Racebusters: The Daily Caller Owes Keith Olbermann

Racebusters spends a lot of time monitoring the Twitter timeline and pointing out the obvious racism that exists in any opposition to President Obama, his policies, or his supporters. Trust me, no matter what you say about any of these groups, even if it’s not about these groups, like a good liberal, I’ll find the racism in it! The Race Card: Don’t Leave Home Without It!

Here are the latest questions:

@racebusters I can’t drink coffee black. I need sugar and milk. Am i racist? - @alwaysonoffense

You again, racist? Oh, sorry, I meant Ryan. Yes, you feel that any substance of color may not enter your body until it cleansed by at least one white substance such as milk or sugar. Sad.

Read the rest of “Racebusters: The Daily Caller Owes Keith Olbermann” here.

For the Sake of ‘North to the Future’

One year ago today, Governor Sarah Palin publicized, “With this announcement that I’m not seeking reelection, I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell.”  You may or may not remember the false rumors and allegations that the liberal media began fabricating almost instantaneously.  Some of these false rumors and allegations included the release of pornographic pictures featuring the governor, a bubbling scandal, and that she might be pregnant.  None of the ankle-biters would even consider the fact that Governor Palin might, just might, willingly give up her power for a just cause.  She’s been dubbed a “quitter” by the Daily Kos-liberals for doing what she felt was best for the state and the people.  God forbid a public servant from serving the public!  The Palin-haters need a lesson in the differences between quitting and taking a stance.

Read the rest of “For the Sake of ‘North to the Future’” here.

Justice For All.

During the 2008 presidential election, and even for a lengthy period following, Democrats and other ankle-biters had fabricated a series of completely bogus and frivolous ethics complaints against Sarah Palin.  The ethics complaints ranged everywhere from the Republican Party spending money on clothes for her to campaign in to talking with reporters to promoting a clothing brand by wearing the company’s arctic gear in the harsh Alaskan weather.  There are, so far, a total of twenty-seven ethics complaints against Governor Palin, and, so far, twenty-six of those complaints have been dismissed.

Of course those who filed a majority of these complaints don’t actually believe she violated any ethics law.  These complaints were purely for political gain.  First, they were devised to portray her as the typical, corrupt elected official that has assisted in the transformation of the word “politician” to a dirty word.  This tactic has certainly been effective… to the uneducated, close-minded portion of American voters that already own a “Sarah Palin is a C*nt” t-shirt.  Second, they were concocted to bankrupt the Palin family.  The legal fees add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Read the rest of “Justice For All” here.

The RINO.

If there is anything on this earth more irksome to a conservative than a typical liberal, it is the RINO.  As the name says (Republican In Name Only), it is a moderate or liberal politician disguised as a Republican.  Modern day RINOs include Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.  Currently, some conservatives and Tea Party members are trying to associate Sarah Palin with the group that is so frequently frowned upon.  With the growing strength and excitement of the Tea Party movement, some within the Tea Party are beginning to abuse the RINO label and apply it to anybody who is a single step out of line with the majority consensus within the movement.  Sarah Palin has been wrongly accused of being a RINO, and what she has done since entering the political arena invalidates any such accusations.

Read the rest of “The RINO” here.

Justice Stupak.

July 13 of last year marked the beginning of Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Less than a year later, on April 9, 2010, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the nation’s highest court. Coincidentally, Bart “Benedict” Stupak, the same Stupak that sold out the American people for an executive order, also announced that he would not be seeking reelection. It is said that President Obama has a short list of about ten people in mind to replace Stevens. Some of the leading people on his short list include Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood. In his response to Stevens’ announcement, Obama said, “I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities (of Stevens) — an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.” I’m not sure which part of that quote I’m supposed to believe. Who do I think will get this very honorable nomination? None other than Congressman Bart Stupak himself.

I’m sure some of you think that this notion is crazy and farfetched like the idea that Obama may or may not have originated from Kenya or that President Bush may or may not be involved with the 9/11 attacks. It may very well be. However, I have strongly considered it and done some minor research.

Prior to Black Sunday, Bart Stupak was rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a pro-life stance on the issues. The American public was told that the conscienceless Congressman caved to Obama’s and Pelosi’s orders with an Executive Order that would appease his “pro-life” views (even though an Executive Order doesn’t have power over a law and can be overturned by future presidents). In a time in American history where politicians are on a power-grabbing spree, I find it very hard to believe that Stupak would sell out for something as simple and ineffective as an Executive Order while knowing his title as a Congressman would be in peril. Stupak’s GOP opponents gained national fame and started raking in the cash the minute he announced he had no spine – I mean switched his vote…

I believe there’s so much more to the story than what any of us know. Bart Stupak was the leading pro-life Democrat during the 2009-2010 healthcare debate that opposed any abortion language in the numerous healthcare bills. As it is well-known, his vote was pivotal in the passage of the freedom-draining bill. Not only is he spineless, but he’d also be brainless if he was not aware of this. He was in a position of power and could bend Obama at his will. I believe that Obama promised him an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stuapk knows law. He’s been in Congress for eighteen years. Though not at an Ivy League college, he attended law school. Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed with 68 yeas and 31 nays. Every Democrat (except Kennedy who was absent) voted for her. There are currently 59 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and there will most likely be 59 at the time of the vote. A simple majority is needed to approve a judicial nominee. He’d easily be approved without a single Republican vote (though I’d be willing to bet that my favorite Senators from Maine would vote for him).

