Saturday, September 11, 2010

Why Didn't Obama Punch Rev. Wright in the Face?

Leave me a comment on this, please? I think that it's a great point-- and if it makes sense, email it out, please.

Okay-- imagine that the week after the worst terrorist attack in world history, in which almost 3,000 of your countrymen were murdered you were in church and the pastor began telling the parishioners that the United States brought it on itself. That we deserved it. That America deserved to be damned by God.

Imagine he's saying this, complete with foul language, in front of your young children. He's saying that your country deserved the vicious assault and that your countrymen just got in the way.

Wouldn't you punch that pompous asshole in the face?

I'm not being sarcastic here. If you were in church and you heard that from the pulpit, wouldn't you calmly get up, roll up your sleeves and punch him over the altar?

Or at least walk out?

Why didn't then-State Senator Barack Obama do this to Reverend Jeremiah Wright? He would have been hailed as a hero and had the self-satisfaction of sticking up for the murdered. Why didn't he at least gather up his family, give the preacher the finger and walk out, never to return again?

Or at least demand an apology?

Yet Obama did none of that. Instead, he mumbled some comments to the news about how we had to understand the al Qaeda terrorists and how poverty was partly to blame.

So once again, and I'm asking you the reader to answer and get your friends and family to answer:

Should Obama have punched Wright in the face?

Originally posted September 11, 2009

We Should be Ashamed

Exactly nine years ago to the minute, hundreds of people were dying. Many died of burns, trauma, or smoke inhalation. Just minutes later would almost 3,000 in total be murdered by an imperialist attack by the forces of Islamist terrorism. People jumped from the Towers in order to not suffer burns any longer-- people walked stunned over the Brooklyn Bridge-- over 200 firefighters did not return home.

And few remember.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. In the days following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, some of the most parroted lines were "Lest we forget" and "Never forget." By the end of 2005 it was apparent that the majority of Americans had forgotten, or just did not care.

Think about the resolve of the 90% of Americans who stood up to call for a blistering attack on the center of Islamist terrorism. That not only meant the Taliban, but state sponsors, like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Time had come to finally destroy those who had funded this type of murder for decades.

Do you remember how idiotic the 10% of the rest of the country looked when they opposed attacking Osama? Those people formed the core of the anti-Iraq War detractors and the Kerry '04 and Obama '08 campaigns. They are just as stupid now as they were while Ground Zero was still smoldering.

President Bush made a roaring and strong speech just nine days after the attack, showing just what we had to do. Americans were supportive of it then, when we actually remembered the attack:    

We're really so concerned that three terrorists were waterboarded? We're so concerned that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of the deaths of 3,000 Americans and the decapitator of Daniel Pearl, had a gunshot fired near him to scare him? I don't care. He murdered thousands of innocent people. I just don't care about him getting waterboarded, and neither should you.

We whine so much about the tools which prevented the next attack. We are disgusted by the lessons learned from the attacks.

Say what you want about George W. Bush, but he kept his promises. He promised that he wouldn't forget. He promised that he would make sure to avenge September 11th, 2001, and make sure that it would not reoccur on his watch.

He kept his word-- that is his legacy.  

Originally posted September 11, 2009

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Vote in Our Poll: What Has Been Obama's Worst Mistake Since Taking Office?

Remember to support our advertisers!

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Vote in Our Poll: The Greatest General in History

Monday, August 30, 2010

Proof: Democrats at Fault for the Recession

Claims have been bandied about that President Bush was at fault for the economic down-turn that began in late 2007.  Until now, Democrats have pointed the finger at our 43rd President, stating that he single-handedly pushed our nation to the brink of economic collapse.  That stops today.  Examining unemployment, national debt data, and GDP growth, the truth becomes clear and apparent.  President Bush was not at fault for the recession we are in.  The Democrats who took over Congress in 2007 are.

From 1995 to January of 2007, Republicans held at least one house of Congress.  However, in the 2006 mid-term elections, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate.  They took their new offices in January, 2007.  Soon after that time until now, the United States has entered a deep recession, often attributed to President Bush.  However, examining the actions of the Democratic Congress and the effects that came, the truth is revealed.

