hattip Ann Barnhardt
Lord Monckton clearly explains the Alinsky rules to shut down skepticism regarding the BC fraud posted on the White House's website and AGW...
Speaking of AGW deniers, Australia has taken a big step back from the carbon cliff with their recent Queensland and Victoria elections. Jo Nova explains:
"We shouldn’t underestimate shift that has just taken place. The psychology of Australian politics moved as the large swinging center was revealed. Not only was the Queensland election worse for Labor than anyone predicted, the message was clear, voters rejected the lies, and rejected the carbon tax. The smear campaign by the Labor leader (Bligh) did more harm to her than it did to her target. Finally, the Hype-and-Spin Machine ran off the rails.
This is real progress. Today both Queensland and Victoria are peeling back the warmist bureaucracy. I’m happy.
The new premier of Queensland Campbell Newman, is scrapping many state carbon reduction schemes. Who knew that the head of Queensland’s Office of Climate Change was none other than Mr Withers, husband of former Premier Anna Bligh? Who said the Labor Party nowadays is just about government money for supporters and mates?
Campbell Newman has said he won’t sack Withers. Instead he wants him to unwind all the programs he put in place. Newman is keeping the solar subsidies for household rooftops, but everything else is being dumped."
GOOD on ya, Australia!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
add Tom Hanks to the stinky statist pile
Add Tom Hanks to this list of Hollywood people I will NEVER watch again (like Jane Fonda who might play Nancy Reagan, geeez, Cuba & Venezuela facist dictator lovin' Sean Penn, idjit Matt Damon and a whole host of other Hollyweird leftist idjits...).
I will vote with my pocketbook by NOT purchasing ANY more of their tripe.
Chris Bannon at Breitbart explains it eloquently regarding HBO's 'Game Change' Palin hit piece:
"Like Clarence Thomas before her, Palin gets an electronic lynching by the mindless media morons and their special interest shock troops. If successful the slash and burn, march to the sea plan would leave nothing but a smoldering mound of ash where hope and promise had burned so brightly. And now we know, that our Hanks and his little TV film are part and parcel of that dastardly plan.
We thought, based on his pretend film characters and his spotless Hollywood reputation, that he was a man of chivalry, a man who would stand up to injustice and call out the bullies with us. He is, after all, known for his depictions of ordinary characters in extraordinary circumstances. But to our disappointment, Hanks took the low road and went "all in" with the unfortunate dark and corrupt forces of personal destruction.
For his part, Hanks goes above and beyond in his loathing portrayal of someone who, like him, overcame all the odds to achieve the American dream. Hard work, tenacity and determination made Hanks and Palin successful, and nobody ever handed them anything. But those virtues are only vices to Hanks now; a man on a different kind of mission.
The saddest part of this story is not Palin but that of Hanks. You see, he was in charge, and he could have risen to the occasion to be as great a producer as he is an actor. He could have taken this Capra-esque story and seized the moment to be heroic, but he passed on all that to instead be cool and loved and "with" the in-crowd. A great producer would have recognized the opportunity of a lifetime that this whole story presented. A first take on a strong, female character. Great characters in the form of the first African American candidate, a former first lady, the first Republican woman on the ticket and a certified American war hero. All of that in the midst of a world financial meltdown.
Trust me, material like that does not come along very often. But instead, Hanks, with his smirking co-conspirators by his side, decided to reduce it to the tabloid trash that it is and the very stuff he, of all people, should revile the most.
A simple question could have solved all of this. Did Heilemann & Halperin get it right, or did they just hear what they wanted to hear because of their own pre-disposition? Did it ever occur to anyone, especially Hanks, that McCain's political manager, Steve Schmidt, and crew, ran a terrible campaign for a very marginal candidate and that they, in fact, needed a scape goat to cover their professional tracks ? Did the authors of the book ever wonder why nobody wanted to go on the record ? The whole thing just stinks.
The unfortunate truth here is that nobody in the food chain wanted to know the truth, so everyone involved fell into line and turned all their guns on Palin, no questions asked. By doing so, they have lost any credibility as journalists, as political experts, as filmmakers and honest brokers.
Truth is stranger than fiction and like they say in the news biz ... you can't write this stuff. I and millions of Tommy's fans are disgusted by it all. We have been deceived and now we see the real Hanks fully exposed from behind the curtain. He is not the humble, "aw, shucks" guy we have been sold by the Hollywood media machine. He is, in fact, just another pompous, self-important pretender who thinks his unique pretending ability gives him license to pontificate."
I will vote with my pocketbook by NOT purchasing ANY more of their tripe.
Chris Bannon at Breitbart explains it eloquently regarding HBO's 'Game Change' Palin hit piece:
"Like Clarence Thomas before her, Palin gets an electronic lynching by the mindless media morons and their special interest shock troops. If successful the slash and burn, march to the sea plan would leave nothing but a smoldering mound of ash where hope and promise had burned so brightly. And now we know, that our Hanks and his little TV film are part and parcel of that dastardly plan.
We thought, based on his pretend film characters and his spotless Hollywood reputation, that he was a man of chivalry, a man who would stand up to injustice and call out the bullies with us. He is, after all, known for his depictions of ordinary characters in extraordinary circumstances. But to our disappointment, Hanks took the low road and went "all in" with the unfortunate dark and corrupt forces of personal destruction.
For his part, Hanks goes above and beyond in his loathing portrayal of someone who, like him, overcame all the odds to achieve the American dream. Hard work, tenacity and determination made Hanks and Palin successful, and nobody ever handed them anything. But those virtues are only vices to Hanks now; a man on a different kind of mission.
The saddest part of this story is not Palin but that of Hanks. You see, he was in charge, and he could have risen to the occasion to be as great a producer as he is an actor. He could have taken this Capra-esque story and seized the moment to be heroic, but he passed on all that to instead be cool and loved and "with" the in-crowd. A great producer would have recognized the opportunity of a lifetime that this whole story presented. A first take on a strong, female character. Great characters in the form of the first African American candidate, a former first lady, the first Republican woman on the ticket and a certified American war hero. All of that in the midst of a world financial meltdown.
