Ted Nugent is no stranger to controversy.  He’s known for saying he doesn’t want to press 1 for English.  ”If you can’t speak English, get out of the country,” he’s said to the ire of groups like LULAC (League  of United Latin American Citizens).  This while his bass player was Hispanic.  He didn’t serve in the military while shamelessly giving of himself and his stardom to perform with little fanfare or media coverage for wounded men and women in uniform.  He’s been named the Father of the Year, has been a member of law enforcement for years — paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr after he was killed — looks to many musicians as his mentors — including plenty who are Black.  And, he offers free hunts to sick and terminally ill children.  Those on the attack either choose to ignore these facts or know about them and discard them in the hope those they’re preaching to will never find out.

A couple of weeks ago Hillary Rosen, a friend of this president and administration (she visited the White House 35 times since Obama took office — although Jay Carney says he knows three Hillary Rosens so he’s not sure which one caused the outrage) was on CNN and said, “Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life.”  That was a major problem among women — whom the libs had been been pandering to for months with lie after lie.  You know, things like – Republicans don’t want women to have access to birth control or healthcare or food, air and water.  It was all bunk but it seemed as though it had been resonating with some women — until the Rosen debacle.  What the libs needed to bury that with was a conservative whipping boy.  They think they found that with Ted Nugent.  Here’s what the libs honed in on — quotes he made at an NRA  gathering in St. Louis the weekend of the 14th of April:

     “Our government is wiping it’s a– with the Constitution,”

     “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year,”

     “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?”

     “It isn’t the enemy that ruined America. It’s good people who bent over and let the enemy in. If the coyote’s in your living room pissing on your couch, it’s not the coyote’s fault. It’s your fault for not shooting him.”

It’s clear to a three year old just starting to learn the language that the 30 million album selling guitar player and singer didn’t really expect we’d ride into Washington, D.C. to actually cut off people’s heads.  Somehow DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (By the way, although the media refuses to acknowledge this fact, this is the same US Rep Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who fought hard against the parents wishes for Congress to help them save their daughter Terri Schiavo some years back) deduced that what Nugent said was “vile and beyond the pale,” and soon thereafter, there was a meeting scheduled between the Secret Service and the rocker.  That happens when there’s a concern someone is threatening the president’s life.  Clearly, that never happened here if you understand English and figurative speech versus the literal.  Is this just an opportunity to jump on some figurative speech of a pro-gun, pro-constitution NRA board of directors/Rock Star?  Or, is there more.  I have it from a very good source that Ted Nugent was charged with breaking an Alaskan hunting law ONE DAY AFTER he endorsed Mitt Romney.  Is it starting to make sense to you now?  Oh, when did this hunting trip and violation happen?  2009.  So what took so long?  You tell me.

Nugent was hunting in the far-north state and grazed a bear.  He then killed another bear and that was a violation of law.  Turns out there is a law there that you can only wound or kill one bear per year there.  According to Nugent, it’s a law that was recently added and most people in that state don’t even know about it.  Further, he put the shooting and the trip on his television show.  Why would he do that, if he knew he broke the law?  He wouldn’t.  This was yet another part of the concerted assassination attempt of Ted Nugent.

Did it end there?  Nope.  On the heels of the NRA quotes and the pretend-liberal outrage, Fort Knox posted this on its Facebook page:

**For those concerned with Ted Nugent’s appearance on Fort Knox.** DATE: April 19, 2012
Fort Knox Summer Concert Lineup Changes

Fort Knox, Ky. – The artist lineup for the Fort Knox annual summer concert scheduled for June 23 changed today.  Co-headliners REO Speedwagon and Styx remain scheduled to perform. However, after learning of opening act Ted Nugent’s recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation.  Army Entertainment and the Fort Knox Directorate of Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation remain committed to carrying out the June 23 concert, and the possibility exists that a replacement will be selected.
Those requesting a refund on their purchased tickets must do so by calling Ticketmaster at 1-800-653-8000 or the Fort Knox Information, Ticketing and Registration Office at (502) 624-5030 by May 31.

I do a show Monday – Friday in San Antonio, Texas.  It’s known as “Military City, USA.”  Many who’ve called me on this move by Fort Knox are unhappy with this knee-jerk reaction by the military installation because of the made-up shock by the left-wing establishment.

Did the accomplish what they set out to do?  Yes and no.  Nobody’s talking about Hillary Rosen’s attack on stay-at-home moms anymore.  That’s a yes.  Mitt Romney’s campaign separated itself from Nugent’s comments.  That’s a yes.  But, the no is — they chose the wrong guy to pick on.  I’ve known Ted for 12-13 years now and I’ve seen him go through many a controversy. What usually happens is Ted ends up on top.  His concerts continue to draw large crowds, his TV shows continue to draw a large viewership and he continues to live the American Dream through the freedoms and liberties protected for us all by the US Constitution.  Mark my words; Obama, Wasserman-Shultz and the lib establishment will move on in short order when they realize their attacks fall by the wayside and will be quickly forgotten.

Thoughts?

Pags

No related posts.

This isn’t a model that only works for selling pizzas — this is a proven formula for success in promoting anything.  Radio shows, cookies, tire stores, fast food, diapers (you get the picture) and even political messages.  In this sense, Republicans are failing and Democrats are getting it right.  Of course, much of what the president and his surrogates say and do regarding the economy, tax policy, regulation, energy policy is straight out of bizarro world.  Yet, many Americans still firmly support what they’re being fed.