Unemployment is a figure that commands the attention of everyone, from the rich to the poor.  Examining its data seems the logical place to start.  While President Bush and Republicans controlled Congress, unemployment stayed around 5%, increasing by slightly over 1% after 9/11, from 4.7% to 6.3% in January of 2002.  However, it eventually fell to 4.1% by the time of the November 2006 election.  After Democrats took office, they passed incredibly expensive new bills, including raising minimum wage and the CLEAN Energy Act.

Under the Democrats, unemployment started to balloon.  It stated to climb, rising past 4.5%, past 5%, past 6%, and past 6.5%, all the way to 8.5% by the time they had been in office for just two years.  By then, President Obama had been inaugurated, and unemployment continued to rise as spending increased.  This chart explains, in depth, the bills Democrats passed, and the effects they had from November 2006-March 2010 (click for a sharper, bigger image):
As you can see, the massive new spending that has been taking place from 2007-the present has had a major effect on unemployment.

A large National Debt data is also something that Democrats like to blame President Bush for.  However, examining our debt as a percent of our GDP shows the truth again.  This number sounds complicated, but in fact it is pretty simple.  "Our debt as a percent of our GDP" simply means that if our GDP is $100 and our debt is $60, then our "debt as a percent of our GDP" is 60%.  From 2001-2007 (when Republicans left office), the percent of our debt grew from 57.4% to 65.6%, or 8.8% (around 1.2% a year).  Though the number did rise, you must take into account 9/11, the devastation from Hurricane Katrina, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Further, from 2005-2007, it slowed to an average of .5% per year, which means it may have began to go down in the near future.

Then Democrats took office.  In their first full year in office, the debt as a percent of GDP rose 4.6%, from 65.6% to 70.2%.  The next year was even more astounding, as the percent rose 15.9%, to 86.1%.  So far this year, the percent is up another 5% to 91.1%.  This graph explains in greater detail (click for a better image):
See the huge spike on the right side?  That's when Democrats took control of Congress.

The growth of our very economy is also very important to examine.  Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, our GDP grew on average around 3%, peaking in the fall of 2003 to nearly 7%.  The GDP only decreased in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and that was only for one quarter.

Then Democrats took Congress.  At the beginning of 2008, our GDP sharply dropped.  By the end of 2008, it was retracting at a rate of almost 7%.  This graph shows everything in more detail (click for a bigger, sharper image):
The fall in growth under Democrats is amazing.

Examining this data, there can only be one conclusion: the United States entered our recession as the result of the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007.  The truth is out.  Once again, the Democratic strategy of blaming President Bush for everything is revealed to be a lie.  It is quite possible that the only way to remedy the recession we are in is to once again elect a Republican majority.

The truth is out.

-- Mike

Remember to support our advertisers!

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Is Glenn Beck Running for President?

It's not just spending, it's not just taxes, it's not just corruption, it is progressivism, and it is in both parties. It is in the Republicans and the Democrats.

Glenn Beck, one of the nation's most listened to radio and television personality, has been busy lately. Yesterday, he and 2008 VP candidate and former Governor Sarah Palin held a rally together, telling the audience of thousands to 'restore America's honor.' He has been spearheading the "9.12 Project" in recent months, where he pleads with Americans to return to a 'simpler, more moral' time in our history. Mr. Beck has also been heavily tied to the Tea Party. Are these isolated incidents, as Beck used to say, or are they tied to a grander scheme?  Is Glenn Beck running for President?

Haley Up Big in South Carolina

 The Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, has opened a wide lead over her Democratic opponent. Haley won a huge primary victory over multiple opponents despite all of the slander leveled against her. Her victory would make her the second Indian-American governor in American history. The poll is from Rasmussen, the most accurate national pollster.

Haley (R): 52%
Sheheen (D): 36%
Other/und: 12%

Up by 16%
Haley's numbers simply show that she's cruising towards an easy victory. Not only is she above 50% but Sheheen can't even break 40%. It would also appear that all of the accusations of misdoing have not stuck and Haley's former role in the administration of Governor Mark Sanford.

Don't forget to comment and to bookmark our site!

Infolinks In Text Ads


blogger templates | Make Money Online