Democrats Worry New Laws Threaten their Illiterate, Illegal, Dead Voting Base

Democrats Worry New Laws Threaten their Illiterate, Illegal, Dead
Voting Base

June 2nd, 2011

Danny Tyree, FloydReports.com

According to Newsmax, Republican-controlled state legislatures nationwide are
stiffening voting laws with changes that include requiring valid photo
identification, restricting early voting and imposing stricter rules on those
who can register to vote.

Republicans assert that the changes are to ensure voters are qualified.
Democrats counter that the changes are politically motivated and aimed at
discouraging young and minority voters – many of whom comprise the party’s
base.

Reading between the lines, the Democratic argument boils down to “Many of the
people with whom our message resonates most strongly are too lazy, uninformed, or
muddle-headed to get out and vote
. NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH
THAT.”

Yes, the Democrats have learned to steal the thunder of the GOP’s patented
patriotism angle. (“Our military personnel bled and died that we might have our
freedoms. And now the heartless Republicans expect our citizens to get off their
couches and vote in a narrow one-week window…Uh, maybe I’d better just stop
talking.”)

The Democrats insist that the Republicans are….

Read
more
.

The top five liberal hate groups

The top five liberal hate groups


.

While the Left loves to accuse the Tea Party and Conservatives to be members of hate groups, the simple fact is, there are a lot of liberal hate groups.  We could not let 2010 go into the books without presenting our top five liberal hate groups.

5.              NAACP.   The number five group has to be the NAACP.  Earlier this year, the NAACP released a report called Tea Party Nationalism.  The report, which was hilariously inaccurate, tried to claim the Tea Party was a racist group.  The NAACP, and its members have repeatedly made claims such as calling the Tea Party the 21st Century version of the KKK.  Shelia Jackson Lee, who is the NAACP resident hate monger, stated at the NAACP convention, “all of those who wore sheets a long time ago have taken them off and wear Tea Party clothing.”  The NAACP has never repudiated her attacks or any of their other silly attacks.    To the NAACP, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a racist.   The NAACP is the number five liberal hate group.

4.            SEIU.   Andrew Stern, the former President of the Service Employees International Union famously said, “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that does not work, we will use the persuasion of power.”  SEIU is a group that has not been shy in using violence against companies who refused their efforts to unionize and have not been shy about using violence against Tea Party members.   In August 2009, SEIU thugs beat St. Louis Tea Party Member Kenneth Gladney.   In March 2010, a major Tea Party event occurred in Searchlight Nevada.  SEIU thugs came in and tried to cause violence against Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.   The SEIU is Number 4 on our liberal hate group list.

3.            ACLU.  The ACLU can be called a hate group with a law license.  A lot of law licenses.  If you hate America, the ACLU loves you and if you love America, the ACLU hates you.  They have sued to eliminate any reference to the Christian religion by schools or the government.  They have no problem with Islamists.  They have provided representation to terrorists at GITMO.  Their litigation strategy has been to reveal as many American secrets as possible.   ACLU chapters across the country have sent out letters to school boards this holiday season telling them what they can and cannot do in regard to school Christmas celebrations (who elected the ACLU?).   And of course the ACLU is famous for its litigation.  It has either sued and been awarded attorney’s fees or extorted settlements from small cities, counties and school boards afraid of being bankrupted by their obscene fees.  The ACLU is the number three liberal hate group.

2.            The Department of Homeland Security.  DHS has become something of a joke.  A bad joke.  DHS will not enforce border security.  It makes Americans go through a joke of a security system when they want to fly.   It invades their privacy while not going after terrorists.   And then of course, there is the infamous report where DHS ignored pressing issues like illegal immigration and Islamic terror to put out a report warning about terror from “right wing extremists.”  The DHS Clown in Chief, Janet Napolitano borrowed a page from the Clinton administration to try and demonize conservatives with this idiotic report.  The report was of course denounced by all concerned, but has never been repudiated.  As late as September of this year, Tea Party activists were added to the Homeland Security list of terror threats.  All of this is silly political posturing from the most corrupt regime in the history of this country.  And for that, the Department of Homeland Security is our number two liberal hate group.