Trust me, material like that does not come along very often. But instead, Hanks, with his smirking co-conspirators by his side, decided to reduce it to the tabloid trash that it is and the very stuff he, of all people, should revile the most.
A simple question could have solved all of this. Did Heilemann & Halperin get it right, or did they just hear what they wanted to hear because of their own pre-disposition? Did it ever occur to anyone, especially Hanks, that McCain's political manager, Steve Schmidt, and crew, ran a terrible campaign for a very marginal candidate and that they, in fact, needed a scape goat to cover their professional tracks ? Did the authors of the book ever wonder why nobody wanted to go on the record ? The whole thing just stinks.
The unfortunate truth here is that nobody in the food chain wanted to know the truth, so everyone involved fell into line and turned all their guns on Palin, no questions asked. By doing so, they have lost any credibility as journalists, as political experts, as filmmakers and honest brokers.
Truth is stranger than fiction and like they say in the news biz ... you can't write this stuff. I and millions of Tommy's fans are disgusted by it all. We have been deceived and now we see the real Hanks fully exposed from behind the curtain. He is not the humble, "aw, shucks" guy we have been sold by the Hollywood media machine. He is, in fact, just another pompous, self-important pretender who thinks his unique pretending ability gives him license to pontificate."
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
scotus discuss constitution and health care: a BFD
So you've heard the 9 justices at the top USA court, yes, the supreme court of the united states (affectionately called 'scotus') is discussing O-scare this week. Will the 2012 scotus go back and right some wrongs which have been in place since 1936?!
Why does anyone care? What does it mean? Can law be enacted to FORCE every individual in America to PURCHASE something? (hint: that is NOT a "free" society!)...
Heritage comments on day 2: "If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power."
Everyone in America will be impacted by this decision: to continue down the path of leftist socialism or get back to a free, constitutional republic? A couple good articles on this topic at AT worth reading are:
The Constitution, 'Constitutional Law,' and ObamaCare by George Leef who points out:
"Thus, the purpose of that clause was to remedy a problem that had arisen in the new nation -- namely, that some states were impeding the flow of commerce with laws favoring producers within their borders. To keep commerce "regular" meant that Congress could enact laws to prevent that abuse of power by the states. It was never meant, as Madison wrote, as a grant of power for whatever future Congresses might want to do to control everything relating to people's commercial affairs.
For a long time, that was how the Supreme Court understood the Commerce Clause. As late as 1935, the Court refused to accede to the "progressive" notion that the clause meant that Congress could intervene in business operations. In Schechter Poultry, the Court declared unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that Congress had no authority to dictate to businesses how they must operate, nor to delegate such decisions to unelected bureaucracies.
Late in 1936, however, President Roosevelt, angered at a Court that had struck down many of his statist plans for controlling the nation's economy, issued his infamous threat to pack the Supreme Court. That plan met with a great deal of opposition within his own party, but it apparently worked on two members of the Court: Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts. When it came to deciding the test case involving FDR's extraordinarily authoritarian National Labor Relations Act in 1937, they switched from supporting the old, correct understanding of the Commerce Clause to supporting the "progressive interpretation" that the clause gave Congress power to enact any law that would somehow "affect" interstate commerce. The funny thing about that decision, Jones & Laughlin Steel, is that the majority never bothered to mention the Court's previous Commerce Clause decisions. It was as if Schechter disappeared into a black hole."
- and -
Supreme Court to Decide if the U.S. Constitution Is a Dead Letter by Bob Marshall who advises:
"In its ObamaCare briefs, the government relies heavily on the properly ridiculed 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a bureaucratic decision dictating the amount of wheat that a farmer grew for his family and his livestock, even though the wheat never traveled in or had any connection to interstate commerce. This was not a decision reached on the legal merits. Rather, it was the product of an unprecedented exercise of raw political power by President Roosevelt.
Shedding light on this dismal past may embarrass the Court into doing the right thing.
I hold out hope that if the Court focuses on how it was manipulated into its current jurisprudence, it just might be willing to re-examine whether it erred.
One of the great problems is that if the Supreme Court goes off-track long enough, those who agree with the policy result raise the defense of stare decisis -- the legal principle by which courts follow the precedent of prior cases. It is for this reason that lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court seem to discuss only rarely the original text of the Constitution, instead often analyzing Supreme Court decisions. However, the Constitution is what the Founders said it was -- not what the Court says it is.
But there are times when the Court recognizes that it went off-track, or allowed lower courts to do so, and chooses to return to the text of the Constitution. We have seen two instances of this recently, where the country is better off because the Court re-examined precedent in light of the Constitutional text."
Freedom vs Tyranny = a VERY big f*ing deal indeed
Why does anyone care? What does it mean? Can law be enacted to FORCE every individual in America to PURCHASE something? (hint: that is NOT a "free" society!)...
Heritage comments on day 2: "If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power."
Everyone in America will be impacted by this decision: to continue down the path of leftist socialism or get back to a free, constitutional republic? A couple good articles on this topic at AT worth reading are:
The Constitution, 'Constitutional Law,' and ObamaCare by George Leef who points out:
"Thus, the purpose of that clause was to remedy a problem that had arisen in the new nation -- namely, that some states were impeding the flow of commerce with laws favoring producers within their borders. To keep commerce "regular" meant that Congress could enact laws to prevent that abuse of power by the states. It was never meant, as Madison wrote, as a grant of power for whatever future Congresses might want to do to control everything relating to people's commercial affairs.
For a long time, that was how the Supreme Court understood the Commerce Clause. As late as 1935, the Court refused to accede to the "progressive" notion that the clause meant that Congress could intervene in business operations. In Schechter Poultry, the Court declared unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that Congress had no authority to dictate to businesses how they must operate, nor to delegate such decisions to unelected bureaucracies.