Here’s an example.  The Buffet Rule.  What is it?  In essence, it’s a punitive tax increase for the evil Americans who have an income of a million dollars a year or more.  This is not a payroll-income tax increase because people with that kind of income already pay the highest rate of 35 percent.  This is an increase in the Capital Gains and/or Dividend tax rate from 15 percent to 30 percent.  That’s right, this administration which constantly talks about how we need more investment in our future and our economy wants to punish those  with the wherewithal to actually do that investing.  Here’s the rub.  Instead of being honest, the liberals are controlling the message — especially the liberal-in-chief — to make those listening think that, somehow, people who have succeeded are suddenly paying less taxes than their secretary.  They said it once.  Then repeated it.  Then said it again, again, and again ad nauseam until a recent poll was done that shows 50, 60 or 70 percent of Americans agree with the “Buffet Rule.”  Of course, they are really agreeing with the message.

Along with the lie that Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary (incidentally, he pays less than all of us as he currently owes one BILLION dollars in back taxes that he’s fighting), this president has also said over and over again, “everyone should pay their fair share.”  Well, who’s going to disagree with that.  I wholeheartedly agree with the president.  What he leaves out is that 53 percent of us are paying ALL of the taxes while 47 percent either pay nothing or get more back than they pay in.  Yes, Mr. President, I’ll support any legislation that forces those living off of MY hard work to pay in as well.  That’s not what he means.  The next line in the message is usually something to the affect of, “in 2001 and 2003, the richest Americans received a huge tax cut they didn’t ask for and many didn’t want.”  He, again, is guilty of the lie of omission.  What really happened was, EVERYONE who paid taxes received a tax break by then president George W. Bush.  It wasn’t just the rich.  It was all of us.

Another by-product of the message and the saturating advertising of said message is the suggestion that the American middle class will somehow benefit directly from the president making the “evil rich” pay “their fair share.”  Ask the typical independent or liberal who will get the money if this president were  to succeed in enforcing the “Buffet Rule.”  The majority, who polls say are for it, think they’ll  get it.  What a crock.

Washington would get it.  You know, the Washington where the president lives and is running an estimated 1.3 TRILLION dollar budget deficit?  You know, the home of the administration that said NO to the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline.  You know, the place where the Justice Department is.  The same department that’s played dumb when asked direct questions about the gun-walking Fast and Furious program which lead  to the death of a Border Patrol agent in AZ.  Republicans and conservatives are losing the messaging war.  Sure, a good argument can be made that the Big Media is partnering with the Democrats in purveying that message.  I agree, but it doesn’t help when the front-running Republican is on the campaign trail talking about how he “loves grits.”  It’s time to take the gloves off and take a page out of THEIR playbook.  Here’s what I suggest: every and anytime there’s a camera, microphone, video phone, et al, EVERY SINGLE Republican politician or candidate should say, “why is this president trying so hard to kill jobs?  Why is this president trying to stop fortunate Americans from investing in our children’s future?  Why is this president attacking the oil industry — an industry that directly or indirectly employs NINE MILLION people?  Why won’t this president stop borrowing money from China?  Messages like this said over and over and over again can and would be effective.

Instead, we’re hearing Republicans and Conservatives doing exactly what Obama and his minions want them to do.  They’re reacting instead of acting.  The time has come to put this administration on its heels by telling the truth about how it’s run this country into the poor house and how another four years of this mess could be the end of this country as we know it.  The low blow that really got to me was in the president’s most recent weekly address.  In it, after spewing half-truth after boldface lie, he said, “We’ve tried this trickle-down experiment before. It doesn’t work.”  As far as I can tell, the media gave him a pass on this lie.  It’s easy to remember  or verify that then President Reagan lowering the top tax rate from 70 to 50 to 28 percent was the catalyst to fixing Jimmy Carter’s failures.  More than 20 million jobs were created in this country in Reagan’s eight years.  But, why worry about the facts when you can make up an alternative reality that fits your needs and if you repeat it enough, the public will start believing it.

I’m calling out every Republican from local to county to state to federal government.  Raise your game.  Get the message  straight and say it over and over again until you feel like you’ve said it too much.  Then, say it some more.
pags

No related posts.

     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 as long as I could pay for it Id be o.k. 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states cant do to you. Says what the Federal government cant 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, um, 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. — Barack Obama radio interview 2001

     That interview speaks volumes for the disdain Obama has for the foundation and, I believe, the founders.  I won’t even get into the ridiculousness of the statement that the document is a list of negative governmental liberties which it clearly isn’t.  It, of course, is a framework and dictatorial for the positive rights and liberties those in this great land are afforded — and which cannot be abridged by said government.  So, why is this important in light of this past week’s assault by the president on the Supreme Court of the United States?  This president has a history of disdain for the Constitution, so this past week’s comments should not have been a surprise.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution provide the framework for how the government of our great land would be formed.  There would be three separate but equal branches of government and a system of checks and balances to make sure none of them has more power than the others.  The Executive would be the president and his cabinet.  The Legislative consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The Judicial consists of the Supreme Court and other inferior court as deemed necessary.  The Legislative drafts bills, the Executive signs into law or vetoes.  If the bill is vetoed, that’s the Executive’s check and balance  of the Legislative.  If the veto is overturned, that’s the Legislative’s check and balance  of the Executive.  If there are questions of the constitutionality of the law, the Judicial is asked to review it.  If the Judicial can strike it down in a check and balance of the Executive and the Legislative.  That’s an overly-simplistic view, but paints the proper picture.

