16,683 shares (I believe thisnumber is due to the article
being used as a gateway onto
Midknight Review).
So, here is Palins "hit" map"targeting" 20 vulnerable
Democrat
One lone critic has decided to be as insulting as he can be with regard to my depiction of gun site. He , of course, has no clue nor does he have reason for his extremely insulting tone. We will not return the insult. Our response is at the bottom of the article.
Representatives
with seats in districts voting
for John McCain.
Not the "sights" giving the
ignorant Left a chance to argue
that Palin was making a call for
violent activity.
So - are these gun sights or
surveyor sights ?
You make the call.
On the right is looking through a
scope on a rifle. The symbols on Palin's
map are different. Why? Because they are
NOT gun sights; those images are
survey markers.
But it is all so silly. Palin a terrorist ??survey markers.
Update (1/9/11): Go to "comments " below to read the editor's overwhelming defense of the
more important point. Giffords was one of only two Democrats to
survive Palin's hit list for the midterms. No one including Giffords thought
Palin wanted her dead. Lefties have actually killed
more individuals because of their policies than all the wars of modern
times. You all must be proud. Again, see my "comments" for
further discussion. - JDS
Update 1/9/11): From Ben Smith, we have this:
" We have nothing whatsoever to do with this," Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. "We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps," she said, suggesting that it is a "surveyor's symbol."
Although Ben Smith doesn't buy this account, he admits the symbol is closer to a
surveyor sight than a gun sight. cf this Link
1/15/2011 update:
Guess who was the first to put a real target on Giffords.
Anyone know what this is? An article from the very liberal Daily Kos, back in 2008, putting an actual bullseye on Gabrielle Giffords.
This is what a gun target looks like.
Click on image to enlarge
Midknight Review was the first to make the case for Palin's symbols being survey targets, back on March 29 of 2010. See the story here, Crosshairs on a gun's sight or a surveyor's sight ...
We have gotten over 1570 hits on this story -- mostly from liberals going insane over our premise; all of whom ignore their own complicity in the "target" scandal they created out of the events in Arizona -- Daily Kos included.
And today on the House floor, the airhead we know as Nancy Pelosi actually spoke of the Arizona shootings as " a tragic accident [that] took lives, wounded people in the expression of ideas.” The implication being that the exp
ression of ideas lead to this 'tragic accident.'
For the lone doubter of the pictorial representation of a gun site at top of page, we give a second and similar version. Both pictures were taken out off gun/rifle wedsites.
The self proclaimed critic apparently spoke before thinking.
ression of ideas lead to this 'tragic accident.'For the lone doubter of the pictorial representation of a gun site at top of page, we give a second and similar version. Both pictures were taken out off gun/rifle wedsites.
The self proclaimed critic apparently spoke before thinking.
You know what you ought to do? Make a map and put "surveyor" crosshairs over leftists who keep picking on Sarah Palin. Because that's perfectly fine, right? You'd be perfectly fine if someone put "surveyor" crosshairs over your loved ones on a map, right? That idea has worked out so well for Palin.
ReplyDeleteEvery person with a grade school education knows those are surveyors symbols. They done even resemble targeting bullseyes. Nobody would ever confuse the 2 and target the congresswomen from Arizona who was "surveyed". Especially after the title to the map said "we've diagnosed the problem....help us prescribe the solution". I have many suveyor friends and they are always out in the field "reloading" their survey stations. Hurry up and wash that blood off your hands so you can get back to your hate speech.
ReplyDeleteHow do you expect people to see these as surveyor crosshairs and not gunsights, when Palin's Twitter account promotes her website with the slogans, "Take Back the 20!" and, "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"
ReplyDeleteWell, ok, so you all don't believe me. It was kind of an interesting try, no?!! Here is something I think is outrageous and it is the very point I was trying to make: the fantasy that Sarah Palin wants the death of those pictured on her map is not just wrong, it is stupid wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt was your side who tried to kill Reagan. The Uni Bomber was a lib and he killed folks. Bill Ayers killed as a matter of liberal policy. Your Nation of Islam has called for the death of "whitie" as has minister of the church Obama attended for 22 years. The environmentalist radicals have cost this country billions as they burn car lots and construction sites. They burned one just last week..
