Posts Tagged ‘Missouri’

Obama Plays And Parties As America Is Literally Blown Away By Tornados

May 25, 2011

This headline grabbed me: “WWII Devastation” in Joplin, Missouri.  And here’s what that devastation looked like:

Not that Obama gives much of a damn.

There’s a famous picture that killed the Bush presidency.  It shows him flying over the Katrina devastation in a jet:

That one picture was all the mainstream media needed to frame their narrative that Bush was either uninvolved, uncaring, incompetent – or all three.  They showed it over and over.

Here are some pictures of Obama as tornadoes ripped across America and killed hundreds.  He didn’t HAVE to go on this trip; it wasn’t a major summit of any kind.  He visited distant relatives in Ireland, for Pete’s sake!

On his trip – while Americans were dying in droves and losing their homes by the tens of thousands - Obama enjoyed a nice game of ping pong:

Obama enjoyed a beer:

Why aren’t those photos about a gazillion times worse?  Other than the fact that the mainstream media would never do unto Obama what they repeatedly did unto Bush?

And, of course, there’s the story of Obama totally screwing up during the playing of the British national anthem and talking over it.

There’s the footage of Obama – who mocked the Republicans over the metaphor of their “driving the car of state into a ditch” – having this LITERALLY happen to his motorcade:

There’s the incredible picture of Obama not knowing what YEAR it was as he signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey:

Remember how many times the mainstream media replayed the footage of Bush going to the wrong door in China?  They mocked that Bush had “no exit strategy.”  How is this not about a million times more stupid???

All this happened while Americans losing their lives and having their homes’ destroyed by tornado after tornado.

Meanwhile, there are Americans who are suffering – and continue to suffer – the aftermath of that “World War II devastation,” who would LOVE their president flying over the ruins of their homes:

And:

And:

And:

You can bet that the same mainstream media that destroyed Bush one story and one picture at a time will never attack their messiah the same way – even though they have TWENTY TIMES the ammunition they had on Bush.

The most ideological and biased media since Adolf Hitler’s propaganda machine will keep on protecting their beloved Führer.

Claire McCaskill Joins the Ranks Of Hypocrite Democrat Tax Cheats

March 22, 2011

How many reasons are there to vote out Claire McCaskill at the first opportunity in 2012?

You really only need one: she was a weasel who voted for ObamaCare and then basically pretended she hadn’t:

It Begins. State-Run Media Whitewashes McCaskill’s Obamacare Voting Record
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 8:04 PM

Liberal Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is in big trouble.

(MLive)

Thank goodness Claire can count on the media to help her out.
The press started spreading the rumor this week that McCaskill is questioning Obamacare even though she not only supported the plan, but also traveled the state promoting it at townhall meetings.
Jake Wagman at The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported:

With 2012 Republican opposition already circling, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill continues to question a key component of the president’s health care plan.

Politico has McCaskill, who’s already attracted two GOP contenders hoping to unseat her, joining a band of moderate Senate Democrats exploring ways to replace the mandate portion of the health care legislation approved by Congress last year.

McCaskill told Politico writer Manu Raju that they are looking for something “less than a mandate,” such as limited enrollment periods with financial penalties for not signing up. (That’s not a mandate?)

“It may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it,” McCaskill said. “But I think we should explore it.”

Under the plan signed into law last year, individuals could eventually face a fine of up to 2.5 percent of their income for not having insurance.

Of course, they forgot to mention this…
When McCaskill had the opportunity to remove the mandate during Senate negotiations in 2010, she refused. Instead, she voted to keep the mandate in the bill by killing a Republican amendment (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 58-40: R 0-40; D 56-0; I 2-0, 3/25/10, McCaskill Voted Yea).

Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party, said this:

“Claire McCaskill voted to keep the unconstitutional individual mandate in the health care bill, she cast the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare, and then she traveled the state in support of the law. McCaskill had plenty of opportunities to seek alternatives to the individual mandate, but instead, she sided with Barack Obama every chance she got and forced costly, burdensome, and unconstitutional regulations on every single Missourian. McCaskill’s sudden election-cycle repentance is too little, too late.”

When ObamaCare was passed via every imaginable shenanigan, it was unpopular with the American people.  And now, having had a chance to see it, to see the huge cost increases its causing, to see the thousand-plus waivers (Constitution “equal treatment under the law alert) as even LABOR UNIONS try to bail out of it, and to see even BLUE STATES trying to weasel out of it, it is more unpopular than ever.

Claire McCaskill voted for an evil and immoral law.  And that alone is enough to kick her butt right out of office.