When President Obama took office, he had just served two years in a Democrat run Senate and the House was Democrat controlled as well.  Although he rarely took time to vote on the issues presented to the Senate, he found plenty of time to rail on the Bush administration.  It seemed he thrived on the checks and balances system of government when he was railing against an opposing administration and he was not yet the Chief Executive.  Remember when he said the troop surge  wouldn’t work in Iraq, in fact it would make things worse?  Don’t take my word for it:  Obama Says Surge Won’t Work – I could be wrong, but he and the other Democrats attacking Bush and McCain for the surge actually sounded like they wanted it to fail, so they could be right.  There was never an apology or retraction as he was proven wrong.

Fact is, Obama was a bully then and after losing the majority in the House in 2010, started showing that tendency again, this time, as president.  As it became obvious, the Republican House would not blindly sign off on everything he wanted (ala the Democrat House and Senate for the last two years under Bush).  What did Obama do?  He decided he’d just circumvent the Congress.  Instead of embracing the checks and balances he allegedly understands and lectured about at Chicago Law, he’d just go around what the Constitution calls for.  Don’t take my word for it:

“But, we’re not going to wait for Congress.  So, my instructions to Jeff and Jean and Valerie and all of the advisers who are sitting around the table is, scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization and just get it done”  Barack Obama 10/11/2011 — Congress?  We don’t need no stinking Congress

In other words, “I’m the president.  The Congress — specifically the Republican run House — will not allow me the power I feel I deserve.  Therefore, I’ll ignore them and grab that power whether you or they like it or not.”

That was but one time of the many this president has made statements exactly like that or close.  Clearly, if the Legislative branch is not constructed exactly as he wishes, the idea of separate but equal powers of government doesn’t apply.  Fast forward to this past week.  President Obama’s disdain for the Constitution reared it’s ugly head once again.  This time, the target was the Supreme Court.

As is his right and duty, as others have stepped down, President Obama has nominated two justices for the Supreme Court during his presidency.  Both are known liberals and he feels they’ll rule his way on issues important to us all.  Unfortunately for him, the court still leans a little to the right.  In other words,  as legislation and governmental activity is brought to the court for review, the justices will generally, but not necessarily, lean the opposite way of Obama.  That hasn’t been a huge issue until the unthinkable happened.  President Obama’s signature piece of legislation started facing challenges.

The Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare.  2700 pages of socialistic spending, health industry take-over and government expansion garbage in which the lynch pin is a mandate for people to buy health insurance.  Nobody read it.  You didn’t.  I didn’t.  Legislators didn’t.  One of my favorite statements from the national discussion over this overwhelming bunch of governmental overreach was from Michigan Democrat John Conyers: “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” John Conyers (D) Michigan — July, 2009 Read the bill?

The spin to get the bill through both houses, even though both chambers were run by Democrats, was that it would now allow for those with preexisting conditions to be covered.  It would also allow for the “46 million Americans”  who don’t have coverage to get affordable coverage.  The cost?  900 billion dollars over ten years.  What we’ve found out since is that the 46 million stated included illegal immigrants.  Whoops.  Then the number got pared down to 30 million in future speeches.  In the last two weeks, the CBO has revised its estimate for the cost of Obamacare to be upwards of 1.7 to 2.0 trillion dollars and there are new reports of a 17 TRILLION dollar hole in Obamacare.  900 Billion 17 Trillion, Who’s Counting?

With all that in mind, the court challenges have all been based  on one thing in the 2700 page monstrosity: the individual mandate.  It basically says, all Americans will either procure health insurance or can be fined for not having it.  What happens if you don’t, can’t or won’t pay the fine?  You can face further penalties including the same penalties you would face for not paying your income taxes.  No matter what you’ve heard, yes you can face jail time the same as you can with unpaid taxes.  Another very important part of this part of the law is there is no severability.  In other words, if this part of the law is deemed unconstitutional, then the entire law would be as well and it would be thrown out.  After years of challenges, the suit brought by 26 state attorneys general was heard before the Supreme Court.  It didn’t go well.

The US Solicitor General, the lawyer arguing the case for the administration, was horrible.  Donald Verrilli Jr rambled and stumbled and seemed unable to answer simple questions by the justices.  In fact, the liberal judges on the bench were better advocates for the Obama administration than their own lawyer was.  The mood of conservatives and, frankly, most Americans (north of 70 percent according to polls) was very good.  Although a decision is yet to be rendered, President Obama laid into the court and decided to throw a preemptive temper tantrum.  I don’t know exactly what the goal was, but in a few short moments, Obama again showed his disdain for “separate but equal.”

The president wondered out loud how an “unelected group of people” could overturn what he calls a constitutional law.  That wasn’t the most egregious part of his comments although I do remind you the justices are, in fact, voted in by the Senate.   You remember the Senate, right?  That’s the body of the 100 men and women you and I sent to Washington to represent us?  The part the Press Secretary Jay Carney had to try to explain and spin and just flat out lie about was to follow:

 ”I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Unprecedented?  Mike Opelka of The Blaze reported on my am show in Houston that, on average, the Supreme Court has overturned a law once every two years.  And, worth mentioning, saying it was passed by a strong majority is just plain fallacious.  Obamacare passed by a slim 219-212 margin.  It would have failed 219-212 had Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak and six others not switched sides after being assured Obamacare did not indirectly fund abortion.  The president even signed a worthless executive order promising as such.  Stupak and the others agreed to vote for the bill and that’s how it passed.  Of course, experts agree abortion is, in fact, covered in the law.

