Saturday, November 9, 2013

The Maker Blues

As you can see from my lack of posts here, I have largely retired from blogging. No commenting on the blogs of others, either. I lost interest and decided my time would be better spent on other activities. Work, mainly. Being a Maker and working hard to earn enough to live comfortably while, at the same time, having a too-large amount of money stolen to support all the Takers that voted for Obama is not an easy task.

When will the Republican Party get their act together and get serious about rebuilding so that they have a chance the next time out? Then again, perhaps they are relying on Obama to do all the work for them? Once the economy crashes again, then the public may be forced to accept the fact that a welfare state is unsustainable. But, even though that will probably require a economic depression, I fear it is the only way this country will ever wake up.

Unfortunately that will likely mean mass poverty, starvation and even rioting of the ignorant masses who think they should be given a free ride paid for by those of us who are working our butts off and using our brains to get ahead. Barack Obama has demonized us productive people to the point where the idiots who vote Democrat think we (those of us whose work keeps the economy going) are the bad guys.

Frankly, I find it truly sickening. When the economy collapses due to their greed and laziness I too will suffer. That is why I'm trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible before it all goes to hell. Of course an investment strategy will be key to surviving the coming depression, as inflation will likely make any cash one might hold worth considerably less.

So far my investments have been doing well, providing a decent rate of return. I only worry about getting out before the stock market crashes. My sources say that around the time of the next presidential election is when the policies of Obama may cause the house of cards which is our economy to come tumbling down. I fear that day, although I am planning for it and working to see that I have enough to make it though.

Many of you Takers will likely bite the dust, but I surely will not shed a tear. You will only have your lack of foresight and selfishness to blame for your predicament then. You should have voted for Mitt Romney instead of going for the guy who promised you free stuff paid for by those of us who actually work.

TLB #50

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

My Problem With Dan The Liberal Slacker

Dan, an employee who works under me at the firm, has an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on his car. That confirmed it for me. Not that I was unaware of Dan's Liberal leanings before. Dan was transferred into my department a few months ago. The big boss man told me to take Dan under my wing. Dan is the son of the boss man's college roommate.

Dan is also a slacker and a total idiot. No surprise given his progressive proclivities. I took some clients out for steaks the other day and mentioned it while discussing the account with the big boss in the conference room. Dan wanted to ask the boss for a favor or something and entered the room during the tail end of our conversation.

After hearing about the steaks we ordered Dan began spouting off about how going vegan was good for the environment. I looked at the boss and he just rolled his eyes. I'd like to discuss with the boss the possibility of firing Dan, but I don't think he'd be open to the idea. Yes, the boss thinks Dan is a little odd, but his friendship with Dan's father makes the firing of Dan a little problematic.

I think I'm going to have to wait until Dan screws up and actually costs the firm money. I just hope it isn't a lot of money, as that could negatively impact the stats for my department. For the time being I think I'll continue having the intern check Dan's work and report back to me.

Susan asked me the other day why Dan got an assistant while nobody else did. I told her that Dan was still learning the ropes and I didn't have the time to mentor him anymore. Obviously that lie can only hold up for so long. Hopefully by then Dan will have exposed himself for the inept loser than he is. Then I will finally be able to breech the topic of canning him with the big boss.

TLB #49

Friday, July 12, 2013

Regarding Jodi Arias 2

In my previous post on this subject I briefly mentioned that Jodi Arias' victim and former boyfriend Travis Alexander was a Mormon. Jodi Arias is a Mormon, although she converted to Mormonism simply to please her (at the time) boyfriend. Although her conversion may not have been genuine. I also read something about her being Wiccan previously.

In any case neither one of them (as we all WELL know) adhered to their religion when it came to premarital sex. But, according to Arias, Alexander had a "Bill Clinton" view of sex, in that only intercourse counts, and that other methods could be used to get around the Mormon prohibition against getting it on prior to holy matrimony.

But that lying pervert Clinton was wrong, as was Mr. Alexander – if Arias is to be believed (although she is a huge liar I think, in regards to this, she is being truthful). Sounds like he used her and tried to throw her away, and that is why she snapped. There has to be some reason she murdered him, aside from being crazy, that is.

BTW, I'm not saying she was justified in killing Alexander, or that Arias is (or was at the time) legally insane and therefore not culpable. NO. She was convicted and justifiably so. Only that she should have dumped him for being an a-hole and a pervert instead of killing him.

Speaking of Mormons, I must (or perhaps I should not) say that is a problem I had in voting for Romney. Honestly (and maybe I shouldn't be this honest) I don't consider Mormonism a real religion. I think Joseph Smith was a fake and a liar - and it is his lies that form the basis of Mormonism. That is why I had reservations voting for a candidate who believes Joe Smith was a prophet and "The Book of Mormon" is something other than complete baloney.

But it wasn't as if there was a viable alternative. The Libs may conclude, given what I just said, I'd have supported Santorum... but no. That guy went to far in combining religion and government. Religion is a private matter and should largely stay that way. Also, he was a little too homophobic. I mean, I believe marriage shouldn't be redefined, but beyond that I think the guy is for the government sticking its nose in people's private lives WAY too much.

FYI, this falls into the category of "burning off old posts" I mentioned in my previous commentary... this something I wrote awhile ago and didn't get around to posting (on the same day I wrote the other Arias post actually). But, given my new job responsibilities, I didn't have the time to publish it. I had a few minutes today so I decided to check in, and it appears the place is dead. Only one comment on my post concerning why I've retired from blogging? Others indicated a desire to know where I'd gone, but the desire quickly faded, apparently.

TLB #48

Sunday, June 30, 2013

The Big Promotion

So the boss man calls me into his office and sits me down. Then he says, "Barlowe, you've been with the company for a long time. You're a hard worker and you've produced a lot of profit for this firm. Long story short, I want to offer you the big promotion. Needless to say, a substantial raise comes with the promotion. And the corner office too. The downside is that you'll have to take on a lot more responsibility and work more hours. But I have confidence that you can handle it".

Now, being a shrewd negotiator I didn't jump at the offer, but first had him lay out all the details. How much was the "big raise"? No, it wasn't enough. I had been entertaining offers from other firms, and the boss man's offer fell short. So we negotiated a bit and he increased his offer. I think when retirement time comes I will be sitting mighty pretty. But the increased hours and responsibility leave little time for frivolities like blogging (I was kidding about "going off the grid").

The real reason for my absence is that I've been quite busy getting up to speed on my new responsibilities. I've had to reorganize an entire department as well as call a few under performing team members into my office. Unfortunately some of them had to be let go, which means more work for me interviewing replacements. But now that my house is in order I think the future for my department is looking mighty good. Meaning I am anticipating increased profits going forward.

No doubt the boss man will be very pleased, which means I should be able to negotiate for an nice salary bump the next time my evaluation rolls around. That would be on top of the one I just received. Us productive people are in high demand, what with approximately 47 percent of the country contributing nothing to the kitty, but instead pulling resources out. Yes, people like me have to work harder to support the deadbeats, and (for that reason) I considered not accepting the promotion.

It thoroughly sickens me to think that a good portion of my hard earned salary will be distributed as hand-outs to Obamaites who spend all day smoking weed and watching TV. I work harder and the government takes more? Yeah, the raise pushed me up into a higher tax bracket, so that's more of MY MONEY going to the welfare state. These people should get jobs instead of Obamabucks for nothing.

But that is why they voted for him. He got re-elected and they get their payoff. And it is people like me that have to pay for it! Anyway, I wrote a few posts before everything happened that prevented me from blogging (writing posts or commenting on the blogs of my blogging friends dmarks and Will Hart). I'll probably post those (at least) over the next few days or weeks (seeing as they are already written). After that, who knows? I'm going to be pretty busy with my new responsibilities.

TLB #47

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Shutting Down My Blog Because I Have Retired From Blogging

I'm considering moving to some remote place and living without credit cards, using a phone, etc. Going "off the grid", in other words. The purpose would be to avoid/prevent any spying/accumulation of my personal data by the Obama administration. If this blog is never updated again you can assume that is exactly what happened.

TLB #46

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Regarding Jodi Arias

Sounds to me like her boyfriend (the dude she murdered) strung her along for quite awhile (even after he dumped her) so he could continue to have deviant sex with her (in the butt) while he looked for a good Mormon girl he could marry. Now, I am in no way saying he got what was coming to him, but neither is he completely blameless.

They were both lacking in moral character, IMO. She a gold digger, he using her desire to land him to get her to perform deviant sexual acts. Then he cut her loose, but continued to use her for sex? It must have blinded him to how crazy she was (and still is) that she'd go along with whatever he wanted in the sack.