You all put the folks on my side to shame when comes to the use of violence.
Case closed.
Note: this was my first post but appears here because it needed a bit of editing.
Hey, what about all those death threats against Bush. We heard them every week he was president - televised no less! That "joker face" was first used on Bush. Chris Matthews talked about the thrill of watching Rush Limbaugh being shot in the head, "watching his head explode." Bush was burned alive, shot, stomped into the ground.
ReplyDeleteYou all burn the flag, pretend there is no God, hate the military who fight for your stinking freedom, vote for the legalization of drugs, dress up like the opposite sex and call it normal and, now, you are about to lose control.
You all have proven to me that folks can read without having any serious brain function. Interesting.
Oh, I almost forgot the 1.3 million babies you all have killed each every year since 1970.
ReplyDeleteYou all baned DDT and 20 million Africans have died of malaria since then.
Leftist crap policy has done this world more harm that all the wars in history.
And which major political figures - on the level of a candidate vice-president from one of the two major parties - on the left advocated the actions the Uni bomber took? Or killing Reagan? Please, just grow up enough to recognize that words, like actions, have consequences. Take responsibility for what you advocate.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, how would the ban on DDT in the US effect African children? There has never been a world-wide ban on DDT use in disease control. You MIGHT consider learning something about what you talk about.
My point was clear. Liberals and liberal policies are directly responsible for all of the deaths I outlined. Palin never advocated for the death of Giffords and it is mindless stupidity to argue otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou want this kid in Tucson to be TEA party maniac. Well, he is not. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
As regards Africa. It is you who hasn't a clue. The founder of Greenpeace (ever heard of that group), Patrick Moore, had this to say about a book entitled "Eco Imperialism - Green Power, Black Death,"
"The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated." check out the words here: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php.
Maybe you should do a little catch-up before entering into a debate. The WHO put pressure world wide to stop the use of DDT after the US banned the product in late late 1972.
It is the environmentalists' policies that have killed 300 million world wide and more than a 100 million in Africa. I had previously reported 20 million.
Check out these sites:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html about the WHO role in all this.
Go here to read a plea for help in using DDT from a Black legislator in Uganda:
http://www.cdfe.org/center-projects/the-economy/europe-kills-african-children
Go here for the 300 million number:
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/news/2001017.shtml
And here for the 100 million number (102 actually) :
http://www.westerntradition.org/?p=721
You people are saving no one with your rhetorical crap. Your policies are murderous for the third world and financially impossible for the American "middle class."
Surveyor's symbols, really? She didn't call them that. Look, no one is saying that Sarah Palin wanted anybody dead. But, there is no question that she uses violent symbolism. After most of the incumbents targeted on that map were defeated in November, Palin even bragged about that "bullseyes" icon on the map in a tweet:
ReplyDelete@SarahPalinUSA (Nov. 4, 2010)
Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)
So, the question isn't whether or not Palin wanted these people dead (I don't think anyone seriously thinks that she really wanted anyone dead). The question is whether any of this vitrolic rhetoric may have influenced that maniac to "take out" one of the people targeted by the vitriolic rhetoric of people who "target" democrats, call for "second amendment remedies," who say that the "tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants," or who say the bullets might be the answer to "take back" our country if ballots don't work. One tea party candidate even had a campaign ad where George Washington told him to "gather your armies."
People need to step back and take a deep breath and realize that such vitriol could have unintended consequences when some unhinged individual hears it over & over & over again.
Alicia
Symbolism is one thing. Placing blame is quite another. Your Mr. Obama has said these things:
ReplyDelete"They bring a knife and we bring a gun."