I have some doubts with my prediction though. At one point, Obama was considered the most liberal Senator on Capitol Hill. He’s hired numerous radical Communists, progressives, and liberals to work for him. I’m not sure if he’d nominate a man that’s not on the same radical level as him. Also, Obama has been rated a 0% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a pro-abortion stance. Planned Parenthood is one of many pro-abortion organizations that funded Obama’s campaign, and a very big one at that. If Obama appointed a man who is pro-life (at least when there’s nothing in it to benefit him), the Supreme Court would then have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade by a 5-4 vote. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are pro-life, and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor are pro-abortion. As you can see, it’s a stalemate without a ninth vote. Add Stupak and Roe v. Wade may very well be out the window, along with campaign money from Planned Parenthood.

No matter who he picks, it’s going to be another heated summer!

Year One.

One year ago today, hope and change was ushered into the White House. America was being reborn and revived. We couldn’t wait to see Obama make the blind see, the deaf hear, and the mute speak. We couldn’t wait to see all of the pain and suffering in the world come to an end. We couldn’t wait to see the economic recovery, or for Barack Obama to restore ethics and integrity in Washington. We had been waiting, with bated breath, for months for this hope and change to arrive. Too bad we’re still waiting.

Barack Obama’s presidency started out with great poll numbers (as most President’s do for the first few months of their presidency). On his first full day on the job, he had an approval rating, according to Rasmussen, of 65%. 44% “strongly approved” of his job. Only 30% of polled likely voters disapproved, and 16% “strongly disapproved.” Now, Obama’s approval rating is 48%, with a disapproval rating of 51%. Barack is “strongly approved” of by 28% of likely voters, but how could he ignore the 40% who “strongly disapprove?” 46% of America did not fall prey to the rhetorical bear trap called Barack Obama. As days go by, more and more Americans are escaping from the bear trap.

But how exactly is the President losing many of his, at one time, Kool-Aid drinkers?

Obama between 57 states (one left to go, and you can’t forget that Hawaii and Alaska were off limits) campaigning on the inspirational and attractive message of “CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!” He made it clear to a majority of the voters that he wasn’t President George W. Bush. With a President with an embarrassingly low approval rating, many voters fell for Obama’s false façade. Barack has undoubtedly thrown his message of “change” under the bus along with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and his very own “typical white” grandmother. Many liberals refuse to face this truth because they don’t want Keith Olbermann accusing them of being racist, teabagging, homophobic rednecks. There’s substantial evidence that he’s clearly abandoned his fight for “change.” Obama and Congress, just like Bush, approved of the spending of billions and billions of taxpayers’ money to “stimulate” the economy. In 2008 and then in 2009, both Bush and Obama approved of billions in taxpayers’ money in bailouts. George Bush claimed that he abandoned free market principles to save the free market. If Obama really wanted to bring change, he’d reestablish the principles of the free market. Instead of reinstalling these principles, Obama and his Congressional cronies decided it’d be best to triple the national debt (just a few months into his presidency), take over General Motors, and create double digit unemployment.

But, of course, even after one year in, poor little Barack refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. “I inherited this problem.” No, sir. The only thing you inherited was the belief that those actions worked the first time. Well, they didn’t, and now we’re all suffering. In the words of Albert Einstein, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” As of November 3, 2009, 49% blamed Bush for the state of the economy while 45% blamed Obama.

Part of Obama’s plan for change was new blood in his administration. This was a blatant lie too. Current Attorney General Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton White House. No new blood here. Hillary Clinton, as I’m sure you know, was First Lady of the United States throughout the 90s and often considered the “Shadow President” is now the U.S. Secretary of State. No new blood here. Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner was the Under Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton. Now he is the Secretary of the Treasury. No new blood here. Rahm Emanuel was the Senior Advisor to President Clinton. Now he is the White House Chief of Staff. No new blood here. Lawrence Summers was the Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton. Now he is the Senior White House Economic Advisor. Peter Orszag was Special Assistant to President Clinton. Now he is the Budget Director in the Obama White House. No new blood here. Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense under President Bush. He still holds that post under Obama. No new blood here. It’s not as if Barack let a few previous government employees slip through his “new blood” filter. He let several!

