Tuesday, August 31, 2010


(In my humble opinion, the lady pictured on the left would have made a great president. If you are a liberal and you disagree with that, you are both a racist and a woman hater.)

The following has been adapted from the National Black Republican Association.


1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?

[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

(All of the answers to questions 1 - 9 are "b".)


10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina while governor, and Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

17. What Party is against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?

[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

(All of the answers to questions 10 - 17 are "b".)

Monday, August 30, 2010


(I put this picture here to sort of irritate liberals---hope it worked.)

From time to time liberals actually dare to read and comment on this blog.

Go back and read the comments and you will notice that they often castigate conservatives for their "hatred" of President BO, homo-phobia, racism, etc.

They tell us we should be tolerant of others' viewpoints, loving of Muslims and should work toward giving minorities lots of fish, instead of teaching them TO fish.

As evidence of their tolerance, they put pig faces on Glenn Beck, refer to Rush Limbaugh as a "big fat idiot" and warp the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Republican-with whom I marched in St. Augustine and joined the sit-down at a St. Augustine lunch counter-and got assaulted by a bunch of Democrat KKKers).

Their message is: love every form of deviance, but hate conservatives...especially successful ones.

Ya gotta love liberals!

They are good for blog-fodder.

Monday, August 23, 2010


Our first African-American president claims to have been born in Hawaii, but he is living in the Bush.

Bob Cusack, writing for The Hill, reminds us that on July 14, 2009 President BO said, “Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.”

Yet this summer he has repeatedly blamed George W. Bush for the nation’s economic woes.

Now here is my question: At what point in time will President BO assume responsibility for what happens during HIS administration?

He was going to be the GREAT FIXER.

For instance, he said he would be able to restrict unemployment to around 8%.

Of course, they did not know how badly it had been wounded by those horrible Bush people (no offense to those who live in the African bush...I mean the previous administration).

Well, why did they not know?

They claimed to be the smartest politicians since Julius Caesar. Shouldn't they have known?

Was George W. Bush so smart that he was able to out-smart President-elect Obama, even though he (Bush) was ridiculed for being stupid?

Look, I'm not full of fond memories of GW. You never read a post on this blog proclaiming him as the most brilliant of men, who led this country well.

Here's the thing. The country is NOT better off than when President BO took office. Banks are being closed, housing values continue to plummet, high unemployment continues, soldiers are still being killed in Iraq...even after we have begun withdrawing...and small businesses are collapsing, unable to make payroll or hire new workers.

As predicted on this blog, government bail-outs have not stopped any of these things, the Gulf states are still in a mess and illegal immigration has not been curbed.

Isn't it time to take the proverbial bull by the horns, accept responsibility for what is happening in the country today, and to stop the (to use President BO's words) “carp and gripe” routine?

If it is not yet that time, when will that time come?

When do we stop living in the Bush?

Saturday, August 21, 2010


Country music writers (and their cousins, southern gospel writers) have a way of phrasing things in such a simple, but profound way, that the point cannot be missed by anyone with a brain. I found this at Political Pistachio. Give it a listen.

When, oh when, are the elitist liberals going to wake up and realize that there is a soon coming time when they will not be able to think, let alone enact, their liberalism, for their freedom to do so will be taken from them at the blade of a sword?

Friday, August 20, 2010


I first saw this at Bread Upon the Waters:

Please also visit this post at Woman Honor Thyself.

Here is my comment in response to Beckel on WHT:

Let’s see how Beckel gets over it when Islam has seized control of our country after the building of their victory mosque. Let’s hear Beckel shout, “Get over it,” when the executioner’s axe comes down on the neck of some woman who appeared in public with a man other than her husband, or when a woman is stoned in America for not wearing her berka, or when he, himself, is facing Islamic execution for having been “an American.”

I’m not wishing it on him or us, I am predicting what will be in twenty years or so if we continue to allow Islam to celebrate their victories with monuments at their victory sites…think Spain.

I won’t be here to say, “I told you so…so I’m saying it now.”

Thursday, August 19, 2010


Look, we all know about "freedom of religion" in this country.

"Freedom of religion" is not the issue here.

The fact that "freedom" only applies to non-Christians is not the issue here.

We all know that this is a nation of laws.

The fact that some laws can be overlooked (read: immigration laws) is not the issue here.

We know that Muslims have a right to practice their religion.

