Once again the Liberal media lies about those who do not support Obama

This is getting to be about the stupidest bunch of nonsense, that I have ever heard in my entire life.

It now seems that the Communist News Network, also known as CNN is now trying to trump up the possibility of President Obama being assassinated, and in the process smeared David Duke.

Via CNN:

Hate crimes experts and law enforcement officials are closely watching white supremacists across the country as Barack Obama prepares next week to be sworn in as the first black president of the United States.
So far, there is no known organized effort to express opposition to Obama’s rise to the presidency other than a call by the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for its members to wear black armbands as well as fly the U.S. flag upside down on Inauguration Day and Obama’s first full day in office.
As Tuesday approaches, when Obama stands outside the Capitol to take the oath of office, experts expect anger about the new president to spike. But they don’t expect it to go away.
“The level of vitriol, I expect, will go up a bit more around inauguration time,” said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.
There “is concern” about white supremacist groups during the inauguration, said Joe Persichini, the assistant FBI director who is helping to oversee security during the inauguration. What might the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. have said? »
The inauguration of the nation’s first minority president increases any potential threat, “particularly stemming from individuals on the extremist fringe of the white supremacist movement,” said a recent intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.
But law enforcement has the appropriate resources to respond if needed, Persichini said.
“We have seen a lot of chatter,” Persichini said. “We have seen a lot of discussions. We have seen some information via the Internet. But those are discussions. We look at the vulnerabilities and whether or not the groups are taking action.
“You have freedom of speech,” he added. “Anyone in this nation can have a discussion about their beliefs, but we are concerned about whether or not they take that freedom of speech and exercise some act that is against the law.”
Anger, violence and interest in racist ideology did increase in the hours and days after Obama was elected president in November, hate groups experts said.
Three New York men were indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights — accused of targeting and attacking African-Americans in a brutal crime spree soon after Obama was declared the winner on November 4.
And interest in racist ideology was so high right after the election that computer servers for two White supremacist Web sites crashed, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
But the violence and interest soon subsided. Leaders within the white supremacist movement are now seeking to capitalize on Obama’s presidency by using his election to help grow their organizations.
“President-elect Obama is going to be the spark that arouses the ‘white movement,’ ” reads a posting on the National Socialist Movement Web site. “Obama’s win is our win. We should all be happy of this event.”
In an interview posted on his Web site on election night, former Louisiana state Rep. David Duke said Obama’s election “is good in one sense — that it is making white people clear of the fact that that government in Washington, D.C., is not our government.”
“We are beginning to learn and realize our positioning,” Duke, a prominent white supremacist, later said in the election night recording. “And our position is that we have got to stand up and fight now.”
Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, said the leaders of these groups are frustrated by Obama’s win.
“I think the hate groups are desperately looking for a silver lining in a very dark cloud for them,” Potok said.
While experts said it is difficult to determine how many people belong to hate groups, they do agree with an SPLC estimate that claims there are about 900 operating now, a 40 percent increase from 2000. The vast majority of these groups promote white supremacist beliefs, and range from skinheads living in urban areas to the KKK ,which is based largely in rural settings.
It is difficult to pinpoint how many people subscribe to white supremacist views, because the Internet allows people to follow the movement under the cloak of anonymity. Leaders of the white supremacist movement are able to use their Web sites to reach a new subset of potential followers and push their racist rhetoric to the limit without outright calling for violence.
Levin said one challenge in protecting Obama is that the identity of a potential attacker would likely be unknown — a person who believes in white supremacist ideology, but decides to act as a lone wolf.
Threats of violence are more likely to be found on Web sites that allow posters to remain anonymous.
Most white supremacist leaders have been careful in what is posted on their Web sites, “hyper-aware that they are being watched,” Potok said.
But not all white supremacist leaders are mindful of their actions or care to be. Two months before the election, American National Socialist Workers Party head Bill White posted a magazine cover on his Web site featuring a picture of Obama in the cross hairs of a rifle scope with a headline “Kill This N—–?”
White is now in jail on unrelated charges that he “threatened use of force against” a juror who had helped convict another white supremacist as well as several other charges of making threats to unrelated victims.
Racism in the U.S. “remains a real problem” even though Obama won the White House, Potok said, and he predicted that hate groups will continue to grow during Obama’s presidency.
“I think we are in a very worrisome moment historically,” Potok said. “I say that because there are several things converging that could foster the continued growth of these groups: continuing high levels of nonwhite immigration, the prediction by the Census Bureau that whites will lose their majority in 2042, the tanking economy, and what is seen as the final insult, the election of a black man to the White House.”
Levin noted that it is common knowledge the U.S. Secret Service is taking great measures to protect Obama (who began receiving coverage in May 2007, the earliest point ever for a candidate in a presidential campaign), and emphasized it is a great challenge.
“President-elect Obama is so used to a public presence, and being among people poses some real difficulties for his protection,” Levin said.