Late in 1936, however, President Roosevelt, angered at a Court that had struck down many of his statist plans for controlling the nation's economy, issued his infamous threat to pack the Supreme Court. That plan met with a great deal of opposition within his own party, but it apparently worked on two members of the Court: Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts. When it came to deciding the test case involving FDR's extraordinarily authoritarian National Labor Relations Act in 1937, they switched from supporting the old, correct understanding of the Commerce Clause to supporting the "progressive interpretation" that the clause gave Congress power to enact any law that would somehow "affect" interstate commerce. The funny thing about that decision, Jones & Laughlin Steel, is that the majority never bothered to mention the Court's previous Commerce Clause decisions. It was as if Schechter disappeared into a black hole."
- and -
Supreme Court to Decide if the U.S. Constitution Is a Dead Letter by Bob Marshall who advises:
"In its ObamaCare briefs, the government relies heavily on the properly ridiculed 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a bureaucratic decision dictating the amount of wheat that a farmer grew for his family and his livestock, even though the wheat never traveled in or had any connection to interstate commerce. This was not a decision reached on the legal merits. Rather, it was the product of an unprecedented exercise of raw political power by President Roosevelt.
Shedding light on this dismal past may embarrass the Court into doing the right thing.
I hold out hope that if the Court focuses on how it was manipulated into its current jurisprudence, it just might be willing to re-examine whether it erred.
One of the great problems is that if the Supreme Court goes off-track long enough, those who agree with the policy result raise the defense of stare decisis -- the legal principle by which courts follow the precedent of prior cases. It is for this reason that lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court seem to discuss only rarely the original text of the Constitution, instead often analyzing Supreme Court decisions. However, the Constitution is what the Founders said it was -- not what the Court says it is.
But there are times when the Court recognizes that it went off-track, or allowed lower courts to do so, and chooses to return to the text of the Constitution. We have seen two instances of this recently, where the country is better off because the Court re-examined precedent in light of the Constitutional text."
Freedom vs Tyranny = a VERY big f*ing deal indeed
 |
| image of the doc which MUST be saved - from Jeanetta Lynn Parker |
Monday, March 26, 2012
lol Denmark media not bought, paid for by O-regime
from TheRightScoop
Shite, how embarrassing for the ones that promote TheO ... Denmark media must not be paid fo - as they point out the idiocy that is the Obla-bla-bla telemprompter-totus regime. GEE whiz batman...
Shite, how embarrassing for the ones that promote TheO ... Denmark media must not be paid fo - as they point out the idiocy that is the Obla-bla-bla telemprompter-totus regime. GEE whiz batman...
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Bristol's blog
Bristol Palin is blogging and speaking out in truthful form... just like her mom! One of her recent posts has over 2000 comments - wow ... Go Bristol ! :)
Check it out:
Check it out:
 |
| Bristol's Blog |
Oscare at SCOTUS next week
Go visualize O-scare - it goes to SCOTUS next week!
Heritage writes about some possible outcomes: "Next week, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) centered on the constitutionality of the legislation’s individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. From a legal perspective, the Court’s decision will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to congressional authority—fundamentally, whether the federal government remains one of limited powers. From a health policy perspective, for every possible outcome—including the Supreme Court either upholding or striking down the totality of the PPACA—Congress will have to take some kind of action in response. Congress’s best course is to repeal the PPACA, or what remains after the Court has done its work, and then adopt real, patient-centered reforms like those put forward in The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream.
Their conclusion:
"From a legal perspective, these cases will have implications far beyond the PPACA and will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to congressional authority—fundamentally, whether the federal government remains one of limited powers. From a policy perspective, unless the entire PPACA is struck down, Congress will have significant work to do in addressing what remains.
The Supreme Court’s decision is important, both as a legal matter and in defense of limited government, but it will not, by itself, achieve good health care policy. Accordingly, legislators should not be counting on the Court to save them from themselves. The necessary and best course of action for Congress is therefore to repeal the PPACA, or what of it remains after the Court has done its work, and to achieve real, market-based reforms like those put forward in Saving the American Dream."
 |
| visualize the horror that is O-scare from the RSC |
Go visualize O-scare - it goes to SCOTUS next week!
Heritage writes about some possible outcomes: "Next week, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) centered on the constitutionality of the legislation’s individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. From a legal perspective, the Court’s decision will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to congressional authority—fundamentally, whether the federal government remains one of limited powers. From a health policy perspective, for every possible outcome—including the Supreme Court either upholding or striking down the totality of the PPACA—Congress will have to take some kind of action in response. Congress’s best course is to repeal the PPACA, or what remains after the Court has done its work, and then adopt real, patient-centered reforms like those put forward in The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream.
The Supreme Court will soon hear three cases
challenging features of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
popularly known as “Obamacare.”[1] Across three days of oral argument, the
Court will consider four broad legal questions..."
Their conclusion:
"From a legal perspective, these cases will have implications far beyond the PPACA and will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to congressional authority—fundamentally, whether the federal government remains one of limited powers. From a policy perspective, unless the entire PPACA is struck down, Congress will have significant work to do in addressing what remains.
The Supreme Court’s decision is important, both as a legal matter and in defense of limited government, but it will not, by itself, achieve good health care policy. Accordingly, legislators should not be counting on the Court to save them from themselves. The necessary and best course of action for Congress is therefore to repeal the PPACA, or what of it remains after the Court has done its work, and to achieve real, market-based reforms like those put forward in Saving the American Dream."
Friday, March 23, 2012
support Hope For Paws in CA
wow... check out an amazing rescue of a little blind maltese from Nov 2010... The people at Hope for Paws have hearts of gold... Remember to always spay and neuter - and support the small rescue organizations instead of the big ones... Lucky Fiona was rescued - watch her story:
Americans have huge, generous hearts ... Many donate their time, energy and talents for rescuing all sorts of animals... You can only do this in a free sociey. Another example of the pursuit of happiness... It must be protected.
Americans have huge, generous hearts ... Many donate their time, energy and talents for rescuing all sorts of animals... You can only do this in a free sociey. Another example of the pursuit of happiness... It must be protected.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
beautiful girl from Zimbabwe
Waiting in line at the grocery the other day, I noticed my checkout girl had a pretty smile with dimples, very dark skin and short afro hairdo. She was probably African or perhaps American. I said my usual "hi!" with a smile when it was my turn. She said 'hi' back and smiled. I asked "so where are you from originally?..." and she happily responded "Zimbabwe, and with your accent perhaps you are Canadian or from the states?".
