Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

A LITTLE 101 FOR THE RACIST LIBERAL MOONBATS….

September 17, 2009

 

Republicans have fought for civil liberties for almost 150 years. Abraham Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year. He introduced measures that resulted in the abolition of slavery, issuing his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and promoting the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which passed Congress before Lincoln’s death and was ratified by the states later in 1865. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans. The Republican Party is responsible for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, the Fifteenth Amendment is one of the major tools which enabled African Americans to more fully participate in democracy. The Fifteenth Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. It was Republican President Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. …it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat “Dixicrat” senators, several of whom were proud segregationists-one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor. June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation. There you have it. What a different country this would be, had not Republicans blocked the agenda of Democrats every step of the way.

Who is the racist bitch now???

Advertisements

MSNBC ASKED, “WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE REALLY WANT?”

September 14, 2009

DC RALLY

The moonbats at MSNBC asked the question but will they bother to listen to the answer?

One, illegal immigration. We want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders.

Two, fire the czars!  No more czars!  Government officials answer to the process, not to the president.  Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Three, universal healthcare.  We will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break.

Four, we want less government in our life;  not more.   Mind your own business.  You have enough to take care of with your real obligations.

Five, redistribution of wealth.  What in the hell is our government going to do when they run out of other peoples money???  I work hard for my money and I don’t plan on giving it to some lazy ass that won’t get off the f’nking couch!  Keep your hands out of my wallet!

Six, corporate bailouts.  NO COMPANY IS TOO BIG  TO FAIL AND THAT INCLUDES OUR GOVERNMENT!!

Seven, what in the hell happened to all that transparency and accountability we heard so much about???   I guess another campaign promise not important enough to keep to we the little people!

Eight, SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING!!  When will it STOP?  WE ARE OUT OF MONEY!

Nine,  SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO WE THE PEOPLE!!!  STOP MAKING EVERYTHING A CRISIS AND START READING THE BILLS!! 

Ten,  we are going to fire all of you who abuse your power!  It is not your power.  It is ours and we want it back.  We entrusted you with it and you abused it!  You are dishonorable, dishonest and as Americans we are ashamed of you.

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?????  

Just one more thing, WE WANT AN HONEST MEDIA OUTLET THAT ACTUALLY REPORTS THE NEWS!! 

THANK GOD FOR FOX NEWS!  AT LEAST WE HAVE 1!

OBAMA WANTS US TO BE MORE LIKE THESE LOONS!!! THIS IS HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT!

September 10, 2009

Fox News segment on breaking news about ACORN, the community organization Barack Obama worked for prior to becoming our great president.  Going undercover and posing as a couple who are a pimp and a prostitute, the helpful ACORN advisor gives them tips on tax fraud and how to keep those underage sex slaves under the radar of the government. 

Now  Obama & Co want to “reform” our healthcare…  If you’re pissed that your hard earned tax dollars are being given to ACORN to promote prostitution, tax evasion and human trafficking then you haven’t seen anything yet! 

See the complete video and transcript below:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/complete-acorn-baltimore-prostitution-investigation-transcript/ 

 

 
 

Obama has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan!

September 9, 2009

b-pelosi-012609-jason-reed-reuters

Lie #1: ‘You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer’

This is a complete fabrication.

Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the “public option” — the government health plan.

That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you’ll lose him or her as well.

Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.

So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.

Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts

More baloney.

In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are “not irrational.”

The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.

Who would pay for it. You would!

Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.

Here’s what the Times reported: “Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.”

This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.

It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!

Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.

Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.

We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.

You can see the ad by Going Here Now

Lie #3: There Will Be No “Death Panels.”

More lies.

Sure, they don’t call them “death panels” in the legislation, but that’s what their job will be.

These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.

They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.

Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.

The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow “advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on ‘what treatments work best.’”

Again, this very liberal paper concluded: “The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life.”

Expose the lies — Go Here Now.

Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs

Absolute nonsense.

The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.

But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don’t have the money to do this right now.

You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.

Democrats clearly plan to do both.

Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC2) calls President Obama a ‘liar’ during joint session of Congress visit.

President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.

Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.

None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.

In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.

Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.

This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.

Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.

“Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League,” Morris says. “They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law.”

Just two weeks ago, the League’s powerful new TV ad went on the air.

Thanks to your help, it’s already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people.

We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat.

But our job is not done.

We must fight the lies.

We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans.

Source: League of American Voters

Thank You David William Hedrick!!

August 24, 2009

 

David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that he was not going to be silent anymore. So, he let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED

August 19, 2009

In July, the government posted a $180.68 billion monthly budget deficit, a record for July, marking only the third time in the past 30 years that the government ran a deficit for 11 months in a row.

 Buffett said a revived economy will not be able to generate enough revenues to bridge the gap between outlays and receipts, so changes in taxes and spending will be required.

 Politicians will not likely have the will to raise taxes or slow spending, so they may opt to quietly let inflation increase, a move that will “confiscate” wealth and allow the United States to evolve into a “banana republic economy”, he said.

 We can not allow this failed administration to take control of our health care!  In a revolutionary call to arms of sorts, a constitutional activist urges all American employees, retirees and self-employed individuals to stop paying federal income taxes and to help spread the word: “no answers, no taxes.”   Maybe we should say: “no taxes, no Obamacare!”


 

LIBERALS ARE UN-AMERICAN!

August 16, 2009

Why do we continue to allow these moonbats to call us “un-American”?? 

AND WE’RE UN-AMERICAN?? 

LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!

THE LEFTIST DISRESPECT & DOWNPLAY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AMERICAN DEATHS AT A 9/11 MEMORIAL AND YET THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL US UN-AMERICAN??

 

CONSERVATIVES LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FIGHTING TO PROTECT IT!

 

ANY COMMUNIST WHO FEELS ANGERED BY MY LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS… CRY HERE… FLAG@WHITEHOUSE.GOV

The Second Revolution; not of Violence but Pressure!!

August 16, 2009

 

The number to the congressional switchboard is no longer in use… go figure..  Please call the White House at 202-456-1111!

FOR ALL THE LIBERAL CRACK HEAD MOONBATS… CLICK HERE TO TURN ME IN TO THE CEO OF THE UNION STATES OF AMERICA!!    flag@whitehouse.gov

I’VE BEEN TURNED IN OVER AND OVER!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH STILL LIVES ON!

Meet Ezekiel Emanuel.. The Future of our Health Care!

August 16, 2009
obamacare3
 
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 1996
 
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet  is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?  I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions.  The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels.  The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care.  The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation.  Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen.  These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected.  A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services.  Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.  The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially.  Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.  Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system.  Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services.  Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective).  So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.  On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.  What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?  There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics.  Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services.  Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.”  As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making. 
 
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services.  It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy.  Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic.  It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good.  To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good.  But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services.  This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution.  Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good.  Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy.  Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism.  This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources.  This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties;  issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies.  While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good.  As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items.  One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one.  This is unavoidable.  Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.  We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.  Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy.  Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies.  This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.  Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.  Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.  An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.  Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
 
 
 
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE!  IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA! 

A Letter from Former Procter & Gamble Executive Lou Pritchett

August 13, 2009

                         AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
 
 Dear President Obama:
 
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
 
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
 
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
 
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
 
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
 
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.
 
You scare me because you lack humility & ‘class’, always blaming others.
 
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

 

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector..

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

 You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett   

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.  Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits.  Keep it going.  All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.  It’s happening right now.