So should she get the death penalty? Not being a criminal-coddling lefty, I think it would be appropriate. From what I hear there is a good possibility she'll fry. The anti-ultimate justice Libs no doubt believe she should get counseling and be rehabilitated. Frankly I think rehabilitation isn't possible with many criminal types and not at all with mental defectives like this Arias chick. Not that I believe she didn't know what she was doing and should get off for that reason (insanity).

In any case – this should, perhaps, be a lesson to the single guys out there (who are completely lacking in morals). If you want to use a woman for sex and string her along for an extended period of time – make sure she isn't a psycho nutcase first.

TLB #45

Monday, May 20, 2013

How Dumb Does Barack Obama Think We Are?

Notice that, in response to all the scandals that plague his administration, prez Hussein claims he knows nothing? Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew the ATF had decided to arm the Mexican drug cartels. He says he did not know the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda instead of a spontaneous uprising linked to a protest over a video – even though whistle blowers testifying before Congress say they told him it was a terrorist attack.

Eric Holder claims he didn't know about the decision to seize AP phone records. Hussein claims he did not know the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. Not until he saw the news reports.

What is this guy, a figurehead who holds no actual power, or the leader of the free world? Does anyone in this incompetent administration actually make any decisions or stay in the loop in regards to anything for which they are supposedly responsible? Just how dumb does the Hussein administration think we are?

If you're like me you aren't buying these incredibly lame protests of not knowing what the hell is going on. You know the entire Hussein Administration is lying to us. And they've got to know how transparent their lies are becoming. They are so desperate that they'd rather the public believe they are unbelievably incompetent then realize how corrupt they actually are.

What's with these delusional Liberals in complete denial regarding their savior's fall from grace? Is it that they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that Hussein lied to them? That the first Black president is also one of the worst commanders in chief ever to serve? And, NO, Libs, I intend no racism by making that statement. It is just an observation of the obvious.

Regardless of whether the far-lefties continue to defend the indefensible, the American people are waking up. A recent poll reveals that HALF of America wants this crooked liar removed from office, including almost 28 percent of Democrats.

Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies (the company that conducted the poll) says, "the appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it's now possible to see that day on the far horizon". Sorry Libs.

TLB #44

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Obama And The I-Word (If Only We Could Recall Him)

The Liberals tried and failed to recall my governor, Scott Walker. They thought they could win but what they didn't realize is that even Democrat voters knew we needed to reign in the greed of the public sector unions. No doubt that quite a few teachers, firefighters and cops voted for Walker, knowing it would cost them but willing to give up what they knew they didn't deserve. Certainly not when the rest of us with private sector jobs are still suffering under the Obama economy.

With Obama, however, there is a stark contrast. Obama, unlike Walker, isn't doing what is necessary to get the country back on the right fiscal path. Instead he spends our money to buy votes and campaign contributions for himself and his fellow Democrats.

The corruption of this administration is becoming much more clear in it's second term, what with the lies and cover up concerning Benghazi, using the IRS to target political opponents, and the tyrannical seizing of records from reporters. There are many more scandals of course (listed at the beginning of my previous post) but it is these three that are generating some serious talk of impeachment.

If only we could recall him, I think many Americans who voted for Obama the last time out would not just go with whatever candidate the Democrats put up in Obama's place (Biden or Hillary) - but would acknowledge they were wrong in not electing Romney when they had the chance. Certainly Romney would get the vote of independents and conservative Democrats who deeply regret voting for the miserable liar who occupies the White House.

Alas, the Constitution does not allow for the recall of a president. The best we could hope for would be a president Biden if the Republicans retook the Senate in the midterms. Unless it could be proven Biden was in on the lying and we impeached him as well. That, however, would be historically unprecedented (and therefore quite unlikely).

Still, there could be some benefits to impeaching Hussein, namely slowing down (or even halting) his Socialist agenda of spending money we don't have and making the "rich" he vilifies pay for (some of) it (while borrowing the rest from China). What do you think? Should we impeach or should we not impeach?

I say yes, but wait until we get nearer to the midterms so we can use it as ammunition to take out his Democrat allies and win the Senate. When, exactly that would mean impeachment proceedings should begin I do not know, but I'm sure the Republicans are on top of it (or I hope they are).

TLB #43

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Tyrant Obama Orders Death From Above Via Drone

The issue with his birth certificate, budget-busting healthcare "reform", an attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant, more thievery in the form of increased taxes, refusing to defend DOMA, an attempt to weaken the second amendment, the Benghazi cover up, and now the scandalous revelation that Hussein's IRS targeted Conservative groups... certainly one can not deny that Hussein's presidency is the worst since (at least) Jimmy Carter.

In particular the ability to execute American citizens as he sees fit gives Libertarian John Myers of the Personal Liberty Digest serious cause for concern. Mr. Myers warns of Hussein's "secret army" that allows Hussein to act as "executioner against Americans he sees as his enemy".

Myers points out that Liberal author Jeremy Scahill says "Obama has been granted a blank check to vastly expand drone strikes while blatantly ignoring the Constitution by denying habeas corpus". Yes, Hussein has only executed two American citizens, SO FAR, but "when you stop denying one subset of Americans due process, you are on a slippery slope toward eliminating other Americans whom the President and his secret cabal classify as enemies".

Frankly, I think it a good think when the lives of terrorist scum like al-Awlaki are ended via hellfire missile, but there needs to be some checks and balances on the process. Congress should be involved and who is on the "kill list" should not be in the hands of the executive only!

If this blatant ignoring of the Constitution were being done by a Republican president the hypocrite Liberals would be screaming impeachment, yet their savior Obama does it and not a peep?

TLB #42

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

The Scandal Predicted to Bring Down the Barack Hussein Obama Administration

Barack Hussein Obama will not serve out his second term. Instead he will be forced to resign or be impeached and leave office in disgrace. I read about this prediction on a well known Conservative News site. Several Republicans were quoted as believing it will be the Benghazi cover up that will be the undoing of Obama.

Frankly I'm not so sure. Yes, I think there was a cover up, and yes, I believe it could be of a magnitude that removing Hussein from office would be entirely appropriate -- but will it actually happen? Only one president has ever resigned from office. Two others were impeached, but they were not removed. Richard Nixon said if a president does it, then it is legal.

People considered that to be an arrogant statement, but I think for (the most part) it is true (not necessarily that anything a president does is legal, but that he can get away with it). It was only because Nixon recorded his misdeeds, and then did not destroy those tapes, that he made his removal from office a certainty. If he had not resigned he would have been bounced out by an impeachment and conviction.

According to the Washington Post, the "U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets" and that "the embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack".

The question is why did Hussein allow these attacks to continue without responding? Was the Hussein administration's failure to act due to their incompetence or was there some other reason? Did they actually order those who could have responded to stand down?

Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, says, "Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6am local time on Sept. 12 but [were told] "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go...".

I don't know about you, but that sounds quite damning to me. A commenter on the "Atlas Shrugs" message board has a theory regarding the stand down order -- he says, "the corruption of this administration pales in comparison to any other scandal. ...to have a Muslim President in office so soon after 9/11 is by design and no accident".

What do you think about this theory? Is it conspiracy theory nonsense from a nutjob, or a very real possibility? I'm leaning toward the later.

TLB #41

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Taxacrat Mugging Attempt

We all knew that sooner or later the tax-and-spend types in Congress were going to try to pass legislation assessing a fee to purchase online. For Democrats, of course, there is no new tax that they do not love. Unfortunately some traitorous Senate Republicans joined in (today) and helped the Dems pass a bill to allow states to tax internet sales.

Hopefully the Republican controlled House will reject this outrageous mugging of the middle class. Prez Hussein got his tax increase on the so-called wealthy - now they are going after ordinary working folks?! I don't know about you, but I'm steamed. Especially that Senate Republicans would go along with this shake down of strapped everyday citizens. They are supposed to hold the line and stop the Dems when they attempt to pick our pockets.

It is true that you're supposed to self-report online purchases and pay the tax when you file your state income tax returns, but does anyone actually comply? Maybe happy to "contribute" Liberals (those who aren't living off entitlements and actually have an income), but I'd bet even the Liberal (hypocrite) compliance rate is low. I sure as hell do not divulge what I buy online to my state tax collectors. It is none of their fricking business.

If this bill passes taxes will be assessed and collected automatically by online retailers (and passed on to the states), so you'll have no choice but to pay up. CBS News reports that "some states have sales taxes as high as 7 percent, plus city and county taxes that can push the combined rate even higher". Apparently they think we're made of money!