(Hey, she quickly detected I'm no kiwi...)
"The states. I'm from the Chicago area. My old boss was from Zimbabwe" I answered. I thought about my old boss Sean who has lived in NZ for over 10 years. Last year he went back to Zimbabwe to meet up with friends on a house boat vacation.
Would you vacation in Zimbabwe? I'm amazed at New Zealanders who routinely visit dangerous foreign countries for vacation. Kiwis apparently haven't experienced millions of poor, unhappy people who might be armed and want to rob or shoot you... (yes, NZ, this actually happens sometimes, perhaps not to you, but everywhere in the world is not a kind and happy place - remember Sir Peter Blake?!)...
Anyway, I digress... no, my old boss from Zimbabwe wasn't afraid at all to travel back there - just as I wouldn't be afraid to travel in Chicago. In my home area, I know exactly where all the fun is - and where the danger is. African safari trip for you? Ha! Sounds cool, but not for me, no way... I would be way too terrified to travel anywhere in Africa. There are even parts of Chicago I am too scared to visit: poor, downtrodden neighborhoods - with liquor stores on every corner and unemployed youth roaming around armed with weapons. Downtown Harare or west/south sides of Chicago? Which is more dangerous? ...
"So, how long have you lived in New Zealand?" I then asked her.
"Three years" she responded.
"And how do you like New Zealand?" I further probed as we both glanced out towards the parking lot and drizzling rain.
"It is OK... but I miss the dry heat... its very humid here".
"It sure is" I agreed "... but at least it doesn't snow! We get a lot of snow in Chicago winter. Have you ever lived in a snowy climate?" I asked her.
"No...!" she answered with a giggle. She asked "have you been back home?".
"Yes" I said "I try to get back every couple years to visit family... but it sure is expensive to travel anywhere from way down here in NZ."
There was a few seconds pause as she continued taking my goods, one by one, over the price scanner. My thoughts drifted back to a snowy Chicago... maybe she was pondering the dry heat of Africa.
"I'll probably move back... My sister and her husband just moved back to Africa, but not Zimbabwe...they moved to South Africa" she then offered almost apologetically... I wondered if the Mugabe regime bothered her... but time was quickly running out for our short conversation.
"...I miss home" she continued. And there it was. Even though she was from a tyrannical country with a severly oppressive government which has opponents silenced or killed... It was her home, it was what she knew and she missed it.
"yes, I understand..." I said trying to empathize while readying to swipe my card and pay my bill.
I started to push my trolly away. "At least there's no snow here..." I suggested to her with a smile and "Enjoy New Zealand!" I chirped.
"You, too..." she answered with her pretty smile and friendly face.
I drove the 20 minutes back home noticing some dark skinned African people walking on sidewalks (footpaths) going about their daily business. I wondered...
Were they from Zimbabwe? Did they flee the Mugabe regime? Did they miss the hot African climate? Do they enjoy their new life in New Zealand?
Later that evening, I wondered how long checkout girl would she stay in NZ. How many refugees come to NZ from Africa? Were they happy here? Do they miss the dry hot weather, the lions, the zebras, the elephants...despite the tyranny of their homeland?
I occasionally miss life in America but at the moment, I like living in NZ more than I miss the USA.
I have a terrific husband. We are 'nesters' and enjoy a small, beautiful, peaceful home. We have great jobs in IT... mellow climate here is nice, we have pretty scenery, decent people around, cool stuff, pets, cars... just not quite as many friends as we did in Chicago.
Will we live the rest of our lives here in NZ? ... Dunno. I'm not sure I would move back to Illinois. There is a huge exodus of people leaving Illinois and guess I'm one 'em ("Illinois’s high tax ways have already prompted a net of 1,227,347 residents to move to other states between 1991 and 2009, or about one resident every 10 minutes.")
Robert Mugabe is now 88 still refusing to cede power. Well who would? He has raped his own country for years, he relishes the power and loves the life of riches and luxury. I'm sure he's just fine and dandy ... happy as Larry.
Things won't improve much in Zimbabwe until Mugabi is dead. When that happens, Zimbabwe will hopefully turn things around for themeselves.
I never thought I'd meet someone in NZ who missed Zimbabwe... Perhaps she will move back one day... back to hot, dry Africa... and hopefully her home country will free itself of tyranny and welcome her return.
(Hey, she quickly detected I'm no kiwi...)
"The states. I'm from the Chicago area. My old boss was from Zimbabwe" I answered. I thought about my old boss Sean who has lived in NZ for over 10 years. Last year he went back to Zimbabwe to meet up with friends on a house boat vacation.
Would you vacation in Zimbabwe? I'm amazed at New Zealanders who routinely visit dangerous foreign countries for vacation. Kiwis apparently haven't experienced millions of poor, unhappy people who might be armed and want to rob or shoot you... (yes, NZ, this actually happens sometimes, perhaps not to you, but everywhere in the world is not a kind and happy place - remember Sir Peter Blake?!)...
Anyway, I digress... no, my old boss from Zimbabwe wasn't afraid at all to travel back there - just as I wouldn't be afraid to travel in Chicago. In my home area, I know exactly where all the fun is - and where the danger is. African safari trip for you? Ha! Sounds cool, but not for me, no way... I would be way too terrified to travel anywhere in Africa. There are even parts of Chicago I am too scared to visit: poor, downtrodden neighborhoods - with liquor stores on every corner and unemployed youth roaming around armed with weapons. Downtown Harare or west/south sides of Chicago? Which is more dangerous? ...
"So, how long have you lived in New Zealand?" I then asked her.
"Three years" she responded.
"And how do you like New Zealand?" I further probed as we both glanced out towards the parking lot and drizzling rain.
"It is OK... but I miss the dry heat... its very humid here".
"It sure is" I agreed "... but at least it doesn't snow! We get a lot of snow in Chicago winter. Have you ever lived in a snowy climate?" I asked her.
"No...!" she answered with a giggle. She asked "have you been back home?".