" .. so I know whose ass to kick .."
"I'm itching for a fight."
"They are liars."
Maybe Jared Loughner used these fight words for motivation. Palin has never spoken of bringing a gun to a knife fight. So what prevents me from making the case that Obama is to blame?
Look, what you call "vitriolic" is everywhere. The very nature of political discussion often demands negative and critical remarks. Who is to judge what specific expression has gone over the line?
I can only repeat what I said earlier - show me where this kid was motivated by Sarah Palin. Anyone can "suppose" anything about this event but if this kid never participated in Palin's rhetoric (visiting her site or whatever), it cannot be charged that she was responsible to any degree.
And like I said, Liberals have killed far more people with their policies and physical acts than have been killed in all of modern warfare. Get your own house in order before you [all] start pointing fingers.
Your a fucking idiot. Of course it is crosshairs on the map. It was a bullseye target on the map when dems were going after republican states. It's pathetic to deny what it was meant to symbolize. Of course she, nor dems ever intend for someone to actually pick up a gun and kill someone, but the point is PALIN is just as guilty as the any dem with using violent rhetoric to stir up focus when working a campaign.
ReplyDeleteTalking like a slut doesn't score any points. The fact is I am not the only one who has made the case for "surveyor targets." But maybe your overloaded mouth has bagged up your eyes to the point that you cannot see straight.
ReplyDeleteHere is the point of my post. Pretending that Palin was a terrorist for creating her map (that is what was being said at the time) is stupid wrong.
Here is another point of truth: NO ONE is to blame for the shooting except the moron who fired the shots. There is no reason to believe he ever listened to Palin.
It is immoral to use this incident to further the Democrat Marxist agenda. but keep up the good work. No one who is listening to your side of the aisle make these stupid associations is impressed.
In fact, I say that if this kid responded to anything, it was Obama's remark, "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun." So drop dead on your rhetorical nonsense.
And, again, Palin has no more to do with this event than you do.
The readership should know that Leftist babes love talking like sailors. In fact, this is how the Left communicates. . . . . with a certain impassioned filth. It is typical to these intellectual misfits.
There is plenty of blame to go around, Obama and other have said some things they shouldn't have said, but in many of those cases, they apologized.
ReplyDeleteBut, the big difference in this case is that Sarah Palin's gun sight map from last year specifically targeted a member of Congress who was actually shot on Saturday. As I heard someone say tonight on TV, we have a history of political assassinations in this country so it's only natural for people to freak out about it.
The assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK are still fresh in some people's minds. Much more recently, President Reagan was nearly killed by a maniac intent on impressing a famous actress. A lady named Wilcox who sits on a board in AZ was shot in 1997. The shooter boldly admitted in court that he heard radio commentators say that she needed to be taken out, so he decided to do just that. So, such heated rhetoric can have very real consequences.
There have been dozens of other mass killings in the past few decades (the Amish school in PA, the VA Tech killings, the Columbine killings to name just a few examples). so, people will naturally kind of freak out about any new instance of mass murder: it seems to happen far too often in our country.
Even with our violent history of political assassinations and mass murder, Sarah Palin never apologized for the gun sight imagery. I think it's disgusting that her people are now engaging in "revisionist" history by claiming it was a surveyor's symbol when she tweeted in November that it was a bullseye.
What's wrong with just apologizing for the poor choice by saying something like this?:
"It was never our intent to incite or encourage violence and we are very sorry for the imagery that, particularly after Saturday's shooting, appears to have been a very poor choice on our part."
But, she can't admit she was wrong. Her supporters can't admit she was wrong.
Sharon Angle told Harry Reid repeatedly to "man up." So, why doesn't Sarah Palin just "man up" or "mama grizzly up" and admit that she made a poor choice? it would take the air out of a huge amount of that criticism if she just did that, but I don't think she has the cojones to do it.