We know that there can not be a law keeping them from building a mosque in a properly zoned area.

I preach freedom of religion, obedience to the law all the time.

But just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

The building of a mosque near "ground zero" SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

It would be hurtful, divisive, spiteful, and hateful. It will NEVER promote unity, cooperation and a spirit of peace because of the history of the location.

Are New Yorkers satisfied to have the families of 9/11 victims, other New Yorkers and the rest of the country hurt, divided, spited and hated? Is that really the kind of people we can expect you to be if you're from New York City?

Even now, when I stand in the presence of someone from New York City, I have to ask myself, "is this one of those who supports the insult that would come from the building of a mosque in the neighborhood of 'ground zero?'"

Until I find out otherwise, I find myself assuming that the answer must be, "Yes."

Is that prejudice? So be it.

New York has brought that kind of prejudice on itself and I do not apologize for it...nor do I feel in the least bit guilty for it.

If you are not one to protest the building of this mosque, I will walk away from you and will consider you insensitive, vulgar and unintelligent.

I'm sure you will cry yourself to sleep at night knowing that I will respond that way.

Too bad.

You want a Mosque-esk imitation community center? Build it anywhere you wish EXCEPT near "ground zero," near the Pentagon or in a field in Pennsylvania.

As for the mosque encouraging community, understanding and unity, of this you can be certain: if you build it THEY WILL NOT COME.

Forget common sense, we lost that long ago.

How about some plain old common decency.

Does New York City have one iota left?

ADDENDUM: Hey Nancy! I oppose the mosque at ground zero. Come investigate me! I am a sixty-eight year old with a bum leg and a heart condition. I am very dangerous! Bring it on!

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


The following comes from Hot Air via a friend of mine.

Monday, August 16, 2010


So, who were the Pilgrims, and why did they leave Europe?

The Pilgrims were English Separatists, technically known as Puritans.

What was that? Was it some kind of political Party opposed to King George III?

No, it was a group of Christians who followed the teachings of Calvin as notated in the Geneva Bible, use by their leaders, William Bradford, William Brewster and John Carver.

The King of England (a vain, self-centered, narcissist - pictured), believed that all Christians should be members of the Church of England, and, in fact, imprisoned or executed those who did not go along with his beliefs.

King James later ended the persecution, but Puritans, much like some Americans today, were discriminated against by many, so they left England and sailed on a broken down, leaky ship called the Speedwell to Holland, where they thought they would be free to build a church building and worship freely.

Economic times were hard in Holland and the Puritans wanted to leave.

A group of businessmen helped them buy a ship, called the Mayflower, and supplies and they sailed to the New Land.

Since their trip was deemed illegal by their government, they formed a government of their own and agreed to the Mayflower Compact.

John Adams (certainly knowledgeable about the source of the Constitution) referred to the Mayflower Compact as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

It turns out that the framers of the Constitution were much like the Puritans, being tired of the European government elitists lording it over ordinary people, a government that had instituted poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing productive citizens.

What they had discovered was that people were ambitious for power, and when they got their hands on it, they craved more.

So they conceived a document that would establish The United States of America as a government of its own, writing laws that were intended to limit the powers of the government so that the peoples’ representatives would not become corrupt, abusive, self-important men whose prime purpose was to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

The basic tenants of the Constitution were: liberty; equal treatment under the law; and limited power to the government.

They did that on purpose.

The framers did not want the government to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

When Nancy Pelosi was asked what Constitutional provision allowed the government to force people to buy health insurance, her response was a well thought out, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Congressman Phil Hare, of Illinois, declared that he did not worry about the Constitution when it came to it allowing lawmakers to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Pete Stark, congressman from California stated that the federal government can do most anything in this country, including, it must be supposed, lording it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

It turns out that too many of our elected representatives have turned out to be the exact kind of low-lifes from whom the framers were trying to protect us when they wrote the Constitution.

Look: the freedom our forefathers and their descendants fought for is the exception in history, not the rule.

Most nations have never enjoyed the freedoms we established in the United States of America.

Instead they have, and continue to lord it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens.

The really sad thing is, many of our politicians, judges and citizens believe we should move back in time toward a more “European” form of government where lording it over ordinary people, instituting poorly conceived programs paid for by heavily taxing the most productive citizens is considered the proper way to govern.

Every time a regulation is put in place “for the common good,” a freedom must be relinquished.