The job of the court is simple.  Hear cases brought to it about the behavior of government and other entities on the people.  Then decide whether the Constitution allows for the behavior.  If not, then strike it down.  If so, the behavior (act, law, ordinance, rule regulation, et al) stands.

Bottom line is, this president has acted  more like a dictator than we’ve seen in this country in generations and, finally, it appears Americans are starting to see it.  He is not THE GOVERNMENT, he runs but one branch  of the three which have equal powers.

Thoughts?

Pags

No related posts.

In 2007 — when some of the candidates running for the 2008 nominations on both sides of the aisle became apparent — I was brought into New York to do a show for CNN.  On the show were: Roland Martin (liberal currently with CNN), Rachel Maddow (liberal currently with MSNBC), and one other man — another liberal whose name escapes me, and me – the lone conservative on the panel.  It was assumed I’d be pulling for Rudy Giuliani the former mayor of New York, I guess, because we were both white and Italian.  It was odd that the assumption was made.  I made it clear, however, that I was not a Giuliani guy because of his stance on abortion.  I mentioned I was looking into McCain but was also looking into Obama.  Why?  Because he was young, energetic and gave one heck off a speech.  I still didn’t know much about him other than what I saw and heard — like most Americans.  The examination didn’t take long before I found out he was the most vehement supporter of abortion I’d ever heard speak and he was, at his very core, a socialist.  He was and is a guy that believes the ruling class gets all the spoils and the rest of us idiots get what the bloated government decides we should get and we should thank said government for the table scraps.

Obama ran on feel good messages like, “Yes We Can!” and “Change You Can Believe  In.” He was going to cut the deficit and fix everything George W. Bush did wrong.  As soon as he got into office, of course, he raised taxes on regular Americans ($.62 per pack on cigarettes) and pushed through the Stimulus Law which cost the American taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars after which we saw the economy get exponentially worse, not better as promised.  How did he get these things done?  There is a formula.  Say whatever it takes to get a law passed, smile a lot and do whatever you want in the end.  Remember how he would never raise any tax of any kind for individuals making less than $200k per year or families making less than  $250k?

 ”I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”  Barack Obama – September 12, 2008.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

He clearly didn’t mean it, but it was a talking point he repeated knowing full-well it would resonate with voters.  He pledged over and again to put every bill online for us to see for five days before they were brought to a vote.  He would stop “corporate welfare.”  He promised transparency, and more.  Matter of fact, he listed seven things he’d stop:  

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (Republican Senators didnt know)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU 

This has become a predictable pattern for this president.  He’ll say anything and whether he plans to follow through has never mattered.  He’ll say anything no matter its validity, and not think twice about it.  He’ll repeat it until the words saturate the American psyche and many blind followers will fall in line and continue the repetition for him.  He must have gotten bored of the same ol’ same ol’ because now he’s added the non sequitur to his repertoire and he’s brought back a favorite from the middle of last year.  It’s really a variation on a theme:  The rich have what they have and that’s not fair.  The regular/average American deserves it all too and we can get it for them by taking it from those evil rich people and corporations.  

Last June, the president put his new-found fondness for things that just don’t have anything to do with one another to good use.  He started saying things like:

“If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners, hedge fund managers, oil & gas companies that are making 100′s of Billions of dollars, then that means we have to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make.

Before we ask our seniors to pay for more healthcare, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or corporate jet owner that has done so well, to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.” – President Barack Obama News Conference 06/29/11

It, on its face, was ridiculous.  Look at it again.  Do you really think that because rich people have earned a lot of money through hard work or entrepreneurial spirit or invention and have been able to buy nice things that people can’t go to college? Or that the elderly can’t get care?  Or that food won’t be safe?  Really?  It was crazy and without merit but, he must have liked how it sounded because repeated it whenever he saw a camera or a microphone or newspaper writer.  The message didn’t work, and taxes weren’t raised on the “evil rich,” but, he must have felt the strategy still had legs because it’s back.

The latest incarnation of the Obama non sequitur reared it’s ugly head on March 29th.  This time, the president once again, went after big oil.  Much like he did last year, the president said, “Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make. They can stand with big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.”  Huh?  Are oil companies somehow not American?  The reason for the Rose Garden speech was to pit big oil against the American people and  playing the two sides against the middle — that middle being Congress.  The only problem: there is no back and forth between the American people and the oil companies.  The American people lay the blame for the highest gas prices we’ve ever  seen this time of the year squarely on the shoulders of the Obama administration.

The suggestion through the rhetoric was that if Congress stopped the tax deductions for the big oil companies, the burden on taxpayers (and gasoline users) would be lessened.  He wants us to believe that he’ll either send the money to us (yeah right) or the price at the pump will go down if the deductions were ended.  Think about it.  Do you really think the price per gallon will go down should Congress decide to increase the tax burden on these companies?  The plan, of course, is to divert attention from him and his administration to Congress to cast the blame there.  He knows going in that Congress will not stop the tax deductions — but, that’s not the real goal.  He cannot run on his record.  He cannot point to how he’s held to his campaign promises, or fixed the economy, or not raised taxes on regular folks,  or held unemployment to under 8 percent.  So, the only real campaign plan is to find a boogie-man (or men and women).