I think it is important to note that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a Communist Liberal run organization, who goal and aim is to stifle the free speech of those whom they deem to be hateful.

More after the jump:

Continue reading “Once again the Liberal media lies about those who do not support Obama” →

Quote of the Day

The Coral Reef Alliance believes outgoing President George W. Bush has created his legacy as a President who has done more to protect the environment of the seas than any other President. Somehow, I doubt if former President Ronald Reagan would agree with their assessment.

Obama should, but most likely won't

Before I start this, let me simply say from the outset, that I am not a George W. Bush fan, nor will I ever be. I am not a part of the Conservative wing that believes that George W. Bush is some sort of hero. Having said all Paul Krugman and Rep. John Conyers have both written articles calling for Obama to fully investigate the actions of George W. Bush during his tenure as President.

First off Paul Krugman writes:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.
The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.
Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.
There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?
Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

The answer to this question is very simple. Obama simply does not want the political firestorm. As much as it is great thing to see an African-American man for President, I think it would be counter-productive to Obama’s term in office to do something like this. Because you just know; that the Neo-Conservative political machine would swing into action against Obama, if he did try and do something like this. I mean, I might have many reservations about Neo-Conservatives, but their organizational and fund raising abilities is not one of them. If Obama went for a full blown investigation against the Bush Administration, the Podhoretz and Kristol funded minions would be out in full force.

So, while the idea of a full blown investigation with charges being filed is a noble idea; I just highly doubt that it will ever materialize. Obama just does not want to be viewed as a vengeful partisan President.

John Conyers writes basically the same thing, and I can understand his feelings. But again, what is very important; is how this sort of thing will be perceived by the rest of America. Would be it perceived as justice, or would it perceived as a partisan witch hunt? Sure, if your a partisan or a liberal ideologue it would be viewed as justified, but what about those who are not? What they think; matters greatly.

One thing that all Democrats and all Liberal-minded people must remember is, that not all of America is of a Liberal mindset. Just because Congress is of a Liberal majority, does not mean that all of America is. Some just voted for Obama, because he represented a change from George W. Bush, not because they wanted to see a Liberal witch hunt trial.

Others: The Moderate Voice, JustOneMinute, The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Monthly, Washington Post, Matthew Yglesias, Right Wing News, The Seminal, Democrats.com, The Sideshow, Comments from Left Field, The Note, The Immoral Minority, Riehl World View, Gateway Pundit, American Street, Hullabaloo, Seeing the Forest and The Impolitic

(via Memeorandum)

The Obligatory Kids with Nazi Names removed from home posting

I’m posting this, because I know that quite a few people read this posting from various places on the net.

The Leighhighvalleylive.com website reports the following:

A New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services spokeswoman says that the agency would not remove children from a home because of their names.
DYFS made the statement today after The Express-Times reported Tuesday that the state had taken Adolf Hitler Campbell, 3, and his younger sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie, from their parent’s Holland Township, Hunterdon County home.

“Just to be clear, removal of a child from a family is only done when there’s an imminent danger to a child and that wouldn’t include the child’s name alone,”“We wouldn’t remove a child based on their name.” spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said.

Of course, I’m sure that the Alex Jones types will not believe this. There’s two sides to every story, and I’m sure both sides have thiers. But I am glad to see that the reason was not for the names.

My theory is this; that a neighbor saw the people on TV and called child protective and dropped the dime that daddy and mommy were fighting quite a bit and that they saw bruises on the children. That will get kids snatched a big ol’ hurry anymore.

Of course, neighbors have been known to lie out of spite too. Either way, I smell a huge lawsuit against the family, if it goes to court.

Others: Gothamist, QandO, City Room, Patterico’s Pontifications, Outside The Beltway, Don Surber, Wizbang, AMERICAblog News, The Impolitic, New Jersey Online , Sweetness & Light, HotAir

BlogAds is an Anti-Conservative Owned Business

I haven’t had a good fight in a while, so, I decided to bring something up on this Blog.