Congress continues to spend without restraint knowing they can simply pass legislation to steal more from us already over-taxed citizens. Instead of balancing the books as they should. Additionally, as the CBS article warns, "States could audit out-of-state businesses, impose liens on their property and, ultimately, sue them in state court" - so this legislation gives even more power to the government to harass businesses by piling on onerous regulations. Does anyone else find this extremely troubling?

One commenter to the CBS News story put it best when he described Congress as "a mob of self-serving, greedy, corrupt, egomaniacs who could care less about the affects their actions or inactions have on the people they are supposed to represent".

TLB #40

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Barack Hussein Obama Liberal Drug Pusher

Libertarians, while completely wrong when it comes to social issues, do have it correct when it comes to fiscal matters. According to a recent article by Libertarian Wayne Allen Root, Prez Hussein is like a drug pusher, addicting the population to entitlements.

In his commentary Wayne says, "He has addicted the whole country to welfare, food stamps, disability, unemployment, free meals at school, housing allowances and free healthcare. He's turned almost the whole population into addicts with their hands out".

Wayne is absolutely right, although I'd disagree that the addicts are "almost the whole population". The people with their hands out are the 47 percent Mitt Romney referred to in that private speech he gave to donors that a Liberal operative illegally recorded. But the Liberals and Liberal suckers rejected Romney's advice that America enter rehab. Instead they voted for the candidate who promised to continue feeding their addiction.

Romney told the addicts he was going to cut them off. He told them he'd grow the economy by getting rid of oppressive regulations and cutting the taxes of job creators. Under a Romney presidency everyone who was willing to work hard would be able to provide for themselves and wouldn't need the Liberal entitlements.

But Romney was vilified for telling the truth, and it cost him dearly. The Liberal parasites and leaches don't like it when their victims complain. Getting the voters hooked on freebies from the Government (that the productive sector of society pays for) is the only way Democrats can win!

Which is why Hussein the drug pusher continues his call for the job creators and successful individuals to be taxed more and more. Someone has to pay for all the free drugs (entitlements) the Democrats hand out like candy. But we all know that addicts (unless they get clean) eventually die. This is the path America is headed down under the Liberals.

Barack Hussein Obama is killing our economy by enabling the Liberal druggies addicted to entitlements. America needs to detox. It will be hard, but we'll come out stronger on the other end. Unfortunately the healing can't begin until we get our fiscal house in order, and that isn't going to happen with Hussein "leading" the nation.

TLB #39

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Is Barack Hussein Obama an Illegitimate President?

There are those who believe the last election was stolen. That massive voter fraud swung it in Obama's favor and that Romney actually won. I think these people are definitely on to something. But, as history has shown us, once a president is elected (or he appears to have been elected), nothing can be done to undo the announced election results.

So Obama, legitimate or not, won't be ejected from office. His "win" won't be overturned because nobody is investigating the voter fraud issue. Republicans continue to work to see that it's reduced in the future, but past voter fraud will stand. Clearly Obama'a presidency could be illegitimate in that his win was due to voter fraud (that will never be investigated and thus never proven), but what about the "natural born citizen" issue? That issue was resolved when Obama (under pressure) FINALLY released his Hawaiian long form birth certificate, right?

Not so fast kemosabe! The Hawaiian birth certificate that Hussein released may have fooled the Liberal media, but others say it's a forgery. CBS News in Arizona reported on an investigation initiated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and they say Joe's investigators "confirmed" the document was created using Photoshop (see video below).

Snopes does a pretty good job "debunking" the "created in Photoshop" charge, but Snopes is the same site that "debunked" the allegation that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They based their conclusion on some bullpucky about "create" and "invent" not having the same meaning - but go to any dictionary website and you'll find that the words are synonyms.

Also, Wikipedia notes that the site's creator David Mikkelson "has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias". Maybe their defense of Al Gore using a nonsense argument about synonyms having different meanings could have something to do with these "Liberal bias" accusations?

On the other hand, the Snopes page links to a Fox New article! I suppose this was done to convince Right-wingers? "Look Right-winger, we're linking to FOX NEWS"!! But check this out - if you Google the name of the Photoshop expert, "Jean-Claude Tremblay", one of the articles that comes up on top is, "Fox News expert denies he claimed birth certificate legit".

Tremblay (the Fox News expert) says, "the network must retract the story, [because] it deliberately misquoted him". Tremblay says his findings don't prove the authenticity of the document one way or the other, but Fox News refuses to allow him to correct their story. As a result Tremblay feels "anger verging on disdain" and no longer trusts Fox News. I guess that blows the Snopes "debunking" out of the water. This expert's analysis went from "absolutely legit" to "can't say one way or the other". Question is, why would Fox News put forward a story that misrepresents what the Photoshop expert said?

The newspaper announcements that some cite as "proof" have also been questioned. Both of the two papers that ran the birth announcements said their information came from the state Department of Health and the "certificates of live birth". But these certificates require no proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii; instead they are issued if the child's parents have "declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child".

Furthermore, a neighbor living next to the address where the birth announcement says the Obamas lived can't recall that a White woman who gave birth to a black baby ever lived there, and an investigator looking into the matter discovered the house was owned by an "Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased".

In conclusion I must say that (for me, at least), the question of where Barack Hussein Obama was actually born is still unknown - but the claim that he was born in Hawaii seems incredibly suspect. If he was actually born in Hawaii you'd think there wouldn't be all these questions. For me, the fact that there are all these questions point to a cover-up. And why cover-up where he was actually born unless he was born outside the United States?

Back to the question regarding Barack Hussein Obama's presidency and it's legitimacy. Is he a legitimate president? Was he legitimately elected? Is he Constitutionally eligible to serve? I say the facts seem to strongly suggest that he is illegitimate for two reasons. First of all, his "win" was accomplished via voter fraud, and secondly - he wasn't even eligible to run in the first place!

TLB #38

Friday, May 3, 2013

Our Disgrace of a President Uses Office to Officially Endorse The Right To Murder Privately

On Friday April 25th, in a move that some might describe as an endorsement of evil, our disgraceful and incompetent prez met with those who murder babies for profit. Doing something no president before him had ever considered, Hussein spoke out in favor of a woman's right to have her unborn child put to death, because, as a past Supreme Court determined, it is a matter of her "privacy".

Regarding Planned Parenthood, Obama reportedly said "It's not going anywhere today, it's not going anywhere tomorrow". No doubt he is correct, as Obama will, most likely, appoint at least one SCOTUS judge during his second term (unless impeached). There is no doubt that Jesus cries for the lives of the tens of thousands of babies whose lives could have been saved if only Romney were president; Romney appointed the next SCOTUS judge, and Roe V Wade was overturned.

At least we still have Republican state Legislatures and Governors working hard to stop the abortionists and shut down their murder factories, including despicable corporations like Planned Parenthood. Places where doctors ignore their oaths to "do no harm" and slaughter infants in the womb.

We all know Hussein endorsed infanticide in the past (when he served in the IL state senate), but now he has used the office of the presidency to officially endorse it! The Godless Liberals must be overjoyed the holocaust of the unborn will continue to be "legal". Murder is illegal when the victim is outside the womb, but for some reason that is beyond me it is perfectly legal if the victim's umbilical cord is still attached.

The hypocritical Liberals claimed that those who oppose baby butchery are waging a "war on women". Additionally, these immoral Liberals mock the pious and moral by inventing a fake "religion" they call "humanism". Wikipedia says, "Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings", but fighting to keep murder private isn't ethical, it is very, very unethical!

Can there be any doubt that Satan smiled when the "Humanist" Liberals won and Barack Hussein Obama was "elected" to a second term! I say shame on Liberals for supporting this barbarism. How can they live with themselves? At least Conservatives like me who value the lives of the sweet innocent babies can take solace in the fact that their murderers will have to answer to the All Mighty for their reprehensible crimes.

And, speaking of things that are illegal, I probably need to make it clear that I do not support the assassination of abortion doctors, heinous though their actions may be. This is a problem that can't be solved through vigilantism.

Yes, the re-election of the nation's top champion of killing kids, Barack Hussein Obama, means we probably won't be able to shut down the Liberal dream of snuffing out the lives of as many innocent babies as possible (by overturning Rove V Wade), but, like I said earlier, the Republican Governors and Republicans in the state congresses have the right idea - shut down the abortion factories by any legal means possible.

TLB #37

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The World's Greatest Jihadist (Obama & The Boston Bombing)

Get this, apparently captured Boston bombing "suspect" Dzhokar Tsarnaev (the cute one) says that, perhaps he should not have listened to his older brother when he first told him he wanted to bomb the Boston marathon. Now he says that, perhaps he should have told his brother no. A little to late for regrets, I say. Also, I doubt the jury will buy this defense of blaming everything on the dead brother.