"Yes" I said "I try to get back every couple years to visit family... but it sure is expensive to travel anywhere from way down here in NZ."
There was a few seconds pause as she continued taking my goods, one by one, over the price scanner. My thoughts drifted back to a snowy Chicago... maybe she was pondering the dry heat of Africa.
"I'll probably move back... My sister and her husband just moved back to Africa, but not Zimbabwe...they moved to South Africa" she then offered almost apologetically... I wondered if the Mugabe regime bothered her... but time was quickly running out for our short conversation.
"...I miss home" she continued. And there it was. Even though she was from a tyrannical country with a severly oppressive government which has opponents silenced or killed... It was her home, it was what she knew and she missed it.
"yes, I understand..." I said trying to empathize while readying to swipe my card and pay my bill.
I started to push my trolly away. "At least there's no snow here..." I suggested to her with a smile and "Enjoy New Zealand!" I chirped.
"You, too..." she answered with her pretty smile and friendly face.
I drove the 20 minutes back home noticing some dark skinned African people walking on sidewalks (footpaths) going about their daily business. I wondered...
Were they from Zimbabwe? Did they flee the Mugabe regime? Did they miss the hot African climate? Do they enjoy their new life in New Zealand?
Later that evening, I wondered how long checkout girl would she stay in NZ. How many refugees come to NZ from Africa? Were they happy here? Do they miss the dry hot weather, the lions, the zebras, the elephants...despite the tyranny of their homeland?
I occasionally miss life in America but at the moment, I like living in NZ more than I miss the USA.
I have a terrific husband. We are 'nesters' and enjoy a small, beautiful, peaceful home. We have great jobs in IT... mellow climate here is nice, we have pretty scenery, decent people around, cool stuff, pets, cars... just not quite as many friends as we did in Chicago.
Will we live the rest of our lives here in NZ? ... Dunno. I'm not sure I would move back to Illinois. There is a huge exodus of people leaving Illinois and guess I'm one 'em ("Illinois’s high tax ways have already prompted a net of 1,227,347 residents to move to other states between 1991 and 2009, or about one resident every 10 minutes.")
Robert Mugabe is now 88 still refusing to cede power. Well who would? He has raped his own country for years, he relishes the power and loves the life of riches and luxury. I'm sure he's just fine and dandy ... happy as Larry.
Things won't improve much in Zimbabwe until Mugabi is dead. When that happens, Zimbabwe will hopefully turn things around for themeselves.
I never thought I'd meet someone in NZ who missed Zimbabwe... Perhaps she will move back one day... back to hot, dry Africa... and hopefully her home country will free itself of tyranny and welcome her return.
 |
| Cynthia Muvirimi ... Miss Zimbabwe in 2008 |
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Stuff's lame, leftist "voyages in America" blog
OK, so couple months ago I saw an American flag on a blog at Stuff.co.nz and I got a bit excited! Seemed like a kiwi going to be blogging about travels in America and report back how great America is to fellow kiwis back in NZ?! ... well, I've been disappointed...
This week his blog has a "3 hours of hell with Rush Limbaugh" discussing the writer's disgust with Rush on the Sandra Fluke's "slut" story. Wow... a kiwi blogger who is OBVIOUSLY a) only listening to leftist American media and b) has decided Rush is a monster because he called Sandra a slut (even though he later apologized).
The kiwi blogger jumped on the leftist hate Rush bandwagon. There are all sorts of intolerant and hate Rush comments in agreement with this blog post. I had to respond so my comment was:
"Wow, the "tolerance" from you and most commenters here is par for the course of emotional thinking leftists.
You all hate Rush. Got it. So, because Sandra Fluke demands other people pay her for her to get free contraception means nothing to you?
What do YOU call a woman who will NOT pay for HERSELF, but demands other people give her money so she can have sex?
The only way to understand Rush is to actually listen to his show - with an open mind.
He has millions of listeners for a reason. He is not a far right extremist at all. The mainstream American mediea is FAR left. So is Hollywood. Their voices come from perhaps 30% of America. The other 70% LOVE RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You are in the leftist minority. You and your readers just do not understand America. That is very obvious from all of your posts including this one.
Give us a break and perhaps write about something you understand."
They get points for posting my comment... but of course noone has yet answered my question (got called a troll instead...)
So, still waiting... "What do YOU call a woman who will NOT pay for HERSELF, but demands other people give her money so she can have sex?"
Anyone????? WHAT do YOU call a woman like this?
I've recently posted another comment on this blog suggesting the kiwi writer a) get out of the socialist-leftist inner city and move to the suburbs or rural America - go MEET the 70% of center-right America and b) stop watching CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC 'old' media leftist propaganda for "news".
It continutally makes me very cranky the majority of "news" which reaches NZ from America is only the far left American hating propaganda. The far left NZ Herald happily prints pro-Obama stories and rarely a truthful center-right story... The "voyages in America" blog? Give me a break. Just a blogger repeating American leftist lies.
My kiwi husband loved living in the Chicago area and he loves America, too... Where are more kiwi writers who love America and love the center-right majority who are conservatives?! I support and read their stuff - and will avoid the malarky at stuff.co.nz's blogs... Trevor Loudon is a good example of a kiwi who get's it. Forget 'voyages in America' and read Trevor instead.
Just a recommendation from a mostly tolerant center-righty who is not tolerating leftist attacks any more ...
This week his blog has a "3 hours of hell with Rush Limbaugh" discussing the writer's disgust with Rush on the Sandra Fluke's "slut" story. Wow... a kiwi blogger who is OBVIOUSLY a) only listening to leftist American media and b) has decided Rush is a monster because he called Sandra a slut (even though he later apologized).
The kiwi blogger jumped on the leftist hate Rush bandwagon. There are all sorts of intolerant and hate Rush comments in agreement with this blog post. I had to respond so my comment was:
"Wow, the "tolerance" from you and most commenters here is par for the course of emotional thinking leftists.
You all hate Rush. Got it. So, because Sandra Fluke demands other people pay her for her to get free contraception means nothing to you?