Many of you know, that I use BlogAds on this Blog for Advertising. You’ll also notice that not many people have used the service for their advertising needs. I think I might have an idea why.

I was nosing around over on the official BlogsAds Blog and quite frankly, I was quite horrified to what is on that “Company Blog“. There is a great deal of Anti-Conservative, Pro-Obama screed over their Blog.

You can see examples of what I am referring to by going Here, Here, Here and Here.

What I find utterly amazing is the fact that Conservatives even use this service at all. I mean, I am part of the Conservative Hive on BlogAds.

My question is this, how is it, that Conservatives are using a Blog Advertising service who’s owner, (I presume that is who wrote those entries) partakes in the bashing the Republican Party and Conservative values in General?

Quite frankly, I’m sickened by what I read over on that Blog, the owner of BlogAds ought to ashamed of himself and should either remove the postings of Political Nature or close the business down, or at best only accept Liberal Advertising, because quite frankly, taking the money of Conservatives and bashing them on a Company website or Blog is totally hypocritical in this writers opinion.

I am almost sure that the owner of Blogads will most likely delete my account, as a result of bringing this to light. I am sure I will see an e-mail shortly tell me to get lost. But I will not pull this entry. Business owners who partake in this sort of Anti-Conservative rhetoric ought to be exposed and ran out of business.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Guest Voice: An Unreflective Man By Patrick J. Buchanan

An Unreflective Man
By Patrick J. Buchanan
January 13, 2009

With his public approval where Harry Truman’s stood when he left office, George W. Bush gave his last press conference yesterday.

And like that predecessor he often identifies with, Bush showed a Trumanesque defiance of his critics — and a Trumanesque failure to understand what ruined his presidency.

He denounced protectionism, as he has with dismissive contempt since he went to New Hampshire a decade ago. But nowhere in his defense of free trade was there any explanation for how Middle America lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in his first term and a million more in the last year.

Nowhere does there seem an awareness that the ideas he absorbed at his father’s knee and the Harvard Business School had resulted in the de-industrialization of his country, an enormous and growing dependency on Japan, China and Asia for the essentials of our national life, and, now, for the borrowed money to pay for them.

Someone once defined tragedy as what happens when a beautiful theory collides with a fact. And this is what has happened every time a great empire — be it the Spanish, British or American — embraced free trade as its salvation.

President Bush says it was freedom that prevailed when he rejected the pleas of weak-sister Republicans and backed the surge. But what spared us a debacle in Iraq was an infusion of 30,000 combat troops, an uprising against the murderers of al-Qaida and a U.S. decision to buy off the Sunni tribes, a strategy besieged empires have pursued for centuries.

Nor does there appear in Bush’s self-assurance any awareness of the cost of his Freedom Agenda. In Iraq, it is 4,000 U.S. dead, 30,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, millions of refugees, a pogrom against an ancient Christian community, and a strategic victory for Iran and its Shia allies across the Middle East. When last heard from, the Ayatollah Sistani — the chief Shia cleric in Iraq, who has welcomed Iranian but not American visitors — was calling for Muslims to stand up against Israeli criminality in Gaza.

Like Woodrow Wilson before him, Bush appears to believe that the nobility of his goals — expanding freedom and bringing an end to tyranny in our world — validates and will sanctify his decisions.

Like Wilson, he is a utopian. He fails to understand that idealism has its delusions and disasters.

The war Wilson led us into “to make the world safe for democracy” gave us Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and 70 years of the most barbaric empire in all history. The peace Wilson brought home led straight to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich and a second world war far worse than the first.

The West’s road to hell has been paved with good intentions.

President Bush rightly denounces Europeans who see Israel as always wrong. Yet he behaves as though Israel can do no wrong. Sixteen days into the Gaza war, with the Palestinian dead and wounded near 5,000, and a humanitarian catastrophe at hand, has our “compassionate conservative” president uttered one word of compassion for those whose losses outnumber the Israelis’ 100 to one?

In defending his rejected immigration reform, President Bush clearly sees himself as in the vanguard of decency, and admonishes his party against being perceived as anti-immigrant.

But is this president oblivious to what is happening in his country because of his and his father’s failure to secure the border? Even in rich, liberal Montgomery County, Md., one reads over the weekend that there is a hardening of attitudes toward illegal immigration after a spate of crimes and killings. Working-class Americans pay the price of the idealism around the dinner table at the Crawford ranch.