Eventually, we will run out of freedoms, and someone will have to take the lead in starting all over again…by whatever means necessary.

Just like the Puritans did.

Thursday, August 12, 2010


Let's ask some questions.

Are home foreclosures up or down from January of 2009?

Is the deficit growing or shrinking?

Has $165,040,000,000.00 been added to the deficit -- IN ONE MONTH?

What about the trade gap? Is it narrowing or widening?

Is unemployment up or down since January of 2009?

Are more or fewer banks being closed?

How's that war in Afghanistan going? Are fewer American troops being killed, or more?

Is the tax base increasing or decreasing? How is that related to unemployment?

Are our relationships with Iran and other foreign countries better or worse than they were in January of 2009?

Is the public perception of the job congress is doing getting better or worse?

Are taxes going to go up, down, or are they going to stay the same?

Are President BO's approval rating climbing or dropping?

Is the stock market on solid, level ground, or is it as volitile as a roadside bomb?

According to a Wall Street Journal poll, do 60% of Americans think the United States is headed in the wrong direction under President BO's leadership?

Is the average american income rising or falling?

So far, how has the new health care program helped you?

Is there an anti-incumbant mood in the country?

So...are we better off or worse off than we were in 2008?

Is there any time at which President BO will own what is happening in this country? When?

Monday, August 9, 2010


I want an electric car.

After all, it's the green thing to do...right?

Let me describe the car I want.

I want an electric car that will go no more than 40 miles on a charge, after all, the average home-to-work commute is only 33 miles.

Since I don't drive too much at night, an overnight charge of between six and eight hours should be adequate.

My new electric car should be able to travel at between 80-100 miles per hour on its batteries, so that the 40 miles it will travel will take only a half hour or so.

A six hour charge for about a half-hour drive seems about right to me.

Stopping at traffic signals and stop signs should reduce my commute capabilities as I overcome inertia to get back up to speed after stopping.

The manufacturing of those batteries should include the plastic case, made of carbon-based oil products, as should the bulk of the inert innards. The poisonous contents should be manufactured in such a way as to not to interrupt the high employment rate we enjoy in this country.

Lots of its parts could easily be made overseas or in Mexico, thus giving Mexicans fewer reasons to cross our southern borders to take jobs we won't do.

As everyone knows, once the batteries of my electric car run down, I should be able to switch to gasoline power, in case my commute is farther than 40 miles or in case I have some errands to run on the way home.

If I have to take a trip, the first 40 miles should be smooth and silent as the electric motor drives me along I-75. Then the gasoline engine should kick in to take me the rest of the 300 miles or so I have to go.

The gasoline power should come from an engine that burns only premium gasoline, so when I fill up, it will cost me more than it did when I used to use the more efficient internal combustion engine in my Saturn SL2.

Oh, and speaking of efficiency, the gasoline engine of my electric car should not drive the car directly, it should route the electricity through the batteries, reducing efficiency even further.

My new car should not seat more than 4 people, so when I get hit by a Cadillac or SUV, or perhaps even a semi, not too many people get injured or killed.

The seats should be about as comfortable as the back seats of a 1960 Ford Falcon, and the batteries should run down the middle of the car to force riders' legs to be cramped into a permanent position.

The car should look something like a cockroach and should be available in Silver Ice Metalic.

Between $40,000.00 and $42,000.00 should be about the right price to pay...maybe the government will take some money from you to help me pay for my new electric car....let's say about $7,500.00 or so. Deal?

Now where on earth could I possible find a car that fits my requirements?

Oh, I know. I'll just hurry on down to my local Chevy dealer and, using my unemployment check, my social security income and my undervalued home as collateral, I'll just purchase the perfect car: THE CHEVY VOLT!!!

Read more about my new car here.

Friday, August 6, 2010


Thanks, and a tip 'o the hat to Snaggletoothie.

Thursday, August 5, 2010


Look, there’s plenty to HATE about the “new” Health Care legislation, HR-3962, "Affordable Health Care for America Act" and its partner, HR-4872, "Reconciliation Act of 2010," that contains 153 pages of “fixes” to the apparently broken Health care bill.

Real estate sales will be taxed 3.8%.

The bill will limit the deduction on medical expenses to amounts above 10 percent of income starting in 2013. Currently, the deduction floor is 7.5 percent of income.