No, I think he's going to fry. Or have his body pumped full of lethal chemicals. However the death penalty is administered at the federal level. I can't say I know much about the subject. In any case, an excuse of committing jihad and blowing people up because you love and idolize your older brother just isn't going to get you any sympathy, I suspect.

He seemed to be on the right path. In college, and therefore presumably on track for a good career in dentistry. The American dream could have been his, but he flushed it away when he decided to go along with his brother's crazy ideas about jihad. Previously he indicated that his personal priorities were "career and money", but jihad leads to death. Both for your victims and for yourself, as he certainly should have known.

If you're a terrorist-sympathizing Liberal you might ask, "what went wrong"? What did the United States do to cause the Tsarnaev brothers to be susceptible to radicalization? How far can we go in appeasing jihad-inclined Muslims so this does not happen again? Me, I'm not a part of the blame America first crowd, so I say, "who gives a sh*t"? Look what we did for him, and still he wants to kill Americans? I think it is a shame he wasn't killed in the shootout that preceded his capture. Now millions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent trying him, as if there is any doubt regarding his guilt.

I heard the reason we needed to take him alive was to gather information regarding additional attacks that might be underway, other conspirators, who radicalized him and are they in the United States, etc. Not all the details may be out, but it appears as though there is no additional useful information to be gleaned. I heard yesterday three college friends of Dzhokar were arrested (also immigrants), but all they did is "tamper with evidence" (disposed of his backpack), and this info did not come from Dzhokar (so the cops could have taken him out and saved the taxpayers a butt load of money).

Yes, he is an American citizen so he could not be designated an enemy combatant, as some Republicans suggested (darn!). Wikipedia notes that he was (prophetically?) naturalized on September 11, 2012. So, less than a year as a citizen. Perhaps we need some kind of legislation that allows citizenship to be revoked? Clearly this is an "oops, we made a mistake" type situation. I mean, he must have had jihad type thoughts while undergoing the naturalization process, so obviously he lied when he pledged allegiance to the United States. I say that should be enough to void our citizenship "contract" with him.

Too bad we can't void our presidential contract with Barack Hussein Obama. We did try, but more people supposedly voted for him than against him. Now we're stuck with the stealth jihadist for another 4 years! What I'm referring to are the following two facts: [Fact 1] Many Republicans believe BHO is Muslim, and [Fact 2] BHO's economic policies have led to an extremely anemic "recovery" that has left many Americans behind.

Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is actually a follower of radical Islam determined to bring down America from the inside by waging economic jihad? If so, that would undoubtedly make him the world's greatest jihadist. But whether he is a follower of radical Islam or not, his terrible economic policies are causing great harm to our country.

TLB #36

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Congratulated For Being Gay?

Prez Hussein apparently phoned NBA player Jason Collins and congratulated him for having sex with other men. Is it just me or did this move cause you to think, WTF? Me, I could have lived my entire life and been just fine not knowing this sports figure engages in sodomy. But if you're famous and draw attention to yourself by letting the entire world know what kind of deviant behavior you partake in while in the boudoir, Obama will call you personally and say, "job well done".

Job well done? For what, making us normals lose our lunches, and forcing us to explain to our children how two people of the same sex can "do it"? Sex is a private matter between two people (a man and a woman if you adhere to the Bible), and it should REMAIN that way.

Remember awhile back when there was a story that suggested Hussein might be involved in a relationship with a man? The Liberal media swept those allegations under the rug, but I've read that "it is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator".

A homosexual man named Larry Sinclair says "he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator". He wrote a book about the affair titled, "Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder". The book description on Amazon says Obama, "smoked crack cocaine while being fellated".

If accurate this is truly disgusting. However, it certainly could explain Hussein's enthusiasm in supporting the homosexual agenda. Will we ever know the truth? According to one of the individuals reporting on Barack's homo-ness, "all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie". Eventually it will come out.

Maybe the day the truth is revealed will be in 2016 when Obama leaves Michelle, "comes out" and marries another man. Then we shall know that this was just another of Hussein's many lies. In the meantime he'll only congratulate others for their gayness, as the nation isn't ready for a homosexual Kenyan Muslim Socialist president. I don't know if it ever will be.

TLB #35

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

NBA Homo

Did you hear about the NBA player that came out as a homosexual? My response to this is why? What does sodomy have to do with playing basketball? Why couldn't you have kept this to yourself? I certainly did not want to know.

How many NBA players have come out as straight? I am pretty sure that there haven't been any. When watching basketball I have never wondered who each player (or any player) was having sexual relations with. But the homosexuals think this is information we need to know.

Washington Wizards center Jason Collins said, in an article he wrote in which he revealed that he prefers it in the butt, claims that he wishes someone else had gone first. Maybe he's worried about "discrimination" from people grossed out that he'd share these disgusting details of his personal life WITH THE WORLD that nobody wanted to know about.

I acknowledge that homosexuals face actual discrimination, and I'm opposed to it. So why did Collins go out of his way to ensure he was subjected to some? That makes no sense to me, and causes me to feel a lot less sympathy for him if any discrimination comes his way.

The policy of not asking and not telling, which we should have kept in the military, seems like the way to go to me. What (or who) everyone does in their personal lives is nobody's business. Not only that, but we really don't want to know (that you enjoy smooching other men because that is not natural).

Also, Jason Collins is black, a community that is seen as being more outspoken with their religion-based objections to men lying with men. I blame Obama for this. If he had not "come out of the closet" in support of queers tying the knot I seriously doubt there would have even been a conversation regarding who the first major league sports player to reveal himself as a homo would be.

Hussein should have stuck with his original position on his issue. He used to support civil unions, but his endorsement of homo marriage emboldened the homosexuals and the homosexual advocates who want us all imagining homosexual sex (and puking). Can there be any doubt that, if not for Obama, Collins would have kept who he has sex with PRIVATE?

It is also my understanding that he isn't that great a player. I certainly hope he does not complain when let go that it's due to his being gay. Check out the picture of Mr. Collins on Wikipedia. I think everyone probably already knew he doesn't like the ladies, and he got the job. So, no false cries of victimization please. But being a Liberal (which he no doubt is) I would not be surprised if that is exactly what happens.

And, no, I am not a homophobe, unless you think Christians who take the Biblical view when it comes to men lying with men are homophobic. That is my personal view, but I'm not going to force anyone to accept it. If you're going to risk eternal damnation that is your business. At least respect my desire to not want it shoved in my face, thank you.

TLB #34

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Kill All Humans (Except White Conservatives)

Liberals think that Conservatives want to, like the robot Bender on the cartoon Futurama, kill all humans. Except the White Conservatives ones, that is (the females we just want to subjugate). I've been accused of it here on this very blog. I express concern regarding radical Islam and the casualties incurred when they wage jihad on the West; then I suggest some modest measures we might consider to combat it, and, to a Liberal, that translates to me wanting to chuck the Constitution, round up all Muslims and place them in Concentration camps, and then kill every last one of them.

When I express concern about what the Supreme Court might do regarding the definition of marriage, I'm accused of wanting to do the same thing to homosexuals (rounding them up and killing them). I wrote a post expressing my strong disagreement with Liberal politics, and guess what? That means I want to round them up all the Liberals and kill them.

I've never even mentioned the Mexican citizens that have illegally invaded our country, but, never mind that inconvenient fact. I want to round them up and kill them all as well. Perhaps you see a pattern here? Liberals don't like it when you disagree with them. It makes them so hysterical that they immediately jump to hyperbole. They can't engage in rational discussion; they can only accuse you of wanting to murder those who disagree with you.

But I'm sure that only some Liberals react in this manner. Some of them must be capable of rational discourse? Not many, I'm afraid. They all seemed to embrace on the "war on women" meme when Conservatives mentioned their moral objection to killing babies in the womb. If, like me, you weren't surprised when the Boston bombers turned out to be radicalized Muslims, that makes you a bigot. No matter that they turned out to be White. The Left knows you expected them to be dark skinned as well.

Which brings me to our president. If you question any of his policies it must be because he is African-American. It couldn't possibly be because you take issue with those polices, the same way you did when they were espoused by the WHITE Liberal president Bill Clinton!

Additionally, if, like me, you respect our nation's laws and think people of other countries shouldn't be able to cross our borders without prior approval and obtain employment without a social security number or (at the very least) a green card, that makes you a racist.

And, God forbid you're a Christian who adheres to the teachings of the Bible when it comes to the definition of marriage. Clearly God said it wasn't just a contract between two people, no matter their sex. You're a homophobe if you want to keep marriage the way it is and support the laws on the books (DOMA).