But if that wasn’t a good enough reason, here’s another damn fine reason to get her stink out of the United States Senate:

Posted at 03:59 PM ET, 03/21/2011
Claire McCaskill admits to $287,000 in unpaid taxes on private plane
By Rachel Weiner

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

“I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again.”

McCaskill and her husband, Joe Shepard, co-own the eight-seat, two-engine plane with other investors. They bought it in July of 2006 through Sunset Cove Associates, an LLC her husband incorporated in 2002.

The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

On the conference call, McCaskill said that after she discovered the political trip on the plane she conducted an extensive audit of all the times she used it. That search turned up the fact that she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft totaling $287,273. (Not all states charge these taxes, and because planes are not registered with the state or the county, she was never billed.) The senator said she understood that Missourians would be confused about how this happened, but insisted it was an honest mistake. “I’m being held accountable, like I should be,” she said. “I made this mistake.”

Republicans, not surprisingly, have had a field day with McCaskill’s plane problems. The Missouri Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against her while the National Republican Senatorial Committee is demanding she release tax records for the company that leases the plane, along with more information on each of the flights she took.

“This raises very serious questions for Senator McCaskill’s re-election bid because if there are two things voters don’t like, it’s a hypocrite and a tax cheat, and Senator McCaskill just admitted to being both,” said NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer. The NRSC is also circulating a web video that features the incumbent saying: “If my walk doesn’t match my talk, then shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.”

McCaskill, herself, acknowledged the trouble the plane issue has caused her on today’s call. “It sounded like a good idea, but it’s very expensive and its very complicated,” she said. “I think it does complicate things for the public.”

ANY public official who doesn’t pay their income taxes deserves to be hunted down with dogs and then burned alive.

But when that public official is a Democrat who literally makes a living saying other people “need to pay their fair share,” they should be tarred and feathered before they’re let loose so the Rottweilers can hunt them down.

I couldn’t be more sick and tired of self-righteous hypoctire liberal rat bastard filth Democrats making “honest mistakes” as they fail to pay their taxes.  You know what I’d like to see?  A Democrat make an “honest misktake” and finally for once in their lives making an ACTUAL honest mistake and paying TOO MUCH in the taxes they loudly demand everybody else pay.

Charlie Rangel – who sat on the House Ways and Means Committee and in fact was the CHAIRMAN of that committee that writes our damn tax laws - made an “honest mistake” in assuming that he somehow should be REPEATEDLY exempted from the laws he expected everybody else to follow.

John Kerry – who was the 2004 Democrat candidate for president of the United States – made an “honest mistake” when he decided he should screw his state in taxes he owed on his yacht and instead acted exactly like the corporations that move jobs offshore that people like him constantly demonize.  Because he damn sure moved his yacht offshore to avoid paying his taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is smart enough to run our nations entire financial system, but too damn stupid to avoid making that “honest mistake” that would have meant paying his taxes.

They’re hardly alone.  And they are just two examples of Democrats whose vile party and whose wicked electorates will never hold them accountable for their lies and their frauds.

Hopefully, Claire McCaskill will be different as the people of Missouri say “hell no!” to her kind of weasel politician less than 20 months from now.

Kansas City Throat Slashing Liberal: Media Continues To Cover Up Leftist Violence

January 25, 2011

Surveys show that 40% of Americans characterize themselves as “conservatives” versus only 19% who call themselves “liberal.”

If the media were even remotely objective in their news coverage, no Democrat would ever get elected.  Even San Fransisco would reject vile liberals as vile.

But the media isn’t objective.  And they haven’t been since long before Walter Cronkite in his guise as “the most trusted man in America” somehow forgot to disclose that he was in reality a full-fledged tinfoil-hat-wearing liberal loon.

You’re never going to get the unvarnished truth from the media: either they lay on coat after coat of varnish until they create the message they want, or they just sit on a story altogether when no amount of varnish can cover up the facts.

Case in point: in the sensitive political climate following the Tucson, Arizona shootings, the media bent over backwards to keep the story of a throat-slashing leftist maniac out of the news.

Via The Gateway Pundit:

Far Left Activist Slashes Throat of Man He Mistakes For Governor – Media Silent
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 22, 2011, 11:29 AM

Casey Brezik – a leftist slasher you’ve never heard about.

22-year-old Casey Brezik, a far left student at Metropolitan Community College — Penn Vally, thought he had stabbed the governor in Kansas City and was disappointed when he learned that the victim was actually the school’s dean of instruction, Al Dimmit Jr.