If the gasoline prices happen to fall between now and the election, you won’t hear anything else  about it.  If they stay high or go higher, the president will remind us all how he tried to get Congress to go after the oil companies and how the REPUBLICANS refused.  Smart.  Underhanded.  Disingenuous.  Politics.

Thoughts?
Pags

No related posts.

The story has gone through a thousand different filters or more.  Trying to find out the facts is not an easy task and I won’t pretend to know everything that happened that night as I wasn’t there and neither were you.  Having said that, let’s break down what we know:

Trayvon Martin, 17, 6’2″ or 6’3″ (varying reports) and listed by police at 140 pounds (very thin) was visiting his father in Sanford and was watching a basketball game at his father’s fiancee’s home

He was there — far from his home in the Miami area — because he’d been suspended from school for having a baggy alleged to have had pot residue in it according to reports.

Trayvon Martin left the house at halftime in the gated community to go to 7-11 for a snack

Trayvon Martin was walking back to the home with some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea

It was rainy that night, Trayvon Martin was wearing a “hoodie” when George Zimmerman spotted him

Zimmerman, who’s mother is from Peru, is 29, 5’9″ and 250 pounds is described as the “Neighborhood Watch Captain” in the gated community

Zimmerman called the police non-emergency number to report seeing Martin describing him as “suspicious.”

On the call, Zimmerman utters what later appears to be “F$%king coons” under his breath as he speaks with the dispatcher although some feel he says “F$%king punks”

Zimmerman follows Martin — the dispatcher asks if he is, in fact, following Martin — then tells him “we don’t need you to do that.”

A cruiser had been dispatched but, before police arrive, Trayvon Martin would be dead of a gunshot wound to the chest.

The shooter was George Zimmerman

Before the shooting, Martin was on a phone call with his girlfriend who said Martin told her he was being followed.

Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him — Zimmerman reportedly said, “what are you doing here?”

At some point there was a physical confrontation.  Reports vary.  Some say Martin approached Zimmerman and hit him, got him to the ground and was beating him in the head.  Others say Zimmerman was over Martin and shot him dead.  Those who want to exonerate Zimmerman describe Martin as a 6’2″ “football player” who was handing Zimmerman a merciless beating and Zimmerman was just defending himself.  I say BS!

Why is Martin dead?  Because George Zimmerman identified him as not belonging in HIS neighborhood — when clearly he did belong and was expected back home.  Zimmerman observed him, followed him, pursued him, called the police on him and eventually shot and killed him.  The instigator of this entire episode was, in fact, George Zimmerman.  Yes, I’ve read the reports of witnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman up and the older man was just defending himself.  No matter how you look at it, George Zimmerman caused the events of that night.  Had Zimmerman backed off and allowed the police to arrive and investigate, Martin would be alive right now and I would not be writing this.

Did Martin attack Zimmerman?  I don’t know and you don’t know.  Did Zimmerman attack Martin?  You don’t know and I don’t know.  Would this have happened had Zimmerman not incorrectly identified Martin as being a threat to him and his neighborhood?  Absolutely not.

The media in this case has been disgusting.  From day one, because his name is George Zimmerman,  the big media has reported this as a case of white on black racial profiling and violence.  They have tried to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is, in fact, Latino and now that people like me have called them out, they’re referring to him as “White-Hispanic.”  What?  I live in Texas.  You’re either an Anglo (white) or you’re Latino.  You’re not both.  Zimmerman is half Latino or of Hispanic descent, by today’s standards, that makes him Latino.  Is that important?  Yes — when the media is purposely misreporting it to stoke the emotional flames.

I’ve heard from many who have said, “40 murders in Chicago in one weekend and there are no protests there.  The youngest victim there was 6 years old!”  I hear you, but I respectfully submit, you’re comparing apples to oranges.  In those cases, arrests  were either made or the shooter(s) are unknown.  The outrage over this case is very simple and righteous: an innocent 17-year old is dead, police know who did it, police know what lead up to it, and police made the conscious decision to NOT charge the shooter.  A shooter who claimed self-defense and that he was covered by the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida.  Former governor Jeb Bush has already commented that the law probably doesn’t apply to this case.  In the law, if one is confronted, a Floridian has the right to use deadly force in defense.  With Zimmerman being the aggressor and instigator, I don’t see how that would apply.  Also, police didn’t do a simple background check on Zimmerman before cutting him loose from questioning.  It turns out, the shooter had previously been charged with domestic violence in one case and resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer in another case.  Have I mentioned he started the events of the fateful night?

To answer a few of the other concerns  I’ve heard.  I am 100 percent for gun rights and the second  amendment.  I have no problem with George Zimmerman or any other law-abiding American citizen exercising his or their 2nd amendment rights.  I am NOT against neighborhood watch programs.  I just think it’s important that the name is observed.  Neighborhood “watch.”  Zimmerman did a lot more than watch that night.  I am not against people defending themselves.  But, in what rule book does it say that if you’re followed, pursued, treated like an outsider and a criminal and a confrontation ensues you can’t get the best of the pursuer?  I have the hardest time with that one.

The members of the New Black Panther Party who put a bounty out on George Zimmerman should be arrested for making illegal threats, period.  Al Sharpton is a media spotlight hoarder and should have been  out of the national picture years ago (look up Tawana Brawley).  I respect what the Miami Heat did by posing for a picture with all players — no matter their race — wearing hoodies.  Geraldo is an idiot for actually saying the hoodie is just as much to blame as Zimmerman.

