pro-life and anti-homosexuals, and while I really don't care it's his reasons for these stands that gets me - yep, you guessed it, he's ultra-religious and is letting his faith dictate his policies. While that's good to a point - after all, our nation was founded on solid Christian principles - he's gone waaaaaay past that point, and won't get my vote. Ever. Are you listening, Bucky?

Which brings us to who I intend to vote for, which is, of course...

Ron Paul This man has been screaming about the Federal government spending too much for the past 15 years, and he predicted both the Wall Street crash and the crash of the economy years ago. I've looked him over with a fine-toothed comb, and he only has one thing on his agenda that I disagree with, that being his stand on abortion rights. But he bases his stand on his experiences as doctor, not from his religious beliefs, which is all the difference to me. In short, I like just about everything he has to say about what he thinks needs to b done to fix America, and I plan on voting for him. Rather than sing his praises here, I'll just suggest that you do some research on your own and decide for yourself.

Unfortunately, I really don't think Paul has much of a chance of winning the primary for the simple reason that he scares the hell out of people by being right about serious things all the time, and for that reason the mainstream media won't give him the coverage that they're giving Newt and Mitt. Without media coverage you're pretty much dead in the water, and while his popularity is on the rise I just don't think he's going to be able to take the nomination.

And that means I'm gonna have to vote for Mitt, because I'm pretty sure he's the one that's gonna get the nomination. I just hope he has the popularity to beat NObama - but I'n not so sure about that.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

IHC

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

NObama and the NDAA

Picture this, if you will: a family is gathered in the living room, relaxing and enjoying the evening together, when there is a knock on the front door. The man gets up to answer the door, and when he opens it he is greeted by the sight of a half-dozen members of the nation's military in full uniform and combat gear. They ask for the man's name, and when he gives it they announce that he is under arrest, seizing him and placing him in handcuffs. When he asks what he is being arrested for, he is told that the charge is "committing a belligerent act against the nation" in a time of war. What war, the man asks, and he is told "the war on terrorism." He demands to see an arrest warrant, and is roundly ignored by the soldiers; instead, he is hustled off to a waiting vehicle, shoved inside, and taken away for detention at the nearest military facility. Hours later, when the wife contacts the commanding officer of the base and inquires as to how long her husband is to be held, she is told "indefinitely, or until hostilities cease." She asks for proof of a crime and is told that there is no requirement to produce such proof, after which the line goes dead.

Sounds like something out of Cuba, Russia, or Nazi Germany, doesn't it? We here in this nation have no need to worry about something like this ever happening here because we're protected by the Constitution, right?

WRONG.

It most certainly CAN happen here, effective December 31, 2011, when the President of the United States signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. With the stroke of a pen, The Great Pretender granted the authority to the US military to detain, without providing a writ of habeus corpus, any person located in the United States to include American citizens, and detain them at a military installation indefinitely or "until hostilities cease." And if you're talking about the war on terrorism, you could very well be talking about years.

The simple fact that a sitting President of the United States would sign into law ANY bill which allows a US Citizen to be taken into custody by military authorities without providing a writ of habeus corpus, and that the citizen can be detained indefinitely disgusts and angers me to no end. The last President to do something like this was Abraham Lincoln when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1862 so he could imprison and thereby silence the many editors of the Northern newspapers who were critical of him and his illegal war on the Southern people. Congress later sactioned him for this, but by that time he was dead at the hands of John Wilkes Booth. In this case, however, I don't expect us to see any sanctioning by Congress of the President since the Congress is responsible for drafting and approving the law in the first place. In my eyes they are almost as guilty as the President.

But it's the President who bears the brunt of the blame for this travesty against liberty and justice, for it's the President of the United States who swore in his Oath of Office that he would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." By signing this bill into law he has violated and made a mockery of that oath, and I despise him for it. It is my opinion that this man is the single worst President this nation has ever had, and he has taken a bold step forward into depriving American citizens of their civil liberties and their personal freedoms. It is my learned opinion that, should this buffoon win re-election and a second term in the White House, he will begin that term with an all-out attack on our Second Amendment rights. He will have nothing to lose since he is prohibited by law from running for or serving a third term, so it only stands to reason that his second term will be the one in which he moves on the Second Amendment. He now has a law in place that will allow him to drum up charges on minimal evidence - if any - and have American citizens arrested by the US military, and the next logical step to assure complete control over the people is to disarm them.

I would only hope that the members of our military would stand up and tell NObama to kiss their collective ass should he ever order them to arrest an American citizen. I know I would.

In the mean time there's an organization out there that an old military buddy of mine told me about, and now that this bill has been signed into law I think it's high time I joined it. The organization is called "Oath Keepers," and thier motto is "Not On Our Watch." It's made up of active/former/retired military and law enforcement people, and they've adopted ten orders that they have stated they will not obey. The third order they will not obey is this: "We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal."

In other words, they're not going to obey any order given by any President citing the NDAA as the reason a citizen is to be taken into custody. PERIOD.

And neither will I.

It has finally reached a point in our nation where we as a people must do something about the inept, socialistic buffoon who is sitting in the Oval Office; we must also do something to protect ourselves, our liberty, our freedoms, and our country. And I know just what I'm gonna do.

First, I'm gonna join Oath Keepers. Second, I'm gonna vote NObama out of office in November.

What are YOU gonna do?

IHC

http://www.oathkeepers.org