I am confused. . .

Archive for May, 2014

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Has One Piece Of Advice For Fixing The GOP

By Caroline Schaeffer

Speaking before the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on Thursday, Duck Dynasty’s patriarch Phil Robertson offered one piece of advice for turning around the Republican Party: “Get Godly.”

Robertson’s speech centered around religion in politics, according to Politico. He referenced prayers written by John Adams and George Washington and the resolution passed by both houses of Congress in 1983 which designated that year as the national year of the Bible.

He said that the current version of the separation of church and state is a lie. He called the White House “evil and wicked” and “downright embarrassing.”

And the patriarch had one particular thing to say about who should lead our nation.

via Politico:

“You can’t be right for America if you’re wrong with God.”

Regardless of whether many agree with his advice, his comments on who should lead the nation echoed a sentiment shared by a large majority of Americans polled, who, by a margin of 95%-5% said they would not vote for an Atheist for president.

The left uses Santa Barbara massacre for political purposes.

  • Posted by Judson Phillips on May 25, 2014 at 6:06am in Tea Party Nation Forum

    Six people died in the massacre that happened Friday in Santa Barbara. 

    The left has been quick to jump on this to use it for political purposes.  Even a grieving father of one of the victims jumped out to use his son’s tragedy to advance his political agenda.

    But if you listen to the drive by media, all you would probably hear is the usual narrative that guns are bad.

    There is a story behind the story.

    What is it?

    22 year old Elliot Rodgers killed six people Friday. Rodgers was crazy.  Like many of the other perpetrators of violent mass murders he watched violent video games.  So far no word about whether he was on anti-psychotic drugs, which is another common factor of so many of these crimes.

    There is also no word on his politics, though his family’s politics appear to be decidedly left of center.  His father immediately vowed to fight for gun control.

    America would be better off if he fought for control of spoiled, rich liberal kids.

    The meme here is that Elliot Rodgers went out and killed all of these people with guns.  That is not true.  Of the six who were killed, three of them were stabbed to death.  For liberals, that means a knife was used.  Of the 13 injured, a number were shot, but at least two were run down with his car.

    There are two other factors to consider.  These crimes occurred in an area with draconian gun control laws and as with most of these incidents, it ended with the killer killing himself.

    Richard Martinez is the father of one of the victims who wasted no time in using his son’s murder for political purposes.  He immediately wailed to a sympathetic media.  He said, “Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights, what about Chris’ right to live? When will this insanity stop?”

    The insanity will stop when liberals like you quit infringing on the rights of real Americans to carry weapons.

    What would have happened had this been in Texas or Arizona or some other state where the 2nd Amendment is respected and practiced?

    It would not have helped the men he stabbed to death in his own apartment.  But the moment he opened fire in the public, odds are there would be a couple of citizens with their own guns who could fire back, defend themselves and other citizens.

    Rodgers encountered the police twice during his rampage. The first time, he exchanged gunfire with a police officer who could not stop him.  He continued his rampage until more police officers were eventually able to stop him.

    Rodgers rampage shows that someone who wants to kill people will use anything at their disposal. Rodgers used guns, knives and a car to injure and kill.

    The real story here is what happens when you have a madman in the middle of a defenseless people.

    That is the story you will not hear from the drive by media or the wailing liberal relatives who are using their tragedy for political purposes.

  • The Liberal Conundrum

  • Posted by Hal Davidson on May 19, 2014 at 1:14pm

    Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

    1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.

    2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.

    3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.

    4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.

    5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only   dream about.

    6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

    Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century.

    Makes you wonder who is doing the math.

    These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

    1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works.

    And here’s another one worth considering…

    2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.  Think about it…..

    Last but not least,

    3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

    Am I the only one missing something?

  • Goodbye Chipotle

  • Posted by Judson Phillips on May 20, 2014 at 6:58am in Tea Party Nation Forum

    Yesterday, my family did something unusual.  We ate out.

    We usually don’t eat out because if you look at the calorie count on most restaurant menus, you understand why America is fat.

    Where did we go to eat and more importantly why?

    We went to Chipotle.

    Chipotle had stood up to the insane left wing, George Soros funded group, Moms demand action.  Actually that group should properly be named, liberals demand tyranny.

    Chipotle had been 2nd Amendment friendly.  Four days ago, a photo went viral on the Internet showing a couple of patrons of a Chipotle in Texas, lawfully carrying their weapons. 

