I grabbed this screenshot off of MSNBC the other day.
I watch their programming, basically for its comedy value. Their opinions are so ridiculous that it actually is funny.
Liberals think Obama already has the election won. They act like Mitt Romney is "bothering" these voters in Florida and Ohio.
They don't mention the fact that Romney will win 24 states the minute the polls open in November.
Most delusional of all is the subtitle on the graphic saying that Obama has a 15 point lead with Catholics.
Yeah.
The same Catholic Church that is suing the Obama Administration for improperly interfering with their First Amendment right to practice their religion.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be rolling over in their graves if they saw what I saw today.
Right there on the Red Line subway train was a poster from the local government...telling you how to eat.
Yes, that's right. With the city about a half-billion dollars in the hole, some idiot bureaucrat thought it was a good idea to steal some more dollars from taxpayers to dictate to them that about how to eat properly. Unreal.
The first thing I felt was anger when seeing this.
Some poor schmuck who got his money stripped by force by the City of Los Angeles, whether through a parking ticket or whatever, had to see his money be spent for this nonsense.
The sight of it brought up thoughts of the book "1984" and "Big Brother".
Yes, Big Brother is watching you.
And he's telling you to put down those French fries, fatty!
Well, to be quite honest, I am not surprised by the current situation in my 2012 campaign.
Actually, I'm getting pretty used to it.
In my previous two political campaigns, I was never even able to get into the same room with my elected official opponents to discuss ideologies, philosophies, or to debate their views on current events. Voting members of the local community had no interest in holding their office holders accountable for their actions, and that trend continues to this day.
42 days until the election, and no civic groups have asked to see me debate Adam Schiff. The League of Women Voters is trying to put something together, but Adam Schiff is reluctant to leave his comfortable home in Maryland, come all the way back to California, and defend his Socialist voting record in front of a crowd of possibly hostile taxpayers.
In an attempt to get this message out to the media, I am going to use Twitter to tweet this article directly to several media sources. I have prepared several debate questions for Adam Schiff, but unfortunately, I will probably never get to ask them of him directly.
The questions are as follows....
1. Congressman Schiff, you are often seen in the media pandering to gay special interest groups. If you care so much about gay marriage, where were your legislative bills in the California State Senate to legalize and to institute gay marriage?
Of course, Schiff wouldn't be able to answer this question, because he is a phony. He is seizing on the issue of gay rights because it is currently trendy and he thinks it will get him votes (it might). But back in 1996-2001 when he was in the California State Senate and his district was a little more moderate, he wrote no such laws, because there was no advantage in it for him at the time. His district did not include the ultra-liberal City of West Hollywood like it does now.
I would also ask Schiff if he felt that it was a good idea to be riding around in gay pride parades in West Hollywood. Regardless of his answer, I would state that I felt it was improper for a government official to do something like that. To celebrate one group of people over another just because of how they define themselves through their sexual behavior is not something that the government should be doing.
2. Congressman Schiff, you are often held out to be an almost heroic figure to the Armenian community in Glendale for your political stance to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Would you be willing to hire someone who was a Muslim or a Turk to work on your staff in your offices in Washington?
I would love to see Adam Schiff twist and squirm trying to answer this question. Again, it exposes him as a huge phony. He is such a hero to the Armenian community, that he can't say yes, but he is such a politically correct ultra-liberal that he can't say no, either.
Me? I'm a Conservative. I have no problem stating that I would not hire a Muslim to work in my offices. The reason being that Muslims do not believe in many crucial American freedoms... freedom of speech... freedom of religion... they don't believe in womens rights ... gay rights, etc...etc.. so their personal ideology deeply conflicts with mine and makes them unemployable by my office.
Adam Schiff would never make that statement. Not in a million years.
My opponent in the upcoming Congressional election, Representative Adam Schiff, believes in gay marriage.
I don't agree with him.
Here is why Adam Schiff is wrong about gay marriage:
1. Marriage is a religious institution, and pre-dates any government attempts to manage or interfere with it. This tradition should be left alone and respected.
People have been getting married for thousands of years. It is the oldest and most respected of all social customs. It has been up to the religions themselves that perform marriage to set their own standards, and all legitimate religions dictate that marriage is exclusively reserved for men and women. It wasn't even until after the Civil War that government in America started meddling in marriage and demanding certificates and registrations. The people of the world got on just fine for centuries without government meddling in the area of marriage.
2. There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. It is a fantasy concept.
Homosexuals do not have the right to create or invent religious theology simply to fit their own desires. That is not the way the world works. If it did, people could create all types of wild theologies. The religions that perform the marriages set the rules. And none of them allow gays to marry.
3. Gay marriage is a dangerous trespass against the First Amendment.
This is the most disturbing of all arguments against gay marriage.
Our government shouldn't be in the position of dictating to religions what standards they have to accept when practicing their beliefs. More simply put.... if the government declares that it has the power to dictate that a man can get married to a man, then what is to stop that same government from declaring that a man can get married to a goat? Or that a woman can get married to a cat? Think about that for a minute.