From 2001-2009, George W. Bush had a total of thirty-five czars. In 2009 alone, Barack Obama  has hired thirty-eight czars. However, many of Obama’s czars are openly radical and damn proud of it. He’s hired everybody from those who think tress should have the right to sue humans to those who believe animals should have the right to sue humans. He’s hired radical communists and a strongly anti-male woman who supports male castration. How is hiring an overwhelming amount of czars different from George Bush hiring an overwhelming amount of czars? Besides how radical Obama’s czars are, it isn’t. Click here or here for a list and description of Obama’s radical czars.

I know that I haven’t touched base with issues like his campaign lies about lobbyists or transparency, Gitmo, the Afghan and Iraq Wars, or even his attempt to let the government take hold of our healthcare, but I have covered the fact that in his first year as President of the United States, he has ripped off his mask of “change” and thrown it into the incinerator. You liberals thought that a McCain/Palin administration would be Bush’s third term. Newsflash: this is Bush’s third term, except we’re not as safe as we were under him.

Click here to see Obama’s presidential timeline of 2009 and here for his 2010 timeline.

The Scott Heard ‘Round the World.

This day will go down in the history books as the day of the first shots of the Conservative Revolution. Conservative Republican Scott Brown, this evening, defeated Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Edward “Admiral Oldsmobile” Kennedy. But what exactly is the significance of this conservative victory?

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been one of the deepest shades of blue in the Union for a very long time. Currently, one-hundred forty-four out of one-hundred sixty Representatives for the Massachusetts House of Representatives are Democrat. Obviously, only sixteen are Republican. In Massachusetts’ Senate, thirty-four out of forty state senators are Democrat. Five are Republican (there is one vacant seat). The people of Massachusetts have decided since 1997 to let Democrats represent all ten of their Congressional districts in the House of Representatives since 1997. Bawney Fwank is among the ten. Prior to 1997, in 1993, only two of ten of their U.S. Representatives were Republican. As for Massachusetts’ U.S. Senators, three out of the four previous elected Senators were Democrats. A Republican hasn’t held the title of “Senator from Massachusetts” since 1979. Ted Kennedy held onto, what he and many other liberals believed was, his seat for forty-seven years! In the 2008 presidential election, 62% of the citizens of Massachusetts voted for über-liberal Obama. Out of the past ten presidential elections, Massachusetts went blue eight times (only went red for Reagan).

Since Admiral Oldsmobile’s passing, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Paul Kirk held the “Kennedy seat.” The process for the special election began late last year. The Democrats had four contenders during the primary. Attorney General Martha Coakley, obviously, got her party’s nomination. She defeated her three opponents with 47% of the vote. Republicans, on the other hand, only had two primary candidates. Scott Brown got the GOP nomination with 89% of the vote. At the beginning of the campaign for the general election, Coakley led Brown by an overwhelming lead in the polls. In the middle of September, Scott Brown trailed Coakley by thirty points in several polls. At the turn of the year, Brown began to quickly catch up to Coakley. 41% to 50% one week and 47% to 49% the next. In just one day a few weeks prior to the election, his campaign raised over $1 million, and in the days following, $5 million. In one of the final campaign polls, The Politico had Brown leading Coakley by nine points (52% to 43%). However, none of those polls speak nearly as loud as the voting polls on election night. Well, tonight the polls screamed. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley with 52% of the vote. Martha held 47% of the vote.

What does this particular election mean for liberals and RINOs come November 2? A man who ran on common-sense conservative principles, a man who represented the Tea Party movement in Massachusetts was elected (without interference of ACORN) U.S. Senator… IN MASSACHUSETTS! He won on the message that he’d be the forty-first vote against Obamacare, and he won on the message that the seat didn’t belong to Ted, Martha, or him. It belonged to the people. For the liberals with any brain cells left, they’ll pick up the message sent from Massachusetts on this great evening: you will represent us, or you will get out, whether you like it or not. We the people are here, and we want our seats back!

Again, I say, congratulations, Scott Brown! And a great thanks to Massachusetts and everybody across America who helped him get elected!

“Make Mine Freedom.”

Here’s an interesting video I found on YouTube. It illustrates how quick we are as a nation to vote away our freedoms and liberties to the government because of what the government’s cronies and henchmen “promise” the American people. The video expresses the greatness of capitalism and what people have been able to achieve from the system of free-enterprise. It’s a ten minute video and it’s from 1948, but it’s well worth the watch.

If a Conservative…

I received this from a friend via e-mail. It points out the differences between a conservative and a liberal. It hit the nail right on the head.

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat the threat.

A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly goes about his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If an African-American or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.

His liberal counterpart sees himself as a victim in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

A liberal demands that the show be taken off the air.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Happy Halloween!

Yet another hilarious video from Steven Crowder! All parents should show show this video to their children to prevent future generations from supporting socialism. Enjoy!