What do YOU call a woman who will NOT pay for HERSELF, but demands other people give her money so she can have sex?
The only way to understand Rush is to actually listen to his show - with an open mind.
He has millions of listeners for a reason. He is not a far right extremist at all. The mainstream American mediea is FAR left. So is Hollywood. Their voices come from perhaps 30% of America. The other 70% LOVE RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You are in the leftist minority. You and your readers just do not understand America. That is very obvious from all of your posts including this one.
Give us a break and perhaps write about something you understand."
They get points for posting my comment... but of course noone has yet answered my question (got called a troll instead...)
So, still waiting... "What do YOU call a woman who will NOT pay for HERSELF, but demands other people give her money so she can have sex?"
Anyone????? WHAT do YOU call a woman like this?
I've recently posted another comment on this blog suggesting the kiwi writer a) get out of the socialist-leftist inner city and move to the suburbs or rural America - go MEET the 70% of center-right America and b) stop watching CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC 'old' media leftist propaganda for "news".
It continutally makes me very cranky the majority of "news" which reaches NZ from America is only the far left American hating propaganda. The far left NZ Herald happily prints pro-Obama stories and rarely a truthful center-right story... The "voyages in America" blog? Give me a break. Just a blogger repeating American leftist lies.
My kiwi husband loved living in the Chicago area and he loves America, too... Where are more kiwi writers who love America and love the center-right majority who are conservatives?! I support and read their stuff - and will avoid the malarky at stuff.co.nz's blogs... Trevor Loudon is a good example of a kiwi who get's it. Forget 'voyages in America' and read Trevor instead.
Just a recommendation from a mostly tolerant center-righty who is not tolerating leftist attacks any more ...
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Condell: hey BRITAIN, time to tell the truth about Islam
another good one about the truth about Islam from Brit: Pat Condell:
Saturday, March 17, 2012
17 new minutes of lies, O dear leader propaganda
 |
| by Erin Bonsteel |
How about a possible career ending 17 minute propaganda film narrated by a leftist Hollywood liar? Besides Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Sean Penn... now I will never pay for nor watch another Tom Hanks film. Ever.
Too bad. I thought "Big" was a cute film.
I'm going to do what I can and put my money where my mouth is: I will only support or watch conservative or truthful films on TV or at the theater.
The "SoHo" channel here in NZ is going to show the lying film 'Game Change'. We will be cancelling our subscription to SoHo. I'll be happy to tell them why.
So about that 17 minute communist propaganda film... Ben Shapiro at Breitbart points out:
"The Obama re-election campaign has released a 17-minute documentary directed by Oscar-winner Davis Guggenheim, and narrated by Tom Hanks. Unfortunately, it’s more of a mockumentary than a documentary, containing a toxic mix of glowing pap and absolute falsehood."
"This is when Hanks pipes in with the biggest laugh line of the video: “And when he faced his country, who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame or dreamy idealism … As president, the tough decisions that he would make would not only determine the course of the nation, they’d reveal the character of the man.” This is patently absurd. Obama has done nothing but blame George W. Bush for all of his problems, including foot fungus, for the last four years. His speeches are a constant combination of high-flown rhetoric (dreamy idealism, you might say) and purposeful falsehoods about his economic plans. This is not a president who took responsibility. This is a president who rammed through legislation, then blamed Bush when everything when wrong."
"Well, no. If you’ll recall, the Obama auto bailout was a massive giveaway to the unions, with Obama cramming down actual investors and bondholders in the auto companies in order to appease his union base. People who had been injured in car crashes and won settlements against the car companies lost their ability to recover, while fat cat union bosses gained control over the levers of power. As for Obama’s fabled “modernization” of the car companies, production of the Chevy Volt (Obama’s favorite car) has now been stopped because it had the unfortunate habit of catching on fire. So there’s that."
... and the lies in Washington by water carrying media continue... at least they are consistent... what is really amazing to me is they actually think anyone still believes their lies. LOL!
 |
| DNC's illegal USA flag... was anyone arrested yet?! |
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
please help Zilla of the Resistance
Conservative blogger Zilla has been fighting on-going pain. Please read about it and help her out with a donation if you can:
 |
| click here to go help zilla |
thanks!
 |
Sunday, March 11, 2012
top 10 lies from HBO's "Game Change"
I'm sure you will be really SHOCKED Hollywood HBO lefties made a movie ("Game Change") filled with lies about Sarah Palin's 2008 VP run with John McCain... No... not shocked? Of course you aren't... Last year, HBO obviously assumed Sarah would be running for 2012 potus and timed their movie release to a week after super Tuesday to try to potray her negatively.
Breitbart has a good round up of the top 10 lies in this movie. Save your money, don't give it to Hollywood liars. If you want to see a realistic movie about what Palin is about, go rent or watch "The Undefeated" instead: it is playing this week on ReelzChannel March 11th in the USA.
Here is just one of the ten lies at Breitbart about 'Game Change':
"Lie #10: HBO released a defensive statement to the press along with screeners of the film saying the project "is a balanced portrayal of the McCain/Palin campaign." Having seen the movie in its entirety, I can say that that statement is beyond absurd. There was nothing "balanced" about the story they told. As someone who has studied Palin's career for years, I can say that I didn't even recognize the person sold as "Governor Palin," here played by Julianne Moore.
Click here to read the rest.
Breitbart has a good round up of the top 10 lies in this movie. Save your money, don't give it to Hollywood liars. If you want to see a realistic movie about what Palin is about, go rent or watch "The Undefeated" instead: it is playing this week on ReelzChannel March 11th in the USA.
Here is just one of the ten lies at Breitbart about 'Game Change':
"Lie #10: HBO released a defensive statement to the press along with screeners of the film saying the project "is a balanced portrayal of the McCain/Palin campaign." Having seen the movie in its entirety, I can say that that statement is beyond absurd. There was nothing "balanced" about the story they told. As someone who has studied Palin's career for years, I can say that I didn't even recognize the person sold as "Governor Palin," here played by Julianne Moore.