You certainly don't see Democrats showing up at GOP town hall meetings packing guns. Only Tea Party and other right-wing types have been known to do that. In fact, just last year a gun-toting protester was ejected from one of Rep. Giffords town hall meetings when the gun he was carrying fell to the floor. Tea Party protesters even carry signs and wear shirts that threaten violence and they aren't shy about it. For example, you can still buy "Tea Party Rally" t-shirts online that declare: "we came unarmed (this time)."
I am definitely NOT saying that this kid was specifically motivated by that map. So far, there is no indication he was a Palin fan or that he ever even saw that map. There's also no indication that he's affiliated in any way with the Tea Party movement or other right-wing groups. What I am saying is that her bulls-eye map is one of the most egregious examples of the over-heated political rhetoric that has the POTENTIAL to incite violence in the mind of a deranged individual.
She should apologize for her poor choice but I know she never will.
Alicia
Wow, that misogynistic response certainly doesn't put your own point of view in a very positive light. Instead of sinking to such lows with "ad hominem" (or would that be "ad mulierum") attacks and insults, why not just argue your POV rationally and calmly.
ReplyDeleteWe might disagree, but there's no reason to be disagreeable.
Alicia
Alicia, again, she needs to apologize for nothing. What is going on here, is the Marxist Lefties using the incident to destroy Palin's candidacy before it gets off the ground.
ReplyDeleteA second strategy is to use this event to limit free political speech. You watch. Obama already does all that he can to circumvent congress. He no more believes in free political speech than does Al Sharpton.
So you don't buy the surveyor thingy. I don't buy the immoral effort to politicize this event. Absolutely disgraceful. Republicans would never do the same, in a similar case.
The fact is we are at war with each other. Those on the Left no longer care about the
Constitution and the other side think it is the center of the American political experience and should remain there.
Folks like me sat around and kept quiet up until about a year and a half ago. Our silence, our support of civility got us nowhere. And now, we are about to become a member of a world governance. I am not going there without a fight. Period.
We are way past arguing about priorities. We are now in a fight over a one world collectivism versus a nation founded on principle never put forward in our secular world.
Why the hell would the Democrats want to destroy her candidacy? A Palin nomination would guarantee a win for Obama: we'd love to take her on! Where can I sign on to help her out?
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't think we're in any danger of seeing her actually become the nominee because she is doing a very good job of destroying her own candidacy. She QUIT her job as governor. Americans don't like quitters. How is she going to spin that little fact into a successful presidential run?
And, Obama is circumventing Congress? Hardly.
One example was the repeal of DADT through legislation. There was such tremendous political pressure on him to use an executive order or his power as Commander and Chief of the military to stop enforcement of the law. He could have done that but that would have been wrong. The separation of powers set down in the Constitution say that the Legislative branch makes the law and the Executive Branch enforces it. If he had done what so many on the left advocated he do, he would have broken the law and violated the constitution. So, to his very great credit, he didn't do that.
I am of the "left" and I care very deeply about the constitution but, despite what many on the right say: they are the ones who want to rip it apart. They want to overturn the 14th amendment freeing the slaves and making people born in the US citizens. They want to go back to the State legislatures appointing US Senators. The whole reason that was stopped by an amendment to the constitution was because it encouraged so much corruption. You wanna go back to that? Some people on the right also give the 10th amendment as the basis for SECESSION (think of some of the things the Gov. of TX has said about that). Didn't we already fight that battle in the 1860s? The Union fought to keep the union together under the authority of the Constitution and it won that war, do you really wanna start another one?
Democrats are NOT Marxists and I am constantly perplexed by people who think they are.
There is no "world governance" in the works. Is that code for the "international Jewish conspiracy"? There is that fraudulent document that has fueled anti-semitic conspiracy theories for more than 100 years: I think it was called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." From what I understand, that fake document claims that the Jews will take over the world using the world financial system.