President Obama was asked about this by a reporter and at first, made an appropriate comment and then said something that says an awful lot about who he is.  He said he wanted to talk to the parents of Martin and said, ”If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and his heart goes out to them.  What does that mean?  If he weren’t a Black teen, Obama’s heart wouldn’t go out?  He couldn’t understand?  When he’s off of teleprompter, his true feelings always come out.  I thought that comment was out of line.

In the days following the media explosion of this case, Facebook has been filled with pictures of Trayvon Martin dressing in baggy – sagging pants and, in one photo he’s seen flipping off the camera with no shirt on.  His Tweets have been widely reported as being profane and untoward.  What I don’t understand is how that changes the events of that night?  I’ve taken plenty of pictures where I’m acting silly.  So have you.  Zimmerman made assumptions on appearance only.  There is NOBODY who has suggested Trayvon Martin was doing anything other than going to 7/11 for a snack and heading back to the house.  Nobody.

And, finally, I am NOT convicting George Zimmerman here or on my radio shows.  I am calling for him to be charged.  There is a dead 17-year old innocent kid.  George Zimmerman killed him.  He should be charged.  He is innocent until proven guilty so, let the courts decide.  I’ve covered many many murder cases and it’s extremely rare for an investigation to continue for a month or more when the shooter is known and the dead person did not instigate the occurrence.  In Michigan, they charge with open  murder until they decide a grade or classification.  There are similar practices in other states.  If he’s innocent, the jury will find as much.  If he’s guilty, that will be the decision.  But, to leave him scott-free and incommunicado is ridiculous.  With no charge and letting him walk  a month ago, if they decide to charge now, what would be the impetus for him to come forward?  Bottom  line?  This entire situation should never have happened.

If you agree or disagree — comment.  But, hear me clearly, I believe in telling it like it is and I believe in common sense and logic.  Pags

No related posts.

We must keep the source of the protest in mind.  Attorney General Holder is the same federal “Top Cop” who when refusing to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for clear, video -captured voter intimidation, alluded to the Civil Rights struggle of minorities before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In declining to prosecute, Holder said, “When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people.”  In other words, “The men with billy clubs doing the intimidation where Black, so, it’s okay in this case.”  As I’ve mentioned on my show, I become clearer everyday that Obama and Holder don’t seek equality.  They want revenge.  Unfortunately for them, it appears their attempts are failing this time.  I’ll explain.

Because Texas is one of a handful of states which were cited for suppressing the minority vote in the past, it still has to put up with excessive federal scrutiny before any electoral decisions.  It was a necessary move for its day.  That day is over.  AG Holder, by making the decision to block the Voter ID law in Texas, has now fast-tracked Texas to get off of the list of states continuing to be punished by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  You  see, Indiana’s Voter ID Law was challenged as well, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s right to insure those voting were, in fact, eligible to do so.

Further, the reason why Holder states he and his goons attacked the law are ridiculous.  He claims forcing voters to show ID before casting a ballot will somehow stop primarily minorities from voting.  The Justice department cites  fewer minorities as having state-issued identification than Whites.  The suggestion is that Voter ID laws inherently lead to fewer minorities taking part in the electoral process.  Problem is, the data shows just the opposite.   Investor’s Business Daily writes: “The empirical evidence shows that voter ID laws do not suppress minority voting. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the 2006 midterm elections was 42.9%. After passage of photo ID laws, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4%. Black voter turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after those two states enacted their voter ID laws.”  Whoops, Mr. Holder, those reasons don’t pass the truth test.

Also worth mentioning is how denigrating Holder’s Justice department’s comments are to minorities.  How is it that in 2012 the case can revolve around the insulting claim that minorities somehow don’t know how to get state-issued ID?  I’m confused about the reason why Holder makes such a strange assertion and gets away with it.  Can you imagine if I were to go on the radio and say, “Blacks and Latinos can’t seem to figure out how to get state-issued ID so we should not check IDs before they vote?”   I would be excoriated — and you know it.  Holder does it, and liberals line up behind him as if he discovered gravity.  Fact is, he’s actually talking down to minorities.  And, nobody should stand for it.

Are there people who are citizens and eligible to vote who do not have ID?  Yes.  Would it be fair to make them pay for an ID?   No.  Charging someone to vote — in any way — is illegal.  What to do?  Crazy, but true — Texas has made provisions for these issues.  Along with a Driver’s License, Texans can provide a passport or concealed handgun license.  For those still without one of these state-issued documents, Texas has even offered to give a free state identification card.  This still wasn’t enough.  It makes one wonder what the AG is afraid of?  If worse comes to worst, only those allowed to vote will vote.  What a concept.

By the way, for those of you confused as to how requiring and ID to vote will help, it’s actually pretty simple.  Let’s say you register to vote and get your registration card.  You lose it, or someone steals it.  Without a requirement to show and ID, anyone can claim to be you and steal your vote.  Did you know there are millions of dead people still on voter registration rolls?  What’s to stop someone from voting in their place?  With Voter ID, that’s not possible.  It’s a no-brainer and logical.  But, with this administration, up is down, night is day and logic seems to be something lacking consideration.

Love to hear your comments, Pags.

No related posts.

Yes, I have daughters.  They are NOT asking for $3,000 in free contraception as they go to a university that costs $150,000 to attend.  Sandra Fluke was embarrassing in her “testimony” and when you put yourself out there — you open yourself up for criticism.  Let’s break it down.