So, seeing as I support the second amendment that must mean I dream of shooting dead all humans that aren't like me, right? Absolutely not. Do I want to convince more people that my way of thinking is the way to go? Yes, I do. But that's human nature. Failing that, hopefully we can meet in the middle. It's called compromise, a concept many Liberals clearly do not understand.

No, "stamping out" Liberalism does not sound like compromise, but that (a prior post title of mine) was hyperbole intended to attract readers and spark a discussion. As I pointed out in the post, I do not believe Liberalism can be eliminated entirely. But at least tone it down Liberals! Compromise with us! But I don't know if those on the fringe (the far, far Left) will ever see reason. I do not know if they are capable of compromising. I fear not.

TLB #33

Friday, April 26, 2013

Deport All Muslims?

I've heard calls from the Right in light of the Boston bombing to deport all Muslims. Or to not let any more people who identify as Muslim into the country. Now, the Left, of course, has taken great exception to this discriminatory and ridiculous idea (THEIR adjectives). Me, I can understand why my fellow Right-minded compatriots feel this way.

Now, I do not believe it could be possible, but perhaps we should think twice before allowing a Muslim identified immigrant entrance? Maybe, if Muslim religious types who are already in the country display any signs of radicalization we could deport them?

Maybe we should consider passing legislation to make this possible. I've heard that the older brother (the one who is now dead) posted videos to his YouTube account indicating he was radicalized. I also heard that the Russian Government contacted our government and specifically told us something might be up with these two brothers. Apparently our government types did an investigation and concluded there was no reason for them to act. In regards to that I say, WTF?

This looks to me to be another example of the incompetence of the Hussein Administration. Also, for the record, I'm just asking questions, so no need to accuse me of being bigoted toward Muslims. I'm just concerned about doing all we can to prevent future tragedies.

One of the things we might do is to get rid of Hussein and the Hussein incompetents. If we wait until the next election it might be too late. Can the case be made that the Boston bombing is yet another debacle over which Hussein could be deported from the White House (impeached)? In my opinion Congress should most certainly investigate.

TLB #32

Thursday, April 25, 2013

George W Bush's Lie-Berry

"Lie-Berry" is how Bush pronounces "library", according to Liberals, for whom Bush bashing will never get old. They are, predictably, using the occasion of the ribbon cutting of his presidential library to mock and make fun of him.

But the fact remains that the Clinton administration failed to get bin Laden. They had the opportunity and made several lame attempts when it suited Clinton; he lobbed some missiles in the general vicinity of bin Laden to distract our citizens from their preoccupation with Bubba's BJ in the White House.

So the Clintonites left that problem behind for the incoming Bush administration to deal with. And vandalized the White House before turning it over. Removing all the Ws from the computer keyboards as a "prank", I heard. And now Bubba is one of the most beloved ex-presidents? It's ridiculous IMO.

George Bush struck back and expelled al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq, dealing them a serious blow that lead to our not being attacked for the remainder of Bush's first term and the entirety of his second. Bush did a good job keeping us safe, unlike Obama, under whose watch there have been numerous attacks, the bombing in Boston being the latest.

It is, in my opinion, indicative of the incompetence of the Obama Administration. On all fronts. The Hussein administration is doing abysmally when it comes to the economy, and equally abysmally when it comes to protecting us from the radical Muslims that wish us harm.

Instead of making fun of GWB, the Liberals should be thanking him. I think the mocking is just to cover up the fact that their community-organizing president has done such a bad job "presidenting". What they're saying is "don't pay attention to the incompetent in the White House".

And, while George Bush was president and the Liberals ridiculed him - what they were really saying was, "ignore the fact that Bubba failed to get bin Laden. Instead of doing his job he spent his time taking advantage of interns". Liberals should be too ashamed of both Bubba and Hussein to ridicule GWB, but Liberals clearly have no shame.

TLB #31

Monday, April 22, 2013

Happy Liberal Commie Propaganda Day

"Earth Day isn't just for tree huggers, it's a wake up call for mankind", was the tagline I heard for a TV airing of Hollywood Liberal Leo DeCraprio's fakumentary about how we're all doomed because we aren't using enough energy from "green" sources. Those of us who look at this issue critically and don't simply accept the "scientific consensus" line are the ones the Liberals think need this "wake up call".

Today is the 43rd annual "Earth Day", the holiday created to celebrate Liberal propaganda intended to scare consumers and shame them into supporting the green industry hypocrite hucksters like ex-president Al Gore profit from.

Wikipedia says the first earth day, February 22, 1970, was "coincidentally" the 100th anniversary of the birth of Russian Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. I have doubts regarding whether or not this was a coincidence, as it is much too fitting that Liberal commies would chose the 100th birthday of the founder of the ideology they greatly admire to push their propaganda.

Wikipedia further notes that, "the idea that the date was chosen to celebrate Lenin's centenary [is] borne out by the similarity with the subbotnik instituted by Lenin in 1920 as days on which people would have to do community service [such as] removing rubbish from public property and collecting recyclable material".

Does everyone else find it unsurprising that gullible Liberals who buy into this "holiday" created to enrich the green industry also chose a day that by "coincidence" honors the founder of Communism? This is one celebration I will NOT be participating in. Also, I will continue to refuse to recycle unless I am compensated for my efforts.

What kind of a scam is this that persuades (or forces) some to prepare their recyclables for the recycling industry? At least I get something for my aluminum cans (which I do recycle), so why is it that most other companies that profit from recycling think they should get my labor for free (rinsing out cans, removing staples, etc) as well as free raw materials? To this Liberal fascism I say, "no way comrade".

TLB #30

Sunday, April 21, 2013

The Barack Hussein Obama Impeachment

My sources tell me that, should prez Hussein bomb Syria, a bill for impeachment will be introduced in the House. Apparently SecDef Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee "he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations". House Republicans say that if Panetta and Hussein carry through with those sentiments it would be a violation of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives the right to declare war to Congress alone.

I say WHY WAIT? Why hasn't Hussein been impeached already? He already broke with the Constitution when he bombed Lybia, as noted by ultra-Liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich. When the most Liberal congressman speaks against the actions of the most Liberal president ever -- one might think the Liberal media would pay attention instead of sweeping the issue under the rug. But no! The Liberal media swept and Kucinich was redistricted out of a job. Coincidence?

Hussein could also be impeached in regards to the Bengazhi cover up, for stealing the election last November, the Fast and Furious cover up, his American citizen hit list, the recess appointments made WHILE Congress was in session, the appointment of czars without Senate approval, violating the 10th amendment by suing Arizona for enforcing immigration laws, executive orders giving amnesty to the here-illegally "dreamers", for his refusal to enforce DOMA, and for his executive actions on gun control.

And, of course there is the fact (or high probability) that his Hawaiian birth certificate is fake. Covering up the fact that you aren't a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as POTUS, must be an impeachable offense. The Constitution clearly spells out the requirements one must meet to hold the office, and Hussein, due to his either having been born in Kenya or having a non-citizen father, has never even been eligible to be our commander in chief!

That's such a long list, how could anyone not agree that Hussein is one of the most lawless presidents in US history! Many of his offenses are far worse than Watergate, so what is the Republican-controlled House waiting for?? Hopefully the Republicans will retake the Senate in the 2014 midterms and then the impeachment of our illegitimate prez will commence.

The only problem is then we'd be left with dufus Biden as prez. I wonder if he's done anything he could be impeached for? Unfortunately being a bumbling idiot isn't an impeachable offense, although, being the VP, he probably was involved in some of Hussein's anti-Constitutional actions. Maybe we can get them both out and move John Boehner into the presidency?

TLB #29

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Our Second Amendment Rights are Safe. For Now

The Senate has voted down the expanded background check with the help of several rational Democrats. Our second amendment rights are safe for the moment. The national registry of all gun owners that could be used to confiscate all guns won't begin to be compiled just yet.

Prez Hussein must be steamed. Even using the victims of the Newtown tragedy as props (and manipulating them into lobbying our Congressmen) was not enough to convince the Senate that our right to bear arms should be infringed upon. That is, for the Republicans, at least. Most of the Democrats voted for the legislation they hoped would be the first step toward nullifying the second amendment.

Although I am not myself a firearms owner, that does not mean I think the Constitution should be circumvented and the guns of the citizens confiscated! No! First they'll confiscate the guns and then it will be the pressure cookers. The bottom line is bad guys will always find a way to hurt innocent people. Reactionary legislation restricting our rights is not the answer.