In 1985 in Peru, I met a guy who was literally a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party of Peru (Partido Nacional Socialista de Peru). He spoke about the "Protocols" and believed they were real. He also believed the Holocaust never happened. He called documented cases of torture and murder as "casos aislados de abuso" (isolated cases of abuse). I was horrified by his statements.
He also believed that the world was destined to be taken over by the merging of Capitalism and Communism. Marx and Adam Smith both came from the same "race" (i.e., Jewish) so those seemingly opposite political and economic systems were destined to unite and dominate the world using their economic and financial power.
Is that why people think Obama is both a Marxist AND a Nazi?(FYI: Nazis hated the Communists and vice versa)
You said: "I am not going down without a fight."
Are you literally going to take up arms against the government? If you disagree with Obama and his policies, join with 51% of your fellow Americans who vote and vote him out.
THAT is our nation's founding principal: the power of the people that they exercise at the ballot box.
Alicia
Understand that the point of my insulting rant is to drive home the reality that to blame conservative talk when there is absolutely no evidence of same is as wrong headed as my 'argument' above. Our side of the aisle is done with the Kieth Olbermann type rants. Done with it. And these liberal rants have been a part of the Left's rhetorical offering since we all were in college, back in the sixties.
ReplyDeleteYou all started this mess and folks like me will die trying to change things.
Know this: I was there . . . back in the sixties. I know who started all this negativity and it wasn't the conservative Boomers. PERIOD. They were busy fighting a war in Nam. It is was the ugly people, the druggies, the budding Marxist half of the Boomer generation -- you know, the tree huggers who threw bags of shit and bottles of urine at their soldier classmates.
On this blog, I often use the term "marxist" to frame the political opinion of the liberal half of the Boomer generation, those who are, now, in power. "I" (folks like me) attended college with these misfits and saw their reverence for the Marxist/Mao philosophies. What I am saying is this: those of us who are 58 to 65 years of age went to college with the current Leftist crop of leaders. We were there, with them. Look, I graduated in 1963 from a school in northern California. I wrestled and ran with the crowd who smoked and drank. If drugs had been in my school, I would have known. There were no drugs in my high school in '63. The every next year, marijuana came into that population.
There was none of this turmoil in the 50's. None. We (I) were there to witness the moment all this Marxist nonsense began . . . . the very moment. We thought it would pass but it didn't and it took until now to realize that these misfits had sobered up on their way to controlling virtually everything that is important to us.
The really bad news is this: this bunch of liberals, crap throwing jerks, reproduced.
So here we are. And "they" started it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . and will not stop. And their kids are just as screwed up as their parents. Me and my kids? Doctors, nurses, lawyers and business owners.
See ya after the war is over !!
PS. Alica - get the notion of armed conflict out of your head. No one is talking about that. I am a TEA party activist and have been voting all my life. And look where we are? In bed with a Marxist One Worlder. Obama is no Nazi but he is a Black Liberationist and Marxist in his philosophical roots.
The fact that you deny the "one world" aspect of the Obama agenda is rather disturbing. Obama has already moved this country into the One World court. Look up Maria Otero or Obama's submission to the UN review of terrorism and social abuse within our country. Why make such a submission if he does not intend to live by the rules of a larger world governance? You are just being silly in your denial. Again, we are already there. Already.
Maria Otero is proof of the "One World" conspiracy theory? That's rich.
ReplyDeleteI googled her and found out that she's the Under Secretary of State for Democracy. She has also been very active in promoting "microfinance" programs. Those are a great way to promote small, women-run businesses in poor countries. How that works is this: make a small loan of $100 or less to a poor woman. She will use that money to buy the goods she needs to start her own business such as making clothes or doing other handi-crafts in her home. She sells those goods which earns her a steady income that will lift her family out of poverty and provide a better life for her children.