Beyond the grotesque character assassination, there is a heavy partisan imbalance at work. "Game Change" portrays most Republicans in a bad light -- everyone minus Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), Nicolle Wallace (Sarah Paulson), Mark Wallace (Ron Livingston), and Chris Edwards (Larry Sullivan). One character refers to former Vice President Dick Cheney as "Darth Vader," while the McCain/Palin rallies depict unhinged men yelling "terrorist" and "he's a Muslim" at the mention of Obama's name. Then, there was the the quote they placed toward the end of the movie which had Sen. John McCain (Ed Harris) warning Palin not to get "co-opted by Limbaugh and the other extremists." None of these instances were balanced and were clearly told from a left-wing point of view."
Click here to read the rest.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Fluke you Democrats: PJTV on Pee-lousy's fake hearing
The Trifecta team over at PJMedia discuss the fake Fluke-slut congressional hearing: Nancy Pee-lousy borrowed the room just so Democrats could get the Fluke story out:
Soledad crashin' the CNN clown car
hattip iOwnTheWorld.com
Tammy Bruce explains how miss thang Soledad over at CNN crashes their clown car in a flaming heap of lies and bias when (from Hotair) they talked to Joel Pollak describing 30 year old Bamster clip. (hey MEDIA, WHY was this clip HIDDEN in the 2008 election?!) In the clip, Bambam hugs his favorite professor and fully recommends other students at Harvard listen and embrace racist views which Derrick Bell holds...
Bambam-the-teach even had his students READ up on Mr. Bell's crackpot theories later...
Interestingly, Wikipedia entry from July explained "critical race theory": archived from last July 2011:
"Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an intellectual and politically committed movement in American legal scholarship that studies race, racism and power. Originating in American law schools, critical race theory has made its way into ethnic studies, political science and education, and into a range of scholarly movements outside the US.[1]
Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, the possibility of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[2]
Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory inherited many of its political and intellectual commitments from civil rights scholarship and Critical Legal Studies, even as the movement departed significantly from both. Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars' commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[3] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in Critical Legal Studies, but criticized CLS scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.[4] "
So Joel Pollak was RIGHT and Soledad O'Brien was WRONG... what is interesting, is THEN, RIGHT when the shite hit the fan with Soledad's clown crash, the CRT wikipedia entry CHANGED to something ELSE on 8-Mar-2012! (I saw it and kept a screenshot which I'll post later) Someone REMOVED the phrase "white supremacy" and re-wrote the wikipedia entry. The following day 9-Mar-2012: it was put back to its ORIGINAL content. Here is what one of the wikipedia editor's has to say about these edits:
"What has gone on here over the last day or two is really troubling. This page was established long before the mash up on CNN and now it's being edited to reflect the sterile, innocuous definition that Soledad O'Brien posited. Long before CNN's piece, CRT was understood here to be an examination of how the US legal system reinforces "white supremacy" and that was clearly documented by the scholarly writings of Cornell West (Harvard/Yale & others) and Adrienne Dixson (Ohio State). That phrase may not sit well with some, but there's no logical argument for changing it. The "white supremacy" foundation of CRT was posited by SUPPORTERS of the theory long before it became a political issue, and now history is being revised to lessen the damage to the President's and O'Brien's reputations. This can't be allowed to stand, or Wiki will just be turned into another blog. Clearly, the article should include a mention of its assumption of white supremacy being reinforced by the America legal system and the best way to do that is to go back to version of the article of yesterday morning. Phocion1 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that "white supremacy" is a loaded phrase with two different meanings. The one I believe that's used by the CRT people means whites have a higher level of control and privilege. The other, more common meaning, and one that people react viscerally to, is that of the "White Power" and KKK crowd. That's what the Breitbart crowd are seizing on and are exploiting. There needs to be a replacement of, or fleshing out of, that hot-button phrase in the entry to clarify what the CRT advocates mean. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But, it's their phrase. Dixson's book came out in '06. There may have been a couple interpretations of "white supremacy" 20-30 years ago, but Dixson was characterizing the theory this way 5-6 years ago. Having read a great deal of social theory, I'm sure their books have whole chapters discussing how they define white supremacy. But, that's not a reason to keep the term out of the article. It's controversial, probably intentionally so given Dixson's publishing date. So, let's have the conversation they want us to have. Leave it in the article, allow it draw further contributions/context and we're all better off for having a fuller understanding. We can't sit on someone's stated views because we're not sure we understand them correctly...that's censorship. Phocion1 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- no, that's not "censorship". we owe the readers an article that easily places the concept of the article in appropriate context (as far as we can, using existing reliable sources]]. Deliberately leaving confusing jargon is inappropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is my first exposure to this sort of edit warring on Wikipedia and I am horrified. I will no longer be able to trust any entry on here that has a political context. I suspect many, many thousands of others will now come to the same conclusion. I have been an adamant defender of Wikipedia even at the public school but now I will fall silent. I will also stop donating. The facts in this case are simple. The article here on Wikipedia was more or less stable until a media event spawned a political revision"
SO, YES...WE ARE ALL CITIZEN JOURNALISTS NOW... VERIFY any"TRUTH" THE "OLD" MEDIA PROMOTES... ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HIDE IT OR RE-WRITE IT!!!
conservative women anger, smelly $ from a-hole Maher
I've been very ANGRY at the lying media and the left: ANGRY in bold, capital letters since the 2008 faux-selection of a marxist communist dictator in diapers fake usurper illegal potus Barry BamBam was installed into the people's white house...
I work full time. I am a conservative. I love America. I am TIRED of being hated by a vile USA media. I My anger is JUSTIFIED. I am WITH Breitbart.
WAR
While the left is raging about Rush's accurate "slut" comment by a woman demanding taxpayers give her lots of money so she can have SEX, fake potus BamBam is HAPPY to take a million dollar donation from smelly A-hole Bill Maher. Hattip Michelle Malkin and The Right Scoop:
Michelle Malkin points out the left goes WAY beyond the accuracy of a slut description of Fluke:
"The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.
If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House."
I work full time. I am a conservative. I love America. I am TIRED of being hated by a vile USA media. I My anger is JUSTIFIED. I am WITH Breitbart.