TLB #28

Monday, April 15, 2013

Note to Libertarians

Stop pretending to be Republican! You may be able to fool a small segment of the population and get elected to a single congressional district or a single state (if you betray your Libertarian beliefs and say you oppose abortion), but one of your ilk has no chance at all of winning the Republican presidential nomination.

Also, you can stop pretending you have a chance of winning even a single electoral vote running on the Libertarian ticket. Some independents and moderates may throw their vote away and cast their ballot in your favor, but you will never accumulate enough of the vote to win even a single state.

All your efforts accomplish is to peel off a small segment of the Republican electorate (in addition to the aforementioned deluded independents and moderates), but the amount of votes you garner will never be enough to come within leagues of actually winning. The most you can hope to accomplish is to tip a tight election, with the most likely scenario being the election being flipped Republican to Democrat.

At least with a Republican you get a partial win, as we agree with you on fiscal issues. I must ask the citizens who would vote for such a candidate - is flushing the economy down the toilet worth it to stand on principal and vote for one of these candidates (either Libertarian or Libertarian running as a Republican)?

TLB #27

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Prez Obama Disrespects Israeli Leader

In stark contrast to most of Hussein's diplomatic trips, wherein it is his practice to bow and apologize for America, prez Obama continued his disrespectful treatment of America's closest and strongest ally during his March visit to Israel. Reportedly our POTUS, proving the shame patriotic Americans feel in regards to his poor leadership is justified, told Benjamin Netanyahu that their meeting on the 21st was a waste of time, would accomplish nothing, and was pointless.

This was Hussein's very first visit is Israel; a trip our illegitimate prez apparently felt would make up for his continual dodging of the Jewish leader during his first term.

While visiting the Holy Land, the clueless ex-community organizer half-assed it and gave the standard speech calling for a two state solution to the centuries-old conflict built on generations of religious and cultural resentment. The news story I read remarked how some who attended the speech described it as laughably simple-minded. But I guess Hussein can check the box in that an attempt to broker peace, no matter how pitiful, is something that's required of US presidents if they are elected, or rely on voter fraud to steal a second term.

A blogger for The Economist notes that a former US ambassador to Israel suspects Obama was "only interested in making sure the other side gets blamed for lack of progress". Then the blogger asks, "So why bother?" Indeed, why did Hussein bother when his lack of any real concern is so apparent?

Could the reason be that our prez is actually a Muslim that isn't with American in its support for Israel? In the opinion of this Conservative the evidence strongly supports this hypothesis.

TLB #25

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Saving America by Stamping Out Liberalism

Liberalism is a scourge on our great nation and needs to be stomped out if we are to survive. Unfortunately I am strongly convinced that things will get worse before they get better, however. Much, much worse. Four more years of Obamanomics may spell our doom. So, what's the solution? Stamp out Liberalism, of course. After Obama fails perhaps the people will come to their sense and realize there is no such thing as a free lunch?

We shall have to wait and see. In any case, following are the Liberal laws, court rulings, programs, institutions and ideas I feel we need to get rid of to make America work again. Of course getting rid of them all entirely will be a monumental task, and may or may not be possible. Liberalism is like a weed: just when you think you've eradicated it, it grows back. The allure of free stuff you didn't have to work for is strong, and a certain unproductive sector of the public will always demand it as if it were their right.

Abortion: Roe V Wade should be overturned. Why is murder covered under a woman's right to privacy? If you don't want a baby use birth control. If you don't want to use birth control get your tubes tied. I'd support exceptions if a woman's life is in danger, but it would have to be proven that the likelihood of death was high (otherwise the exception would likely be abused).

Affirmative Action: rewards should be based on merit only. Slavery ended a long time ago. Are there any former slaves living today? Are there any children of former slaves alive today? No.

Citizens United, Opposition to: Liberals oppose it because the money isn't on their side, but free speech is protected by our Constitution and this ruling by the Supreme Court affirms that right.

Food Stamps: If you want to eat you have to work. It's that simple. Should there be some aid for people who are disabled through no fault of their own and cannot work? Yes, but it should be handled mainly by the churches and private charities. Government's involvement should be minimal.

Foreign Aid: How does this benefit the United States? With the exception of Israel, most of it should be done away with.

Global Climate Change: A disproved theory that should be the basis of no governmental legislation. The Liberal wet dream of taxing carbon via "cap and trade" or any other method should never be considered again.

Green Energy: "Green" is just a marketing term to sell less efficient and more expensive forms of energy. If these forms of energy can actually compete, then let them do so without the deceptive marketing spin (and government subsidies).

Inequality, Demonization of: In life there are winners and losers. Demonizing the winners does not help the losers; in fact it hurts them. The winners are innovators and job creators, and their existence is a huge net positive for the economy.

Medicare: Should be gradually phased out. People have paid into it and should get that money back (and no more).

Medicaid: Should be eliminated for the same reason the food stamp program should be done away with.

The Minimum Wage: The free market is the best way to determine how much any particular worker should be paid. Government mandating a "minimum" is distortive meddling.

Nuclear Energy, Opposition to: Nuclear energy is a relatively safe and cost effective way to meet our growing energy needs.

Progressive taxation: I'm not opposed to the wealthy paying slightly more, but progressives use that as an excuse to gouge higher wage earners. Punishing hard work via confiscatory taxation is morally wrong and counterproductive.

Tariffs: Goods should be able to flow freely and not be taxed simply because they were manufactured in other countries. Tariffs increase the cost of goods for American consumers and are bad for our economy.

Unions, Private Sector: Institute a national Right-to-Work law and private sector unions will crumble. Why do workers have a say in the way a business is run? Only the owners should have a say. If the workers don't like the way the owners decide they want to run THEIR OWN BUSINESS they can quit. Or form their own business.

Unions, Public Sector: Should be outlawed. They cost taxpayers too much. In fact, I'm in favor of doing away with most public sector jobs, period. Many, if not most of them could be privatized (the private sector being much more efficient).

TLB #24

Friday, April 5, 2013

Liberal Druggies

The war on drugs; we're losing it right? Liberals argue that we should legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana. I say NO. It is my strong opinion that liberal drug users should be locked up, because if they are using drugs, they are probably committing other crimes for drug money.

I am also strongly in favor of drug testing people on welfare. Why should those of us who work hard enable the lay-abouts who just want to smoke weed all day long? I'd prefer we get rid of, or at least greatly reduce welfare, but we should at least make sure we are only helping people who actually need help, and not encouraging Liberal losers who think the government should provide for all their needs.

As for the "Conservative drug users" that some reading this post may ask about, I say they do not exist (or are a very small percentage of all drug users). Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Using drugs is not something a person who believes in personal responsibility does.

In any case, I'm not saying that all drug users are Liberals, just the majority of them. All the poor losers who think the world owes them a living, along with the rich Hollywood Liberal druggies who get paid huge sums of money to entertain the rabble with their dreck.

TLB #23

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Atheists Intellectually Superior, But Going To Hell

Atheists like to make fun of Christians, referring to the Almighty as an invisible or imaginary friend. I'm not a Christian who takes the Bible 100 percent literal, but I wouldn't dream of referring to a Christian who did as a Bible-thumping moron.

These atheists who look down their noses at Christians - on one hand their snobbery can make my blood boil. On the other hand, I feel sympathy for them, seeing as this life is short and they'll be spending eternity in unbelievable agony burning in the lake of fire.

This sympathy is not so great that it should allow them to discriminate against believers, however. In this life I'd prefer to not have to put up with their condescension and mocking, thank you. On the Left we have religious intolerants like Bill Maher (a vile know-it-all who made a Christian-bashing film that makes fun of how stupid believers are for having faith). This does not exist so much on the Right, except for Libertarians.

Libertarians are, it is my understanding, traditionally atheist. Ayn Rand was an atheist, but Rand Paul is not. I don't understand that. Pen Jillette is a Libertarian, and very strongly atheist. I've seen him on TV bashing Christians for their beliefs, so I know he's lying when he says he's "very respectful of Christians in [his] book". The book is titled, "God No!" and is all about how he's better than the gullible fools who believe in a power greater than them (Or, that is what I strongly suspect the book is about, as I have not read it).

Some Liberals claim to be Christian, but it is impossible for anyone who is OK with murdering babies to be Christian. Murder is prohibited in the 10 commandments. Liberals also believe in stealing from those who work hard and giving it to the lay-abouts who think government should provide for all their needs. They may as well reject God and go atheist because their God does not exist.

I think Liberals who claim to be believers are fake Christians using Christianity to justify their selfishness... which is something they have in common with the atheists - snobbery and selfishness, although they add an admiration for sloth, something the atheists don't subscribe to.