Ed Driscoll reported:

Ever hear of Casey Brezik? Neither did I, until now. At the American Thinker explains how a story that doesn’t fit the accepted MSM template doesn’t bubble up to the national news:

In September 2010 Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was scheduled to speak at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas City.

At some point, wearing black clothes and a bullet-proof vest, 22 year-old Casey Brezik bolted out of a classroom, knife in hand, and slashed the throat of a dean. As he would later admit, he confused the dean with Nixon.

The story never left Kansas City. It is not hard to understand why. Knives lack the political sex appeal of guns, and even Keith Olbermann would have had a hard time turning Brezik into a Tea Partier.

Indeed, Brezik seems to have inhaled just about every noxious vapor in the left-wing miasma: environmental extremism, radical Islam, anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism and Christophobia, among others.

In his “About Me” box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism” and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

September of last year.  And the media sat on it all this time.  You would have thought such an event would have been important for the sake of balance while the media was falsely demonizing the right for the Tucson shootings.  You know, “Let’s not go too far blaming the right for hate.  Don’t forget that only a few months ago a leftist attempted to slash the throat of the governor in Missouri.”

But nope.  They just let that little detail pass by, while they piled on unmercifully and demonically on top of a completely innocent Sarah Palin.

If there had been even the tiniest thread of a connection between Casey Brezik and the rightwing, the news media would have been all over this like flies on horse crap.  But given the fact that this thug is as leftist as, well, his hero Che Guevara, all you hear is the sound of the crickets.

It is simply amazing how dishonest and treacherous the mainstream media truly is on a constant basis.

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

August 4, 2010

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

How McCain Can Win Electoral College And Lose Popular Vote

November 3, 2008

There are a number of solidly blue large states that will drive up the tally of Obama’s popular vote support.  California, New York, and Illinois are examples of states that should easily go to Obama by huge margins.

But winning one state by a big margin in an all or nothing state doesn’t mean any more in the Presidential contest than winning that state by one single vote.

We are a nation that decides Presidents by an electoral college system that is based on building a coalition of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes.  Any combination of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes wins the White House.

Right now, there are fundamentally seven “battleground” states that will decide the election, with the remaining states having already fallen one way or the other: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.  The way the election has been breaking based on polling data, McCain has to win the first seven, or make up for a loss by winning Pennsylvania.

The point is, McCain could easily lose the popular vote by a significant margin and still win the election by narrowly winning the states he needs to win.  In the 2000 election, Gore lost to Bush while receiving a little over half a million more popular votes.  The same thing could happen to Obama, only on a much more massive scale of several million votes.

What is frightening for Democrats is that McCain has been making significant gains in those key states.  The fact that Barack Obama promised an audience of San Franciscans that his plan would bankrupt the coal industry ( and send the cost of electicity skyrocketing in the process) will not help his chances in four of those eight states.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and Indiana are four of ten states which collectively provide 90% of America’s massive coal industry.  Coal produces 49% of the electiricy consumed in the United States, so frankly everyone who doesn’t want to freeze in the dark should care.

The coal industry is located in some of the hardest-hit states.  Obama’s words could have devastating consequences for a large swath of the nation.

Rasmussen currently has McCain tied with Obama in four of those vital states (Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia), and the Rasmussen data would not include either the full extent of the late McCain surge or the fallout from Obama’s “bankrupt the coal plants” statement.  And the poll that predicted the race most accurately in the last presidential election has the national race within two points, within the IBD/TIPP poll’s margin of error.  Most polls show the race at a 6-7 point gap.

On top of these factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, in which people told pollsters misleading information, but in the end refused to vote for a black candidate (Tom Bradley) who had led in the polls and who continued to lead in the exit polling in the 1982 race for Governor of California.   And Barack Obama, whether due to the “Bradley Effect” or something else, did not prove to be a stong finisher during the primary races against Hillary Clinton.  John McCain, by contrast, has always been a historically strong finisher who has relied on a “72 hour” strategy and simply doesn’t have any quit in him.

It may be a crucial factoid that seven of the eight critical states are traditionally Republican.  If Republicans have a stronger get-out-the-vote machine in their “home field states,” McCain may very well pull out a shocking win.

An Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti titled “Can Obama win popular vote but lose election?” appears to be a fairly balanced presentation of the facts as most of the media believe they understand them.

But we can go back to 1980 to see the media asking the question, “Where the Polls Went Wrong” to try to cope with bad projections that led to massive failures by both the polling organizations and the media who broadcast what turned out to be disinformation.

One thing I know: nobody deserves to look bad more than the mainstream media.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 512 other followers