1.            SPLC.   Of course, we could not complete this list without the Southern Poverty Law Center.  This group has made a cottage industry labeling any group to the right of Karl Marx a hate group.  Since the start of the Tea Party movement almost two years ago, the SPLC, or as it is more accurately called, the Church of Morris Dees.    Morris Dees is the founder of the SPLC.  He has made a name for himself for calling out Klansmen and skinheads, but then turns around and lumps anyone who disagrees with his far left agenda in the same groupings at the Klan or neo-Nazis.   Earlier this year, the SPLC released a report claiming “right wing extremists” were on the rise.  Their definition of right wing extremists was anyone who was concerned about the economy, out of control spending, illegal immigration or the insane rise of liberal nut groups as someone akin to the Branch Dividians.    More recently, the SPLC smeared as hate groups, respectable groups such as the Family Research Center, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel and others as hate groups for opposing repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Homosexual Marriage.   That makes the SPLC our number one liberal hate group.

INSANE! Reid: ‘But for Me, We’d be in World-Wide Depression.’

Senator Harry Reid boldly states that he is the savior of the world economy.   He is clearly frustrated that voters are not more appreciative of what’s he’s done for them.

Where would the world be without Harry Reid?
That’s The Question the World Needs To Ask, That’s right folks, according to Harry Reid, he alone saved us all from a world wide depression.
What Cave As He Been Living In? Is H. Reid totally Senile?
Please watch the interview and you decide.

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/reid-but-for-me-wed-be-in-world-wide-depression/

Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out! It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out!

America Speaks Out!
 Yesterday at 10:34am
Here’s a great forum for those who believe it’s time to stand up and be heard! From the tea party movement to the town halls, we’ve seen Americans rise up and make their voices heard. From the bailouts to the wasteful stimulus spending bill to the $2.5 trillion health care take over, Washington stopped listening to us average everyday hardworking Americans… so we’re doing something about that.

Today a new website was launched to change the situation!

Led by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new project is now launched called “America Speaking Out” which is aimed at giving us a direct role in putting together a new policy agenda for our country based on the principles of smaller, more accountable government.

Check out the website at http://www.americaspeakingout.com/ and make your voices heard.

It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

– Sarah Palin

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

October 27, 2008 · 23 Comments

I cannot even believe this.  First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places.  Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section.  Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

 And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution.  This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point.  Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away.  It is not a document of “negative liberties”.  The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.  Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.  And the courts are not meant to be radical.  Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges.  And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”  It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”.  This is everything!  The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom.  What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live.  Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler.  They’ve got the wrong man.

Obama’s invisible Islam–Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam

Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression “radical Islam.” The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents – the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt – “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam.”

Mr. Holder said there are a “variety of reasons” why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That’s fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, “some of them are potentially religious.” Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad.”

Mr. Holder mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric now holed up in Yemen who has been mentioned in connection with all three attacks. Mr. Holder said that Mr. al-Awlaki “has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of [the faith].” Mr. Holder did not go into details to back up his assertion that Mr. al-Awlaki, an Islamic scholar, is somehow at odds with his own faith, nor did he pinpoint exactly what Muslim teachings he was referring to.

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Boehner: ‘At least 100 seats’ are in play…

Boehner: GOP Will Repeal Health Care Law

by NPR Staff

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Enlarge Haraz N. Ghanbari/APHouse Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says his party will enact common-sense steps to lower the cost of health care if his party wins the majority in November’s midterm election.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Haraz N. Ghanbari/APHouse Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says his party will enact common-sense steps to lower the cost of health care if his party wins the majority in November’s midterm election.

text size A A A

April 30, 2010

House Republican Leader John Boehner has said that his party will repeal the new health care law if the GOP gains a congressional majority in November.

“I think that we need to repeal the health care law and replace it with common-sense steps that will lower the cost of health insurance in America,” Boehner (R-OH) tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

Boehner and the Republicans are hoping for a repeat of 1994, when the GOP swept the midterm elections. He says the party is engaging with the public to develop the agenda it will enact if it secures a majority in November.

The party that controls the White House typically loses House seats during midterm elections, and Democrats are bracing for losses: 37 governorships, 36 Senate seats and the entire 435-member House are at stake.

Boehner says he’s optimistic about his party’s prospects, citing public anger over spending and debt. He says he believes “at least 100 seats” are in play.

“If [Republican Sen.] Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, there isn’t a seat in America the Republicans can’t win,” Boehner says. “What we’re seeing every day is the playing field widen, widen beyond anything we’ve seen around here during my 20 years.”

But Republicans face criticism that much of their time in the minority has been spent opposing Democratic proposals. Boehner rejects that charge, saying his party offered ideas on the stimulus bill, the budget and health care.

“If you look over the course of the last 16 months, every time we’ve had to oppose our Democrat colleagues, we’ve offered what we thought was a better solution,” he says.