"Micro" loans of that sort have nearly 100% repayment rate. By giving those poor women the means to lift themselves out of poverty, those loans not only help her and her family, they can help stimulate the local economy as well which helps others around her get out of poverty. Ladies who get these loans also tend to space out their pregnancies more. So, as a result they have fewer, much healthier children who have a better chance at getting a good education because their mother is better able to feed & clothe them and provide school materials.
I would think Tea Party people would LOVE programs like that: a microloan given to a poor woman that helps her become a small business woman and raise fewer, healthier children? She even repays the loan with interest. It's a win/win.
So: she sounds like a very good person to me if she's in favor of programs like that.
I googled that UN Human Rights report. Apparently, the Human Rights records of ALL countries are going to be reviewed. Member countries were invited to submit a report on their own Human Rights record. So, the Obama administration did submit a report on the current status of human rights in the U.S.
I didn't find any indication at all that submitting this report means the US is actually submitting itself to UN or international law. Any recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Council are non-binding. Main stream media did report on the administration submitting the Human Rights report, but the right wing blog-o-sphere is the only place where people are still obsessing over it and they have completely distorted what that report is all about.
In my opinion, the ugliness of the radical left in the 1960s seems to have moved over to the radical right in the 2000s. To give a recent example, one person actually posted a comment on Sarah Palin's FB page stating it was good that 9 year old kid got killed on Saturday, otherwise she might have grown up to become a liberal. Sarah's staff is reportedly very quick to remove all comments that are critical of the former Gov, but they let that one stand.
It doesn't get any uglier than that.
Alicia
John Smithson is a jack-ass.
ReplyDeleteYou are one of the people I would be afraid of if ever allowed to own a gun, microphone and soap box. Oh wait you probably own all three. Your ignorance of facts is appalling Go Get An Education, try to use some careful analysis and thoughtful reason before posting your ignorance all over the place. But wait you will tell me it is your First Amendment right, right?!?! And as far as millions of babies are concerned, the GOP would like to take away the very services that help those millions of babies survive, flourish and thrive in the world, yet you want millions of babies to be left with out health care and a decent education. What, so they can grow up to become the very criminals you see on the news? OR better yet just as ignorant and stupid as you?
ReplyDeleteAlicia - I am going to take some time and answer your objections, at least the ones that need a response in my opinion. Understand that I edit more than one blog. Most of my articles are original in terms of content and it takes time to write such. Plus I actually have a life away from the blog. Time is not my friend. I would be interested in your opinions as to my response. I will come back to this particular location let you know where to find my response.
ReplyDeleteAs for the immediate above post, in fact I own all three. You don't ?? My gun is a short barrel (legal) 12 gauge shotgun designed for personal defense. Sneak into my home late at night and you are leaving on a stretcher. Something wrong with that? What is great is that I am an ex-pastor so I can pray over your ignorant butt after I shoot you. Cook.
You speak of what I want without having a clue as to what I, personally, believe. The notion that we should continue to murder 1.3 million unborn babies a year to keep them from becoming criminals is rather disturbing.
The fact is this: no one in either party is doing a stinking thing about the at-risk kids in this country. Our foster system is a joke, and the Obama government is refusing to cooperate with faith based entities unless they agree to be governed by his rules of conduct.
Factual ignorance, you say? Exactly what, Mr I am afraid to give my name?
for my "jackass" opponent, actually you are right. My response is this: so what? Aren't we all?
for Alicia -- Part I: It is your latest post above this response that I intend to spend time answering. You have probably moved on but my readers will be interested. I stand by my comments. You will see that my defense is rather straight forward.
ReplyDeleteYour second post above, the one that starts with "What the hell . . . " is the subject of this response.
The fact that you do not know that destruction of featured opponents is the way the Dems work tells me just how much of a novice you are. They have been doing this during every election cycle since I became an adult participant, back in the mid-sixties.