WAR
While the left is raging about Rush's accurate "slut" comment by a woman demanding taxpayers give her lots of money so she can have SEX, fake potus BamBam is HAPPY to take a million dollar donation from smelly A-hole Bill Maher. Hattip Michelle Malkin and The Right Scoop:
Michelle Malkin points out the left goes WAY beyond the accuracy of a slut description of Fluke:
"The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.
If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House."
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Whittle: USA's biggest enemy? Lying media
Something Andrew Breitbart and Bill Whittle understand, the USA's biggest current enemy right now: the LYING leftist media.
Let's all work just a bit harder to help make America a country worth dying for ...
Let's all work just a bit harder to help make America a country worth dying for ...
Saturday, March 3, 2012
March 27th, go see Monumental with your family
 |
| Monumental |
From the Monumental site: "this all begins on Tuesday, March 27 when more than 550 movie theaters will present a live, one-night experience that includes special guests and music, as well as the first showing of the film.
We need groups of families, churches, schools, political clubs to come out together to experience it as one community — and then share the message with others. The film will then open in theaters in select markets, and come to television and DVD mid-2012."
Into the lions den, Kirk Cameron spoke to lefist media weirdo Martin Bashir on MSNBC about his upcoming movie:
"Cameron told Bashir he was at CPAC to teach others about America’s rich history.
“That’s why I went on this personal journey, to be able to put my hand on the bars of the dungeons that the Pilgrims were thrown into and actually hold John Hancock’s John Hancock in my hands. So that I understand where we get the constitution, the Declaration, and the Mayflower Compact and all of the ideas that America has become famous for and produced this lasting liberty for 400 years.”
“That’s remarkable!” Bashir exclaimed and asked him whether there was a theological component to his message.
“I went on this mission to discover the secret recipe,” Cameron explained to a fascinated Bashir. “I want to know the secret sauce. Tell us what it is so we can move forward with it. What I discovered is the seeds that blossomed into this great nation really began with the faith of the Pilgrims. These seeds were planted in their heart by their pastor John Robinson. He, himself, was standing on the shoulders of great mean down through the ages that have passed it on. When you get to the end of this journey that I took in Plymouth, Massachusetts after visiting Holland and Washington DC, you arrive onto a hill overlooking Plymouth Rock and the Atlantic Ocean, and you see a monument that is the largest granite statue in America, 180 tons of granite and her name is faith.”
Be Like Breitbart - we are all citizen journalists now
I was shocked and shed a few tears yesterday (while initially hoping it was a hoax) after reading Andrew Breitbart, alternative media warrior, had died. I read the news from a WND.com email and on his own site Breitbart.com. His site is full on with articles from an army of citizen journalist warriors.
Andrew B. was a great inspiration to many There were/are are many tributes to Mr. Breitbart on the sites I visit daily for my alternative news -like Rush, Levin, Malkin, Delingpole just to name a few.
His legacy will be the continued growth of alternative media - the new media... Lie-fighter Mr. Breitbart understood the left and its ideological infiltration into the media. He has been a leader in helping kill the old media with his tenacity for not taking leftist lies, smear and slander aimed directly at him over the last few years (eg Acorn, Weiner stories). He was the warrior messenger the left tried to stop.. and we all owe him gratitude for his tireless efforts.
I've read he had heart issues a year or so ago. Was he taking good care of himself?
It is fitting though, his last evening was at a corner pub debating politics, a glass of wine in hand - with someone who disagreed with him. He went out fighting. Would I ever inspire anyone even after I die? I will have to work on that I think...
For now, I look forward to the "Hating Breitbart" movie which will be released in USA's 2012 summer and I'm going to go buy his book (Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World).
I'm also very curious about some tapes Breitbart had found on Oblabla at Harvard. They will be released soon. Will these tapes change the game? Will they fire up more Americans to help get Obummer the HELL out of the People's office? It would be such a sweet victory that even in death, Breitbart continues to inspire an army of alternative investigations, writers, bloggers and citizen journalists to help bring down the leviathan lying "old" lamestream media and their protected goliath communist regime Oblather 'n' crew. That.Would.Be.Sweet.
A new "big" site is coming soon. What I've always loved about the Big sites is that Andrew B. was always a presence, but he built a site for others to succeed and lead without him. He built an army that will continue to fight the good fight. His legacy will live on in all who are not silent any longer.
He will be missed but his inspiration will continue. Thank you Mr. Breitbart for your hard work, energy, service, passion and lighting the torch - you've helped light the way in the war for truth. RIP good soldier...
 |
| from TobyToons |
His legacy will be the continued growth of alternative media - the new media... Lie-fighter Mr. Breitbart understood the left and its ideological infiltration into the media. He has been a leader in helping kill the old media with his tenacity for not taking leftist lies, smear and slander aimed directly at him over the last few years (eg Acorn, Weiner stories). He was the warrior messenger the left tried to stop.. and we all owe him gratitude for his tireless efforts.
I've read he had heart issues a year or so ago. Was he taking good care of himself?
It is fitting though, his last evening was at a corner pub debating politics, a glass of wine in hand - with someone who disagreed with him. He went out fighting. Would I ever inspire anyone even after I die? I will have to work on that I think...
For now, I look forward to the "Hating Breitbart" movie which will be released in USA's 2012 summer and I'm going to go buy his book (Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World).
I'm also very curious about some tapes Breitbart had found on Oblabla at Harvard. They will be released soon. Will these tapes change the game? Will they fire up more Americans to help get Obummer the HELL out of the People's office? It would be such a sweet victory that even in death, Breitbart continues to inspire an army of alternative investigations, writers, bloggers and citizen journalists to help bring down the leviathan lying "old" lamestream media and their protected goliath communist regime Oblather 'n' crew. That.Would.Be.Sweet.
A new "big" site is coming soon. What I've always loved about the Big sites is that Andrew B. was always a presence, but he built a site for others to succeed and lead without him. He built an army that will continue to fight the good fight. His legacy will live on in all who are not silent any longer.
 |
| THE MILLION BREITBART PROJECT |
 |
| image from the People's Cube |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