In any case, I believe the judgment for atheists and Liberals will be the same in the end - eternal damnation. Not that they are worried, as being wrong is a possibility that is incomprehensible to them.

TLB #22

Friday, March 22, 2013

Dufus VP Joe Biden (who is Catholic) Excommunicated by Pope?

I just came across this story on the interwebs... apparently Joe Biden met with the new pope, and REFUSED to kiss his ring, which is proper etiquette. Biden says his mom told him not to, because no one is better than him, and that his bad manners are "all about dignity". I'm not a Catholic, and therefore wouldn't kiss the pope's ring, but Biden is. This is just more disrespect for religion from the Hussein/Biden administration, IMO.

Not that I care, as I'm not Catholic and kissing a ring isn't a big deal, but why wouldn't an individual who is a member of the Catholic religion (so he's supposed to acknowledge the Pope as the head of his religion) follow proper etiquette? Kind of ironic that Biden won't do something non-controversial in the name of dignity when the guy above him is running all over the globe embarrassing the United States by bowing to every foreign leader he encounters and apologizing on our behalf.

Prez Hussein may think the US has something to apologize for, but I do not. I'd rather Hussein stop bowing and have Biden kiss a Pope's ring than the other way around. Why didn't Biden have a talking to with Hussein and suggest he "demand respect"? I think both Hussein and Biden are an embarrassment to our country.

Also, I'm sure that Romney, even though he is a Mormon, would have been respectful of tradition and kissed the Pope's ring - BUT he wouldn't have bowed to foreign leaders or went around apologizing for America.

TLB #21

Friday, March 15, 2013

New Pope

This post concerns my opinions regarding the selection of the new pope, an individual who dubbed himself Francis. These are the opinions of someone who is a Christian, but not a Catholic.

The good news is that he opposes abortion, describing the pro-choice movement as a "culture of death". And, in regards to homosexual marriage, Francis says it is "a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God".

So, it is good that he is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, although this is a hardly shocking position, given what it says in the Bible about this kind of perversion being an abomination.

The bad news is his views regarding wealth inequality. Francis believes that "unjust economic structures... give rise to great inequalities", and that "poor people are persecuted for demanding work, [while] rich people are applauded for fleeing from justice".

Blaming wealthy people for the plight of the poor is the Liberal shtick, and actually the opposite of the truth. Wealthy people are often innovators and job creators. Wealth flows FROM such individuals. They are creators of wealth, and the middle class and poor are better off because of their efforts.

It would be more accurate for him to speak against Socialism and Crony capitalism, because these corrupt forms of government are what we can really blame for poverty. Individuals who attain wealth due to either of these forms of thievery (government stealing from it's citizens) do deserve to be demonized, but certainly not all wealthy people fall into this category.

Also, Francis opposed the distribution of contraceptives in Argentina, which is probably not a good idea, simply because of STDs like AIDS. This is a position that likely costs lives. Yeah, we're talking about sinners having extramarital sex, but is this a sin deserving of the death penalty?

In any case, I think many Catholics do not adhere to this edict anyway. On the other hand, I do believe that promoting contraception for teens is wrong. Adults shouldn't be encouraging kids to have sex.

Finally, I've heard some of those discussing this new pope say that he needs to adopt a zero tolerance for clergy involved in covering up child abuse and moving clergy instead of defrocking them and cooperating with the police... which is a position I am in complete agreement with.

And the helping the poor thing is fine; however, the church holds great wealth, and does anyone think they are going to liquidate any large portion of their assets to further that goal (like in the film "The Shoes of the Fisherman")? That would be an exceedingly shocking turn of events.

TLB #20

Friday, March 8, 2013

Blah Blah Blah 2

Blah, why blah? No! Blah is the blah. Blah better than you.

Please feel free to share your thoughts.

TLB #19

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Global Warming Scammer Al Gore Exposed

Whatever you want to call it - "global warming" or "global climate change" - the evidence shows it isn't happening. Or at least humans have nothing to do with it. Now, I know you've heard that there is a "consensus" within the scientific community that ex-president Al Gore's "documentary" is indisputably 100 percent factual, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Even Al Gore does not believe his own BS. This, we know, because of Al Gore's own hypocritical actions. If he really believed in global warming would he own two energy guzzling McMansions built on land that may soon be underwater (if one is to believe his propaganda film)?

Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, Gore recently sold his TV network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by Arabs who make their money from oil. Do you think that America-hating propaganda is the only thing they will promote? Is it likely, do you think, that the channel owned by oil-rich Arabs will encourage their viewers to "go green" and try and reduce their oil consumption?

Of course not. And, is this not extremely strong evidence that Al Gore is nothing but a scammer who is knowingly lies to the gullible Liberal sheep in an attempt to separate these progressive fools from their money? Just like when he lied about inventing the internet (although I do not know that he made money from this fib; perhaps the purpose was only self-aggrandizement?)

Mark Hendrickson of Forbes asks, "Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda [of addressing "global warming"]?"

You'd most likely be shocked to learn that those who stand to profit enormously from this agenda are "the political and politically connected elite -- the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies..."

Shocked if you're an average American that is. The global warming hoaxsters have done a bang up job of convincing the public at large that there is actually reason to be concerned.

Luckily it appears as though the so-called cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the water, although Prez Hussein is still blowing billions of taxpayer dollars on "green energy" "investments" that are actually payoffs to cronies who donated to the Hussein regime. When is the electorate going to wise up and stop voting for these corrupt Democrats?

TLB #18

Friday, March 1, 2013

Changing the Definition of Marriage is NOT a Civil Rights Issue!

Let me be clear about one thing, and that is that I'm not homophobic. If two women or two men want to engage in sick perversions within the privacy of their own home, well, that's their business. So long as they're not grossing me out by holding hands or smooching in public (or worse), why should I care? (Aside from the fact that this type of depravity makes Jesus cry).

That said, I agree with those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and that we should not be changing the definition of marriage to appease the homosexuals. Civil unions, I suppose, are an acceptable compromise, but I strongly oppose Obama's desire to force churches to perform homo weddings.

Of course this kind of thing is what you'd expect from the atheist Christian-hating Left. Their dear leader also decided to force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control under the health insurance policies they provide for their employees, in a clear violation of church doctrine.

While I'm not Catholic and have no problem with married couples using birth control if they want to be intimate and not worry about unplanned pregnancies, I am strongly opposed to Catholic institutions being forced to violate their beliefs. The Liberal fascism of the Hussein administration is truly mind blowing.

What doesn't make sense to me is why such a large percentage of the Hispanics, who are largely Catholic, voted for Democrats that spit on their religious beliefs. I can see why the Mexicans who are here illegally voted for Hussein, but what about the Hispanics who have lived here for generations? I don't think this passes the smell test.

In any case, I was talking about the gays getting "married", and why I'm opposed. Soon the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue. The Hussein administration argues that dudes marrying other dudes and chicks marrying other chicks is a "civil right", but how can this be?

Arguing that sodomy is somehow a "civil right" is beyond ridiculous. Hopefully the Conservatives on the court (plus Kennedy) will stand up for what's right and decide to keep the definition of marriage intact and as-is.

TLB #17

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Traitorous Al Gore Conspires With Those Who Wish Death to America

As you probably haven't heard, ex-president Al Gore sold his TV channel Current to the Arab-owned Al Jazeera. Previous to this deal I ONLY considered this dirtbag (Al Gore) to be a dangerous huckster who "invented" global warming in order to scare American into investing in "green energy" (as it turns out, global warming is just a money making scam).

But now Al Gore is selling his TV network to those who wish to wage jihad against Christian America? World Net Daily warns that the "expansion into American cable markets by Al Jazeera... could offer a serious security risk for America".

The article goes on to point out that, "Al Jazeera's primary Arabic-language network has frequently served as a mouthpiece for [the] Muslim Brotherhood..." and that the purpose of their expansion into the US market is to radicalize Muslims living in American.

So what the hell was Al Gore thinking? Is Gore involved in this conspiracy with Al Jazeera, or did he only do the deal for the cold hard cash (and doesn't give a damn about his country)? I'd also ask why Congress hasn't stepped in and passed some kind of legislation to stop this sort of thing, but considering who is president, their lack of action isn't surprising.

Anyway, the reason I stopped on CurrentTV last night was because I was wondering if I'd hear any chants of "death to America". Not yet, apparently. They're still airing Liberal propaganda. I saw some Arab guy named "Jenk" (but spelled "Cenk") who lied about his spewing of Liberal propaganda, claiming he KNEW what his audience liked about the show was that it is "honest".