Specially, the Dems are concerned about Palin. Look at her growth as a political figure. She has come from nowhere more than 17 years ago, to where she is today. If you think she is not powerful, well, you are just not reading the news. Bias will get you nowhere, my dear, and bias is the only thing going on regarding you opinion of Palin's candidacy. Understand that Obama took in 3/4 of a billion dollars to win an election by just 7% of the vote.
Palin did not quit her job as Govenor. She was forced out. The Dems, the Marxist Dems strategy was to file as many nonsense lawsuits as time permitted, forcing her to defend against each. At the time she resigned, there were 18 nuisance law suits. She owed 1/2 a million in lawyer fees on her way to 2 million and the loss of her home. Maybe you can afford that, but she couldn't. It is just plain drivel to drive her in extreme debt and then criticize her for having to deal with the problem.
Obama circumventing congress? Again, the fact that you don't know this reveals you as a rather uninformed partisan.
Here are a few examples:
Obama couldn't get the beginnings of his Fairness Doctrine through congress so he is using FCC regulations to do so, circumventing congress.
He couldn't get his Cap and Trade legislation passed through congress, so he is using the EPA to get the job done.
He couldn't get his general and massive political agenda --- the part about fundamentally changing the United States of America -- done without a massive staff, so he added nearly 50 czars, avoiding the approval process of congress and protecting them (the czars) from subpoena because of the designation of "staff." Bush had 16, Clinton had 9 and Bush 41 had one.
And Maria Otero is part of this collective. But don't get all bunched up about Otero. Rather, it is Elizabeth Warren that is the problem. Another of Obama's czars.
Alicia Part II
ReplyDeleteThe move toward a one world politic is well under way. But I will save that for the next post.
His takeover of GM was never approved by congress. Funneling billions to GM this past January was done without the approval of anyone.
Saving ACORN was done without the knowledge or consent of congress.
Fixing the incomes of CEO's and corporate executives is being done outside the oversight of congress.
Using the Department of the Interior to shut down oil discovery or securing drilling permits is an avoidance of congressional controls.
Ditto the shutting down of the coal industry via the permit process.
Using the unwritten portions of the FinReg legislation to control banking at the highest levels is the work of one who cares nothing for free market principles and the balance of powers.
The current crop of Democrat leadership is Marxist. I went to college with this pot smoking pinheads. After college, I went to work and they became academics and politicians. Once a Marxist, always a Marxist.
Let's talk "constitution." No one I know wants to change the 14th. Sure, there is an effort in this regard, but it has no conservative support. period.
What about the 10th amendment, Alicia? Your kind has no place for the amendment and have used the intercommerce clause to totally destroy the 10th. If the courts do not put down ObamaCare, the 10th is dead and you all did it.
Next in line? The first amendment. It is your Marxist buds who want to do to conservative talk radio what Chavez is doing in Venezuela.
Then, we have that pesky old 2nd amendment. You will argue that it is talking about guns owned by militia. And, of course, every time a militia raises it ugly head, you bunch of peacenik freaks go after them. In the end, they are quietly given their guns back and life goes on. There will be no surrender of guns in the homes of conservative Patriots but the destruction of the 2nd amendment is a part of the Democrat long term strategy.
Crap! I had spent some time crafting a response, but it got lost in cyber space...
ReplyDeleteI'm tired and going to bed. I may or may not be back to try to recreate my response.
Alicia
The one on the right resembles a survey symbol (see USGS).
ReplyDeleteThe ones on the left resemble ring and crosshair sights.
Exactly but the real point is that Palin is neither a terrorist nor complicit in the Arizona shootings.
ReplyDeleteI think the real culprits are Chuck Schumer and John Kerry.
Hey, if you Libs can make up crap, so can I.
Have a nice day.
I just love how you love to paint all "libs" as marxist, socialists or whatever. Do you really think that all non-Tea Party types are that monolithic a force? We are no more monolithic than the Tea Party and the GOP. I mean, it sure doesn't look like you guys are all on the same page, does it? The Democrats didn't come up with the acronym RINO with which many people in the GOP demonized each other during the last election (Republican in Name Only).