    Moms for tyranny and failed liberal policies went into hysterical meltdown.  How dare Chipotle allow citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights?

    Of course, if the liberal nutjobs at Moms for making Americans victims had bothered to do their research, they would know the men with rifles in Chipotle were not a threat to them.

    Every shooter in a mass shooting in recent memory has been a leftist.

    Meanwhile, Chipotle showed the courage typical of modern American corporations and modern American business executives.

    They capitulated to the left.

    Late yesterday, Chipotle issued a statement that said, “The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers.”

    Perhaps Chipotle would be happier with an environment like they have in Chicago, Detroit or the District of Columbia where its customers have another name.  They are called victims.

    Since Chicago imposed draconian gun control laws, gun violence has skyrocketed because criminals know victims will be unarmed. 

    Chipotle has gone wimpy and surrendered to the gun control lunatics. 

    Chipotle has lost my business.  If you agree, share this article with a friend. Let’s show Chipotle the power of real Americans who demand our rights be honored.

  • Today’s College Motto: Shut Up Already

    Debra J. Saunders – May 15, 2014

    First the censorious left went after Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born critic of Islam’s treatment of women, after Brandeis University had invited her to receive an honorary degree. Bowing to political correctness, Brandeis rescinded the invitation.

    Then the academic mob went after Rutgers’ choice for commencement speaker, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She withdrew. Next, student activists went after International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde — because the IMF is “a primary culprit” in economies of “the world’s poorest countries” — and she bowed out of a speech at Smith College.

    On Tuesday, former University of California, Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau became the latest public figure to wave the white flag. Haverford College had invited him to speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree. A group of students and professors protested on the grounds that Birgeneau had allowed UC police to use “force” to break up a disruptive Occupy demonstration in 2011. They issued a list of demands, including that he apologize, support “reparations” for protesters and write a letter about all the bad things he had done.

    Who needs censorship when protest alone can silence speakers who in any way deviate from the left’s radical agenda?

    Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, calls this the “disinvitation season.” Campus protests against establishment speakers may be old school. Today’s students believe less in free speech than in their perceived right not to be offended.

    The “disinvitation season” is moving in an ominous direction. The left sees Hirsi Ali, though a feminist, as a creature of the right because she challenges radical Islam. When she didn’t back down, Brandeis did.

    I understand why Rice withdrew. Protests would have turned what should be a celebration into a rehashing of the Bush weapons of mass destruction claims. Figure Lagarde has serious economic issues to tackle, so why should she bother with thin-skinned, lightweight critics?

    In Birgeneau’s case, the left is eating its own. He was a vocal supporter of racial preferences in university admissions. In 2010, when hunger-striking students demanded that their chancellor denounce an Arizona law that allowed police to question suspects about their immigration status, he wrote that the law “horrified” him. He did not give in to all the activists’ demands — he didn’t rehire laid-off janitors — but he agreed to meet and to include UC employees in a task force on the undocumented.

    In response to the Haverford protest, Birgeneau issued this statement: “First, I have never and will never respond to lists of demands. Second, as a long time civil rights activist and firm supporter of non-violence, I do not respond to untruthful, violent verbal attacks.”

    Actually, Birgeneau has given in to student demands. I guess he forgot. Lukianoff is baffled by Birgeneau’s assertion that students’ verbal attacks are “violent.” In those two sentences, Birgeneau displays the same mastery of sophistry as the students who demanded that he show “leadership” by caving in to their demands.

    They won. Birgeneau now is a leader at surrendering. A former chancellor, he should have fought for the free exchange of ideas; instead, he tossed the keys of the library to the book burners.

    Death Penalty Opponents, Have I Got a Deal For You!

    Ann Coulter – May 14, 2014

    As described in last week’s column, The New York Times and other sanctimonious news outlets censored details about the crime that put Clayton Lockett on death row, the better to generate revulsion at his deserved execution. You might say they buried the facts alive.

    For example, the Times neglected to mention anything about the raping that preceded the murdering, which seems odd for a newspaper so consumed with the “War on Women.” (At least Lockett never refused to pay for a woman’s birth control pills!)

    The Times also dropped the part about Lockett’s dangerous behavior while incarcerated, such as ordering hits on the witnesses against him, his threats to kill prison guards, and the bounty of homemade weapons seized from him in prison — saw blades, sharpened wires, shivs and shanks. (Old Times motto: “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” New Times motto: “Nobody Likes a Rat.”)