Once government decides that they will make the rules of marriage, the religions are forced to become become subservient to any idea the government creates. This is very, very troubling for people of faith. And it is an egregious violation of the First Amendment protecting Freedom of Religion.
4. Gay Marriage is not about marriage. It is about legal rights.
Even gay couples will admit to this. They argue that they are being denied something like 1,100 rights that heterosexual couples are allowed. Now this is actually a legitimate argument from them. I'm willing to have this conversation. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, or be put on their significant others life insurance.
They can even inherit their loved ones pension payments of other types of contracts and property. If our laws need to be revised to protect the legal, contractual rights of gays, then that I am willing to accept. But gays do not have the right to invent religious theology, nor do they have the right to force cultural values on others that are offensive to them and/or violate their religious faith.
As the 2012 Republican Nominee for Congress from the 28th Congressional District, I felt that it would be a good idea for me to show up at the Mayoral Debate in Hollywood on Wednesday and welcome these candidates to my district.
The first candidate I ran into was Emanuel Pleitez, who was outside the event with a crowd of supporters/protesters who were upset about Pleitez being excluded from speaking at this debate.
I told Pleitez that I certainly had some sympathy for him. I had seen a bit of this in the past, with the Council District 2 elections in the past, and certain organizations deciding that only certain candidates were welcome to appear at a particular forum/debate. I find this policy highly offensive. Organizations that do this are stifling the Democratic process. Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain shot up from 2% support to about 15% support in the polls with a good debate performance. The damage that these organizations do to the different campaigns by excluding people is incalculable.
However, I did tell Pleitez that they actually had a right to exclude him at this point in time, because technically, nobody was on the 2013 ballot at this moment in time. Later on, after the paperwork is all completed and official, this may become a very different problem for these organizations.
I have a feeling that Pleitez isn't actually running to win this year, but that he is actually building his visibility for a future run at elected office. I did something very similar in 2009 when I ran for Mayor of Los Angeles with no previous political experience. I knew I wouldn't win, but the increased visibility definitely helped me further down the road, as I won the primary for Congress earlier this year.
The debate itself was actually kind of a big flop. Horrible rules, one minute answers, and no questions from the crowd. Wow, was that ever a dumb idea.
The debate got started off on the wrong foot when the moderator, some actress I didn't know, went on and on about her movie career and her family...etc...etc.. until people started rolling their eyes in the crowd. Someone needs to pull this woman aside and tell her that the crowd was there to see the candidates, not her. This woman also bookended the debate awfully, too, by obnoxiously pitching some movie she was appearing in after the candidates had finished their closing arguments. (Keep this menace away from politics in the future!)
As far as the debate went, there were few surprises.
Eric Garcetti was, by far, the smoothest and most polished career politician up there on the stage. Eric has higher aspirations and he also has serious people skills. However, he didn't take very many strong stands on the issues and seemed overly concerned about pleasing everyone, which is always a troubling trait in a political figure.
Wendy Greuel was her usual pixie self...all happiness and sunshine and cheerleading. Wendy is very low-key about the way she sticks daggers in the backs of the other candidates. You almost don't notice her doing it. She actually had a pretty good sized crowd of supporters at the debate and I feel that she will be a force in this election. Los Angeles has never had a woman serve as Mayor, but if it ever does, I'd bet that Wendy has a decent shot at being that first female leader.
Kevin James did a great job of slamming the others and seriously put some dents in their campaigns, but I feel Kevin needs to veer away from some of the attack-dog mode and spend more time explaining his vision for the city. James had a very vocal crowd supporting him during the debate.
Jan Perry. Wow.
I hate saying this, because I can't stand her policies, but I came away from the debate most impressed by Jan Perry. Jan knows that she is running behind the two other Democratic political darlings --Wendy and Eric -- in this election. She knows that she has to stand out and make herself look different. She approached the crowd in a very disarming way, reminding them that she's not the favorite. She also told people she would make the tough choices and wouldn't give them the answer they wanted every time they asked. She really connected on a personal level, while Eric and Wendy sometimes sounded like they were reading from tele-prompters.
I came away from the debate very impressed with the human touch displayed by Jan Perry.
Because of her policies, however, I could never vote for her.
But that doesn't mean that others won't.
If I had to choose any of these four, I would choose Kevin James. But I'm not set on that decision, as I think the field is still open and other candidates might still appear.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot risk waiting for much longer.
Iran is very close to having a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu has a very dim view of Barack Obama. He does not see him as being the strong ally that Israel needs to help fend off a genocidal regime in Tehran.
It is unlikely Obama would act against Iran so close to the election. Mitt Romney might not be able to help until January even if he wins in November. That time frame doesn't work for Israel.
Terrible news this morning. One day after the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we wake up to headlines that our American Ambassador to Libya has been killed.
President Obamas weak leadership has cost us even more lives today.