This is a exact quote from a promo for the show that I recorded on my DVR:

Jenk voiceover: "I think the number one thing that viewers like about the Young Turks is that we're honest. They can question whether I'm right, but I think the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability is just trying to look out for us".

Really Jenk? If at all honest, I'd have expected everyone still working at Current to quit en mass and call out Gore for his traitorous actions. The whoremonger Eliot Spitzer quit, but I haven't heard him say anything against his former employer.

Just another reason why I view all Liberals with suspicion. Either they're completely ignorant of how evil their ideology is, or they are complicit in that evil. Either way America would be better off without them.

TLB #16

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

America-Hating Propaganda Coming to Your TV Courtesy of Global Warming Hoaxster Al Gore

I was flipping through the channels on the boob tube last night when I came across the Al Gore network, CurrentTV. Out of curiosity I decided to watch for a while. The channel started out as a forum for viewer generated content, then switched to Liberal propaganda. Not to long ago, I believe. Then ex-president Al Gore stabbed his Liberal cohorts in the back and cashed in to the tune of 100 million (his share, I've heard).

"Stabbed in the back", I say because the sale was to Al Jazera. Now, it isn't that Liberals aren't sympathetic to America-hating Arabs, but it's my understanding that all the Liberals currently employed by Current are going to be canned when Al Jazera takes over. The channel will then be re-branded "Al Jazera America" and all the Liberal propaganda programming will be replaced with radical Islam propaganda programming.

There is one program on Current that is hosted by Turks. Maybe they'll keep that one? It's headlined by some Iranian named "Cenk" who pronounces his name as if the "C" was a "J". The dude claims to be an atheist (which, seeing as he's a Liberal, makes sense). If true, and he isn't a secret Muslim - I can't see Al Jazera keeping him on.

In any case, is this not proof of how much of a hypocrite Al Gore is? As the face of the global warming hoax, you'd think he'd have more sense than to sell out to the Saudis. But then, this is the individual who thought people would be dumb enough to believe he invented the internet.

So now he's taking oil money while sending a bunch of Liberal agitprop spewers to the unemployment line (to join Keith Olbermann)? Not that the second thing is bad, but Liberals must be outraged. That is, the few who aren't watching MSNBC. I heard that Current's ratings are abysmal, so Al Gore was probably just cashing out while the network still has some value.

Question is, why did Al Jazera agree to pay so much? Are they suckers, or is this part of the Muslim Brotherhood plan to bring Sharia to the US? I would not be surprised if our Muslim president was revealed to be an investor.

TLB #15

Sunday, February 24, 2013

How to Eliminate Poverty

Liberals seem to believe that the way to combat "poverty" is to create a culture of dependence. Poor people can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps; Liberals believe the only way to fix poverty is via redistribution. Take from the productive members of society and give to the unproductive ones. Unfortunately redistribution doesn't work, and Democrat politicians know this.

The reason the Democrat politicians lie about what would really help cut down on poverty is because it is the only way they can retain power. They hook voters on gifts from the government. Those with a proclivity toward laziness fall for this trick because it works out quite nicely for them. They get to continue to be lazy and the rest of us pay for them to veg out on their couches while watching their widescreen TVs and eating Cheetos.

The frightening thing is that, as the last election has proven, many voters now have absolutely no shame when it comes to demanding the government give them things. This is an extremely dangerous road our country is headed down.

So, how should we attack this problem? I'll tell you. The cure for "poverty" (which is really just lower-wage earners viewing those who have more than they do with envy) is to break the culture of dependence. This would involve a complete reformation of the welfare state. The budgets of many programs could be cut drastically or eliminated completely.

I realize that some people, who due to genuine disability are not able to provide for themselves (and I am not a cold-harted bastard who says these people should be left to die), but those who refuse to work should suffer the consequences. Sloth is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. Would Jesus want us to enable those who won't help themselves? I think not.

This approach would save the federal government a lot of money - and force those to lazy to work to change their ways, or suffer the consequences. I believe most would. What we didn't spend on these sluggards could be used to reduce the federal income tax. When people realized they could keep more of what they earn - this would incentivize them to work harder. People who work hard for their money resent it when the government takes the fruits of their labor and gives it to those who don't deserve it.

TLB #14

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Liberals More Likely To Get Butt Cancer, Doctors Say

NewsMax Health reports* that 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. Although political persuasion generally has no effect what-so-ever on which individuals will develop cancer, research has surprisingly shown that individuals who identify as Liberal are far more likely to develop a certain type of cancer. What type you say? Cancer of the butt.

Hard to believe? Unfortunately it is sad, but 100 percent true. NewsMax health doctors theorize the reason for this odd phenomena is all the lying and falsehoods your average Liberal needs to internalize in order to blindly follow their Liberal ideology. Deep down they know what hogwash most of what they believe is, and internalizing all this bullshit is, apparently, extremely toxic to the body.

So why butt cancer and not some other kind of cancer? Clearly the reason is that Jesus believes punishing Liberals with butt cancer is poetic justice. Any cretinous Liberal who would deny their fellow citizens the freedom and liberty guaranteed by Conservatism deserve this righteous judgment from the All Mighty. Additionally, a link between consuming bullshit and butt cancer makes perfect sense, logically.

*Please note that while everything I wrote sounds (and probably is) true, NewsMax Health has NOT actually reported this, and zero doctors have ever said Liberals are more likely to get butt cancer. To my knowledge there is absolutely no scientific research that backs up this theory, but no doubt that if any were done, it could be easily validated.

TLB #13

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Prez Hussein Nominates Two Islamist Infiltrators to Cabinet Positions?

Prez Hussein's recently departed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who resigned in disgrace after her bungling lead to the murder of our diplomats in Benghazi) hired a Muslim-Brotherhood-connected individual as her deputy chief of staff.

Now it appears as though both proposed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and proposed CIA Chief John Brennan have ties to radical Islam. According to a writer for the National Review, "rumors abound on Capitol Hill that a full disclosure of Hagel's professional ties would reveal financial relationships with a number of unsavory groups, including one purportedly called Friends of Hamas" (Breitbart.com initially broke the story).

And it also appears as though John Brennan converted to Islam (*gasp*). World Net Daily reports that former FBI Islam expert John Guandolo says, "Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia", and that "his conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation... to recruit him".

Can there be any doubt that Prez Hussein's Christianity is a sham and that he is in fact a Muslim working with the radical Islamists to bring down the US (from the inside)? This is seriously scary stuff people! The question now is: will the Congressional Republicans have the nerve to block these appointments?

I'm thinking "no". Hussein's people are probably at work covering up this information, and painting the truth tellers out there as "conspiracy theorists", right now.

So, what do you think? Is this the end of America as we know it? Will Prez Hussein complete his mission in the next four years, or will he leave that to Hillary?

TLB #12

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Will the State of The Union be Muslimey?

All presidents always conclude the state of the union by claiming it is "strong", but the American people know that right now it isn't. The Hussein administration bailed out the Wall Street fat cats - and they're doing better than ever - but many hard-working Americans are still struggling (with the exception of those who voted for Obama - they're lying back and taking it easy while enjoying their extraordinary financial gifts).

Anywho, what do you think Barack Hussein Obama will call for in his speech before Congress? Will he express his desire to abolish the 2nd amendment and lock up freedom loving patriots who refuse to turn over their guns? Or will he only push for other infringements on our constitutional rights that fall short of total gun confiscation, such as banning so-called assault rifles and high capacity clips? Useless background checks that criminals won't adhere to?

Will the "president" I didn't vote for insist that we travel further down the road to socialism and increase the tax burden on the job creators? Will he say he's willing to reduce our reckless spending, but only by gutting the military?

Certainly he won't suggest we abolish our legal system and replace it with Sharia Law, even if that is his secret ambition?

TLB #11

Monday, February 11, 2013

Is George W Bush a War Criminal Or A War Hero?

There are those on the Left that say George W Bush illegally invaded Iraq and authorized waterboarding/torture of terrorists - and is therefore a war criminal.

Then there are those on the Right who say ex-President Bush did what was necessary and kept us safe by going on the offensive against the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Iraq (where the leaders of those two respective countries gave the terrorists safe harbor).

So, George W Bush - war criminal or war hero?

TLB #10

Thursday, February 7, 2013

The Socialist Dystopia Formally Known as America

It's my understanding that President Barack Hussein Obama wants to fundamentally transform America from a capitalist powerhouse where everyone can succeed if only they work hard, into a Socialist dystopia where those who work hard are punished for their success. Dinesh D'souza says it was a dream Barack Obama got from his father's ghost.

If this occurs I'll bet that even the Blacks will wish they had voted for Mitt Romney.

TLB #9