She claimed to have a 32 year old friend with a cyst disorder who’s health coverage didn’t pay for contraception she allegedly needed to stop from getting cysts.  So, instead of buying it herself, she allowed the cysts to form.  Then we were told this woman didn’t need the medication for contraception because she’s gay.  The cyst grew to the size of a tennis ball.  She had to have it and an ovary removed.  Now, she’s gained weight and gets night sweats.  But, the saddest thing about the entire story is — now, this is not MY logic, this is what Fluke and Pelosi want us to buy — that NOW she can’t give her mother the “grand-babies” she so desires.  WHAT?

Many asked why this woman just didn’t get her health coverage from her parents’ provider.  You know, with Obamacare, you can stay on the plan until you’re 26.  Then we found out she’s actually a 30 year old left-wing liberal activist — not some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed co-ed just standing up for what’s right.  Really.  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/

The argument that “she’s someone’s daughter” goes out the window when she becomes a political mouthpiece who’s goal is to squelch the 1st Amendment freedoms of other Americans.  Those supporting the hypotheticals Fluke was spewing do NOT care about a faith-based or private organization’s ability to conduct business as to their beliefs.

Let’s put one other thing to bed once and for all.  There is NO right wing/conservative push to outlaw or disallow the sale or availability of contraception.  It’s just not happening no matter what the liberal of the day is saying to the nearest TV camera or microphone.  If you want contraception, it is and will remain available.  This debate is about forcing a church-based or private business to ignore its own beliefs and rights and pay for an item it is morally against.

So, yes — I have four beautiful daughters and I’m proud none of them is Sandra Fluke.  That is all.

Pags

No related posts.

          1. The Korans were used by detainees at Bagram and they had writing in them. Writing the detainees were writing to each other.  It has been described as extremist writings which desecrated the holy books.  (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-orders-probe-quran-disposal-afghanistan-15755221#.T0qOmfEgdIo)

          2. The proper way to dispose of Korans is to burn them (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/september-16-2011/quran-disposal/9519/)

          3. Most people in Afghanistan are illiterate. (http://technorati.com/politics/article/statistics-show-afghanistan-is-poor-illiterate/) 

With this in mind, we can assume a few things.  First of all, the rioting and murderous Afghans only know what happened because someone told them.  They are not reading about it in newspapers — not watching it on TV — not hearing about it on the radio.  Secondly, they don’t know about the writing inside the books.  How could they?  I’m guessing most of YOU didn’t know about it until I just told you.  And, third — President Obama apologizing has done nothing less than give the radicals there a reason to kill.  There was nothing to apologize for.  What he should have done is said,

“The Holy Korans used by the detainees at the Bagram base were desecrated.  According to Islamic laws and the Afghan culture, we disposed of them properly.  We did this with your feelings and beliefs in mind.  Any and all violence brought against NATO or American troops in response will be met with overwhelming force.  We are in Afghanistan to continue your path to freedom and liberty and a better life.  If the violence continues – we will hand you back over to the criminals and murderers you used to fear day in and day out.  Again, this violence stops now – or you’ll feel the full force of our retaliation.”

Instead, what we have is a president who’s bowed to the Saudi King, held Islam up on high every chance he’s had bending over backwards to beg the forgiveness of a barbaric people who don’t even know that what was done at Bagram was, in fact, the right thing to do.  Truly sickening.  This man needs to be one and done — PERIOD.

Pags

No related posts.

He hit the campaign trail and grabbed our attention because he didn’t sound like a politician.  He sounded more like a CEO.  He sounded like a cancer survivor.  He sounded like a neighbor who was a leader at the local church.  He sounded like a guy who has had enough of the liberal takeover of our government and the mentality of the elitists in this country doing all they can to take over every aspect of our everyday lives.  That’s why he got such momentum.  He would respond to questions asked at the debates with direct, witty, insightful, decisive, and well-thought-out answers.  We turned up the volume and leaned closer to the TV to hear more.  His 9-9-9 plan — although not perfect — was a marketing marvel.  What a great idea.  Simplify the tax code, make sure everyone pays something (even illegal aliens and law breakers) and not apologize about it.  As misunderstood and maligned as that plan was, it was not policy that dropped him from front-runner to also ran.

Mitt Romney can’t lock up the nomination because of his single-payer healthcare law in Massachusetts, he was for abortion before he was against abortion, and other questionable positions past and present that make conservatives wonder about his bone fides.  Gov Rick Perry dominated until his have a “heart” response to questioning about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants — another policy issue.  Newt Gingrich is looking great — but, there are loud rumblings about his work with the Heritage Foundation on a single-payer healthcare system.  Any of those candidates would be light years better than the current president.  But, the story was different with Herman Cain.  Other than an odd answer about his pro-life stance and a bit of confusion on a question about Libya, Herman Cain on the issues — was as conservative as you get on the trail.  Knowing they couldn’t attack on those issues — the media went digging for dirt.

You don’t know and I don’t know if Herman Cain sexually harassed anyone.  You know who knows?  The women and he know.  There is no proof of it and he denies it.  The story of the one woman who came forward is sketchy at best and her background would suggest she’s a gold-digger and publicity hound.  Even with that said — the media putting it out there took Can from front-runner to 2nd or third place almost overnight.  When he had once enjoyed 30+ percent support of women republicans he, days later, only enjoyed single digit support from the same demographic.  All of this BEFORE Ginger White would become a household name (in the homes where the race was being followed).  What does that tell us?  With no proof and only word of women who either currently work in the democrat administration or who a few months ago greeted Herman Cain with a hug at an event — the media can render a candidate null and void.  Before you scoff at what I just said because the public allegedly doesn’t trust the media, consider this.  Why did so many of you go from supporting Cain to suspecting Cain almost overnight — BEFORE Ginger White?  Because of what you learned from the media.  Face it — they set the narrative whether you want to admit it or not.