His non-stop apologies for the evil acts of Islamic followers are getting difficult to listen to.
He fails to understand the nature of Islam and the existential threat it poses to the rest of the world. If these people feel entitled to murder others simply because they are offended by criticism of their "prophet", then there will never be peace in this world.
Jimmy Carter was another weak leader who didn't understand this, either.
If you watch his response to the Iranian hostage crisis in November of 1979, you will see the perfect example of an inept leader. His response? We won't buy oil from you anymore!
Wow.
What Carter should have done is addressed the nation on television from the Oval Office the very next day. Here is what he should have said.
My fellow Americans,
I come to you tonight with disturbing news. Yesterday, November 4th, 1979, our Embassy in the nation of Iran was overrun by revolutionary activists, and over 60 of our Embassy staff were captured and they are now being held hostage by this group.
The Iranian military and police have been unwilling to help. The reason for their lack of support comes from a perceived slight by our country against theirs, as we supported the former ruler of Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi, who was later removed from power by these same revolutionary forces.
Whatever their political differences with our nation, their current behavior is basically an act of terrorism against our citizens. It is an act of war against diplomacy itself. By attacking an embassy and its staff, Iran has now removed itself from the list of civilized, respectable and honorable nations.
Our response to this aggression by Iran has to be swift, just, and it has to be absolute.
If these hostages are not released by the Iranian revolutionaries and safely out of their country by this weekend, then on Monday, November 12th, I will call for a special session of Congress and ask for a Declaration of War against the nation of Iran.
I am fully aware that a war with Iran will jeopardize the lives of our citizens currently being held hostage by these revolutionaries. I understand and accept this, and I would hope that the families and the loved ones of those currently being held hostage would understand the position that I must take as the leader of the free world.
An attack of this nature is an act of war against diplomacy itself. A weak or confusing response to this aggression in Iran would only encourage this behavior to be repeated many times in many other locations around the globe.
That would be too high a price for our country to pay.
I do not relish the thought of sending our military into harms way, but as the President, my number one priority is to protect and defend the freedom of our citizens, whether at home or abroad. Our citizens in Iran are under siege, and our response to this threat has to be clear and unmistakable: we will defend our citizens freedoms with our last breath, if need be.
The Iranians have badly underestimated our resolve. I hope that in the next few days that their leaders will see the light and save their nation from what could become unprecedented physical destruction and massive loss of life.
I am prepared for their response, either positive or negative, and will act accordingly.
The path ahead of us will not be easy, but it a path we must take.
I ask for you, my fellow Americans, to remain strong in this time of crisis. And I ask for your prayers for your fellow Americans in Iran, who are living in fear for their lives at this very moment.
Good night, and may God bless our citizens in Iran, and may God continue to bless these United States of America.
On September 11th, 1683, the King of Poland led his famous "Winged Hussars" in the largest cavalry charge in human history. Over 20,000 Hussars smashed into the Muslim forces that were surrounding the City of Vienna, Austria and routed them -- ending the Muslim attempt to conquer Europe. The victory saved millions of Christian Europeans from death and/or slavery at the hands of the Muslims.
The Muslims have never forgotten this date. Nor will they.
I'm writing this blog post to let everyone know that I am going to offer to pay for Joseph Mailander to go see the new Atlas Shrugged movie that comes out on October 12th.
Mailander, and several other liberals I know, need to see this movie to help cure them of their love for BIG government.
I might have to pay to see this a dozen times before I'm through.
Here is the line up of pure horror headed your way today.
A motley crew of degenerates and deviates, all wanting to suck off the teat of the American taxpayer, will make their speeches to the public today.
Labor Boss Richard Trumka, who lives off of the sweat of hard-working union employees, will make his pitch for four more years of thuggery from him.
Vampire Nancy Pelosi, who lives off the blood of American Taxpayers, will spin her tale of nonsense and assure us that everything is rosy and that four more years of Obama will result in Nirvana.
"Student" Sandra Fluke will expand on her demand that taxpayers furnish her with at least $3,000 per year of contraception. Not a good bargain for taxpayers, but keeping her out of the gene pool in the future might have its own non-financial rewards.
"Fauxcahontas"-- Elizabeth Warren, the Senate candidate from Massachusetts who wrongly claimed Native American ancestry to gain employment advantage...even though she embarrassingly was not of Native American bloodlines. She will be there spinning more fictional tales.
And of course, the headliner -- Presidential Adulterer Bill Clinton will tell everyone how it is impossible for Obama to balance the budget and grow a good economy...even though Clinton, aided by a Republican Congress, did exactly that.
The Statists and Looters are supposedly led by a charismatic figure who has a messianic complex.
As of right now, the North Carolina National Guard has not been ordered into action.
Stay tuned as more details become available.
Update: 2:36 p.m.
Degenerate Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seen addressing crowd in Charlotte. Mayor stumbles, bumbles and gets important names wrong. Mayor may have been drinking.
Update: 3:03 p.m.
Statists release new video saying "We all belong to government"!