In his first five years, Bush himself has admitted, 6 million aliens were arrested at the border, breaking into this country. One in 12 — 500,000 — had criminal records. Is it anti-immigrant to demand a halt to this invasion, even if it means troops on the border? Is it truly compassionate, or an act of cravenness, to insist that the answer is amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegals and absolution for the businesses that hired them?

Choleric and cocky Harry Truman may be Bush’s role model. But it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who had to clean up the mess Harry left behind.

Six months into office, Ike had ended the Korean War. He had the courage no president has since shown to tell the Israelis they must get off occupied land. They did.

While surely repelled by Nikita Khrushchev, especially for the Hungarian bloodbath of 1956, Ike had him up to Camp David in 1959 because, wicked as the Bolsheviks were, they had nuclear weapons, and one must talk to them.

Prudence is the mark of the true conservative. Ike and RonaldReagan had it. Neither Bush nor Truman did. And that is why the former left the country so much better off than did the latter.

Goodbye, Mr. President, and God bless.

Original Article here

Pat Buchanan’s Website

One Tough Lady!

Bravo to the fine lady here!

The Video via Breit Bart:

Back story via WBST-TV:

SOUTH BEND — A 70-year-old woman remained hospitalized Monday evening following a harrowing sequence of events that included her holding at gunpoint a man who crashed through her living room window.
“I’m feeling better than I did yesterday,” Sandra, who asked that her last name not be used, said from her room at Memorial Hospital, where doctors were treating her for chest pains. “My heart didn’t react too well to this.”
Sandra, who lives on Portage Road just south of Auten Road in northern St. Joseph County, said she was fetching wood from her garage about 9 p.m. Sunday when she heard what sounded like several people fighting in the street.
“I had put wood for the fireplace in the wheelbarrow and was coming in when I heard a lot of shouting and loud voices,” she said. “I looked over into the road to see what was going on, and about that time a guy comes running around the house.”
Sandra said she ran inside and locked the door behind her. She then grabbed her gun and dialed 911, she said.
All the while, the man circled the house, she said, pounding on all of the windows. When he reached the living room window, he crashed through, taking out the television and landing on the floor.
In the 911 tape released by St. Joseph County police, Sandra screams and then yells at the man, “You stay right where you’re at.”
After telling the dispatcher what had happened, Sandra said she dropped the phone and confronted the man. She trained the gun on him, she said, and told him not to move. He took a step forward, she said, and she issued a final warning: “If you come any closer, you’re going to be dead.”
She then told him to lie on the floor and he complied.
“He was begging for his life,” she said. “He just collapsed on the floor and went into the fetal position.

I have to hand it to this lady here, she showed no fear and used her Consitutional right to defend herself. Good on her! Wish there were more like her! 😀

Of course the far lefty liberals would call her a hater and would want to take her guns. Obama will see to that. 😡

The Obligatory Obama has a Socialist Communist in his Cabinet

The only reason I am blogging about this, because I happen to think it is that silly.

Via Washington Times:

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.
Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties such as Britain’s Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.
The group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.
Mr. Obama’s transition team said Mrs. Browner’s membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

Here why that I think that the Republicans are making too big of a deal about this. The Republican Bloggers are making a huge deal about this and it’s stupid; they had a chance to run a candidate that represented a clean break from the Neo-Conservative polices of George W. Bush. They failed miserably. Because of this, we ended up with a Socialist President. Way I see it, the Republicans do not have a dimes worth of bitching rights at all.

Others: Townhall.com, Gateway Pundit, Wonk Room, Salon, AmSpecBlog, Sister Toldjah, JammieWearingFool, RedState and Fausta’s Blog

Uh…..

Spotted over at Pamela Gillard’s Atlas Shrugs:

What the asshat elect does not understand is Bush is iconic for America. The flying shoe was directed at America – our man, our President – the choice (in the last clean election in American history).

Um, that is certainly debatable, even among libertarians…..Now who is the asshat? I think the answer is quite clear here.

No wonder this feckless bitch has been discredited among her own Conservative circles.

Quote of the Day

The fact that there does not appear to be a single Republican leader who is capable or ready to challenge the assertion that “only government” can put our sputtering economy back on track shows we need a rebirth of the Republican Party. And that this rebirth must come from the grass roots.