    The newspaper also failed to report that Lockett had ended up in an adult prison by the age of 16 and then was convicted of four more felonies before committing the torture-murder of Stephanie Neiman that sent him to death row.

    No, that information might distract from the Times’ florid descriptions of Lockett’s execution.

    Bless their hearts, they gave it their all, but even the Times could not make Lockett’s “botched” execution sound particularly grisly. Here is the paper’s full, terrifying description:

    “According to an eyewitness account by a reporter for The Tulsa World, Mr. Lockett tried to raise himself up, mumbled the word ‘man,’ and was in obvious pain. Officials hastily closed the blinds on the chamber and told reporters that the execution had been stopped because of a ‘vein failure.’ But at 7:06, the inmate was pronounced dead of a heart attack.”

    HE RAISED HIMSELF UP? WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ARE WE???

    Actually, I’m not that horrified. It sounds as if he suffered a bit, which is nice, and he’s dead, which was the objective of the whole enterprise.

    You want horrifying? Imagine a 2-inch baby being chopped up with scissors. That can’t feel great.

    Maybe they — and MSNBC’s similarly high-minded Rachel Maddow — should comfort themselves by thinking of Lockett’s execution as a very, very, very late-term abortion. You know, the kind that liberal darling Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours to keep legal.

    Since Rachel and the Times are such big fans of partial-birth abortion, would they mind if we took a gigantic pair of scissors, jammed them in the back of Clayton Lockett’s head and let his brain slide out? Let’s get Kermit Gosnell working again!

    Or how about giving the citizens of Oklahoma the right to choose an acid bath for condemned murderers? We’ll submerge people like Lockett in a tub filled with burning fluid until he’s mostly disintegrated and can be flushed down the toilet. (If it’s low-flow, flush twice.)

    Or maybe an industrial vacuum designed to tear Lockett’s body apart.

    Which reminds me: Would the Times ever give as detailed a description of an abortion as it does for the execution of a remorseless killer? The odds are pretty high that the baby isn’t even a rapist/murderer.

    Opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with compassion. Liberals weeping for murderers have zero compassion for an innocent baby trying to escape an abortionist’s cranioclast. Their dead earnestness about monsters like Clayton Lockett is solely designed to demonstrate how virtuous they are.

    It will come as a surprise to the sort of person who works at the Times, but there are lots of people who don’t go through life trying to prove they’re better than everyone else. They don’t think to themselves: Listen to NPR? Check. Got the kids into a fancy preschool? Check. Now, what’s that little extra for experts? … Defend depraved murderers! Check!

    Manifestly, these death penalty hysterics do not care about the victims of crime. But they don’t really care about the killers, either. Their only objective is to increase their self-esteem.

    This is why liberal arguments against the death penalty are always circular. It’s not about logic; it’s about their conception of themselves.

    U.S. pharmaceutical companies won’t sell lethal injection drugs to the states because they don’t want to be sued and harassed by anti-death penalty activists. European pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell the drugs to the U.S. because they’re so deeply committed to human rights — as we saw around the middle of the last century.

    Then they all turn around and complain when crummy substitutes fail to produce nice, peaceful exits for heinous murderers. (You know — like they gave their victims.)

    It’s exactly like the left’s complaint that the death penalty “costs too much.”

    Q: Why is it so expensive?

    A: Because we sue, drag the cases out forever with endless appeals and require states to spend millions of dollars on legal costs.

    How about we cut the Euros and lefty activists out of the execution process altogether with a voluntary firing squad? It’s quick, it’s effective and the whole community gets to participate!

    The state could run ads in newspapers giving detailed accounts of the condemned man’s crime — all that stuff The New York Times frantically hides from its readers — and then ask: “Would you be interested in being assigned to his firing squad?”

    The Supreme Court has defined “cruel and unusual punishment” as something that offends society’s “evolving sense of decency.” When we see how many people volunteer for the firing squad, we’ll at least have a back-of-the-envelope estimate on whether society’s “evolving sense of decency” is more offended by the death of Clayton Lockett or that of Stephanie Neiman.

    I know I’d volunteer. Having read the truth about what psychopaths like Clayton Lockett have done, I’d pay for the opportunity, especially if they promise my gun won’t have a blank.

    How Can the GOP Win the Whitehouse?

    By growing a set of balls and standing up for their values and beliefs instead of constantly giving in to the Liberal/Socialists

    and the media.   My family for instance will not be voting unless someone as strong as Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz is running –

    why bother if we end up with pretty much the same thing anyway.

    Tag Cloud