Ginger White claims she and Herman Cain had an almost 14 year affair.  Her proof?  He signed a couple of books for her (if that proves an affair, I’m sleeping with Bob Schieffer) and some phone records that show he had her number and he had hers.  They called and texted quite a bit.  He admits a friendship — she said it was so much more.  He says he financially was helping a friend, she says it was a ton more than that.  Because of this relationship — whatever it is — Herman Cain is no longer a candidate.  Did they have more than a friendship?  You don’t know and I don’t know.  You know who knows?  Herman Cain and Ginger White.  She says yes — he says no — the media says “Cheers” and “mission accomplished.”  On the issues, Herman Cain was a great candidate.

Should we have ignored the allegations?  The harassment allegations should have never even been reported until and unless there was some proof and there is none.  The Ginger White situation — much the same should have happened.  A TV station in Atlanta jumped on the chance to not only give her TV time.. but, as much as she wanted.  Their initial story on White was three or four times longer than any average TV story.  There was little or no proof and a Cain denial.  There is still no proof and he continues to deny – but, for all intents and purposes, the campaign was over.  Is it a problem if he did have an affair?  Absolutely for his wife and family — and absolutely for everyone who trusted him to be their candidate.  We Americans can forgive and accept a lot — but, we try our best to not vote for liars.  By the way, I hope this trend continues when President Obama asks you for your vote next year.  He’s not only lied consistently — but, he does it with such ease it’s scary.
What now for the GOP and for we conservatives?  We watch and listen closely.  We carefully examine the attacks the media is sure to bring against those who remain.  And, we do all we can to continue educating our friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers on how horrible the future of our great land looks if this administration were allowed to continue for another term.

I wish Herman Cain well.  If what White says is true — I hope he and his family and his God can work through it.  If not, then shame on the media and all of you who abandoned him on the word of a woman with a checkered past on a TV station looking for ratings during November sweeps.
But, what do I know?

Pags

No related posts.

     ”Is there no republican that can be gracious and statesman-like in this situation? We removed a dictator in six months, losing no American soldiers, spending like a billions dollars rather than a trillion dollars, and engendering what appears to be goodwill to people who now have a prideful story of their own independence to tell — (softly) not to mention oil, they have oil. Anybody wanna give credit?…(After showing clips of key GOP Senators crediting Britain and France) What the f&^k is wrong with you people? Honestly, what is wrong with you? Are you that small? (Taking on their voice) ‘You know what else, we really gotta give credit to the Chinese. Without the invention of gunpowder…’”

Unfortunately, what Stewart either purposely omits or has just not studied the topic enough to know is we a. had no business taking sides in Libya and b. the rebels the Obama administration chose to support are known to have ties to Al Qaeda. You remember them right?   They attacked us on a beautiful summer day in 2001?  There are tons of news stories about the links.  Here’s just one.  I guess that didn’t matter. Qaddafi was bad, right? Who cares about congressional approval or that we were becoming bedfellows with terrorists. Whatever it takes to get the job done right? Why Qaddafi?  Why now?  Much like those who ousted Mubarak, these rebels do not have freedom and liberty and democracy in mind.  They are people who have ties to radical Islam (see Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and are seeking to force Islamic law on their country.  How’s that “freedom” we supported by the ouster of Mubarak working out in Egypt?  Last I checked, there are tanks and armed military keeping an eye on the protests there and the Muslim Brotherhood expected to play a large role in forming the new government there.  And, remember that peace accord between Egypt and Israel?  Those in Egypt now say that went away with Mubarak.

The president, you and I agree on one thing for sure.  We do NOT like dictators and they should all fall.  But, if the Obama Doctrine is to take out all of the evil dictators around the world, why not start with the really bad guys.  When he had an opportunity to intervene in Iran as the rulers of that country were killing civilians in the street after stealing an election, our president said “It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling – the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections.”  Help me understand how the Libyan dictator was more appropriate to take action against than the crazy man in Iran.  How did it make more sense to take out Mubarak or Qaddafi (who we had control over) than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the mullahs in Iran?

How was our support for the “rebels” in Libya better for the world or OUR interests than going after the Castro brothers in Cuba who are 90 miles from out coast and have oppressed millions for nearly 60 years now?  Why not go after Kim Jong Il who’s people have zero human or civil rights — much less much electricity?  Have you seen this picture?  Why not go after Hugo Chavez who is becoming Castro Jr by the day?  Why not go after China where 1.6 billion people don’t have as much as drinkable water in their taps and where you’re imprisoned or killed if you disagree with the government.

Give me a break, Jon Stewart.  Get a clue.  You want to celebrate this administration’s circumventing of congress and much of the world to take sides in a civil war?  I think you’re the one who has something wrong with you.

By the way, what do you think the new Libya will look like?  Just like what we see unfolding in Egypt, here’s what Libyans can expect.  Can you say Sharia Law?  Click Here.

Thoughts?  Shoot me an email or a message on Facebook.

Pags

No related posts.