ReplyDeletePeople who demonize their political opponents like that encourage the hate speech and spiteful rhetoric and could even be encouraging the violence. I mean, isn't it easier to hate someone you think is evil or immoral? Isn't it harder to "work across the aisle" with someone you believe is evil? Obviously, no one but that maniac was behind what happened in Tuscon, but you gotta admit that the hate and vitriol spewed these days really makes it hard to work together to make this country a better place.
That kind of demonizing has been used, very effectively, by many, many people through the centuries and it disgusts me that people are still doing it.
In the 60s and 70s, it was leftist extremists calling soldiers returning from Viet Nam "baby killers." Now, it's right wing extremists calling liberals Marxists and socialists and traitors and haters of the constitution.
You have repeatedly commented about all the hate that came from the left when you were young. But, instead of moving beyond that and being better than that, you spew your own brand of hatred against those you disagree with politically.
Good God, how can you do the same to others that was done to you? All in the name of what? Patriotism? You think because I don't love Sarah Palin and GW Bush, that I am not a patriot? You think because I think Barack Obama is a good president that I am a traitor to my country? I'm not any of those things.
I love this country. I think the Constitution is quite possibly the greatest document written by man. As great as this country is, I know this country can be an even better place to live. We just happen to disagree how to make it better.
Even Dick "I voted in favor of legalizing plastic guns" Cheney said in an interview released today that some reasonable controls on the size of hand gun magazines might be a good idea. If even Mr. "I never met a gun I didn't like" Cheney can change his mind about part of the expired assault weapons bill, then maybe there is hope that both sides can actually stop demonizing each other and start working together to make this country a better and SAFER place to live.
Alicia
PS: I really hate the blogging software your blog uses. I have lost multiple responses to cyber space because of an error that says the URL of that crosshairs graphic is too long. I will copy the text into notepad in case it happens again.
I was a Democrat until after Jimmy Carter. The leadership of the Democrat Party is clearly Marxist in its orientation. Check out the Congressional Black Caucus and its praise of Fidel Castro.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that it is your side that paints conservatives as stupid, non-thinking boobs. I am 65 and sat on the sidelines watching you all feed the world that kind of crap. Look what you have done to Palin and Bush and on and on. And now, when folks like me have decided to get off our butts and use your tactics, you bitch and whine about it. Get used to it. For the first time since the sixties, you bunch of Marxist jerks are getting it all thrown back in your face. I went to college with the current ruling class. They were proudly Marxist, back in our collegiate days.
If you love this country so damn much, do something to change the leadership in your party. There is a big difference between an Evan Bayh and a Chuckie Schumer or a Barack Obama. all three are liberals, seeking collectivist solutions to many of the nation's problems. But Schumer and Obama are One World Socialist who are all about the fundamental transformation of this country. Those are their words, btw.
You might read our recent article on Obama's intentions here : http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/bush-forced-to-cancel-plans-to-avoid.html
or, tell the readership what Michelle Obama meant with these words (May of 2008) --- "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
Or, tell us all, Mr. Anonymous, what in the world this fellow in our White House means with this statement: July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Go ahead and tell us what the hell that means.
Heck, you can't even tell us what he meant when he spoke of being ". . . . five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," just before the 2008 elections.
Alicia is a typical arrogant liberal Ignorant who has no clue but deals with her ignorance in the most condescending of manner. That is how the current crop of liberals deal with issues when, in fact, they have no clue.
Forget about crosshairs... I've got a better idea... Hey, you know I had a great time reading Mr. Smithson's comments... while I was taking a shit on Sarah's face!
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the very liberal "Anonymous," typifies the Marxist approach to political exchange. She can't converse on the issues so she is left with nothing but 6th grade intercity filth.
ReplyDelete