I could go on, but that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that we conservatives must be interested in real truth, not “truth that becomes real because, and only because, we say it is true, regardless of whether it actually is or not.”

That is the technique of liberals. It should not be our technique.

There is an e-mail going around that says that the value of your new health care will be added to and counted as income on your W-2 beginning in 2012.

This is only half-true.

The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income…yet.

So just why is this being added to W-2’s?

My experience with the feds is that once something makes it to my W-2 “for the sake of information,” it is only a matter of time before it becomes taxable.

Let’s be “the glass is half full” people and assume that initially the value of your health care will not be counted as income and taxed.

Then why list it at all?

Who benefits from the additional listing?

One thing we know for certain: if the government tells you they are going to do something or that they are not going to do something, you can trust them to be honorable and do or not do what they say they will do or not do.

A lot like Candidate Obama telling us that there will be no additional taxes on people earning under $250,000.00, while President BO is pushing to allow the Bush tax cuts to go away, resulting in a tax increase on almost everyone.

“But that’s not a tax increase!” scream the incredibly stupid liberals.

Yes…it is. It results in us paying more taxes.

More means increase.

It’s sort of like when my wife comes home with some new, expensive and largely unneeded item and brags that she saved me a bunch of money.

If she saved me money, how come my bank account went down?

So, go ahead. Trust the government not to get around to taxing the value of your health care “benefit.”


Monday, August 2, 2010


Finish the sentence: "If you can't afford to buy a house..."

There are two possible completions to that sentence in America today.

The first is: "...don't buy it."

It's the principle of delayed gratification.

Work and save until you can afford to make a down payment, as well as the monthly morgtage payments.

That's the way my grandparents did it.

That's the way my parents did it.

That's the way I've done it.

Work and save...work and save...work and save.

The other answer is one that has been put forth by the government for thirty-three years:

"If you can't afford to buy a house, we won't look at your credit rating, we won't require a down payment, we won't make you pay any principle for three years, and we'll give you a below market interest rate (called a sub-prime mortgage)."

There are two reasons the government did that: 1) because they wanted to promote the idea that everyone deserves the "American Dream;" 2) That will make you like us and will help get us re-elected.

The first is patently false. Everyone does NOT deserve the "American Dream."

Everyone deserves to get educated, work hard and have an opportunity to reach for the "American Dream," But NOT everyone deserves it just because he/she exists.


Lenders responded in the way they had to, as dictated by the government and by their responsibilities to their share-holders, for whom they had a feduciary resonsibility: they established the mortgages.

They were not surprised when people started defaulting on their mortgages, but they did not worry, because they had the full faith and credit of the government of the United States of America behind them, and could not possible lose money on the deal, so it did not matter.

The ones who were surprised were the federal government, especially the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and others, who repeatedly stated that there was no problem with loan backers, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae, as well as others involved on the government's side of the deal.

Barney, Chris, Maxine, Charlie and friends insisted over and over again that those who were objecting to the LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION which THEY had instituted were nothing more than fear-mongers who just wanted to say, "NO!"

Then, when defaults on mortgages started snow-balling out of control, Barney, Chris, Maxine, Charlie and friends moved to the head of the "we need more government regulation" line.

See, the colapse of the economy in America came about, not because of the failed policies of any one president (especially not because of George W. Bush), but because of a series of very bad decisions by congress, whose unintended consequences were unforseen.

So, the next time you hear Presdient BO state that he inherited this economic mess, remind yourself that it was HIS party that instituted the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which ultimately led to the economic colapse we're now experiencing.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 tried to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandated that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offerd credit [in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)] in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.

The last part of that mandate [Section 802 (b) and Section 804(1)] was eventually ignored because it resulted in "too few" sub-prime loans being made.

The idea may have had smatterings of nobility about it, but it was ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-implemented and had dire consequences.

The result was not too few sub-prime loans being made, but too many.

But the answer will not lie in placing blame.

The answer will lie in ridding ourselves of these whale-sized loans to people who cannot make ant-sized mortgage payments and allow the market to self-stableize over what will be a very long and painful time.

The lesson should be: Things done for the purpose of re-election should not be done unless the perpetrator(s) have some viable, sure way to determine the possible unpleasant side effects on the country and then to avoid those side effects.

What other unintended consequences might we expect from the decisions made by our government?

Make a list in the comments section.