Friday, January 31, 2014

Congrats NaziPeLousy...err...NancyPelosi...


Leader Pelosi to Address Planned Parenthood Annual Gala; Will Accept Margaret Sanger Award


“No one is more deserving of this honor than Leader Pelosi, who has fought tirelessly throughout her career to protect and expand women’s access to health care" - Cecile Richards
That's an unnerving statement considering Margart Sanger was a Eugenicist:
Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians.
I find that belief not only unnerving, but disturbing. I think anyone with a conscience would feel the same. Mags was a "Darwinian" which is by todays definition an "Atheist." 
When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population.14 Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.15 She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer.
If you click on "eugenics" you will be magically transported to a wikipedia page that explains the term.
That said, think about Mags as a CHAMPION of "Birth Control" and "Founder" of PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Her ultimate goal, that of eugenics, was NOT to PREVENT pregnancies, but to convince women who were weak, distraught, mentally ill, physically challenged, of color or who didn't want to be "burdened" with a child to TERMINATE their pregnancy. Thus freeing them to do what THEY WANTED with THEIR LIFE and again, not be BURDENED with a child.
Compare that to the Mission of Planned Parenthood: 
“To empower individuals to determine their own sexual health and reproductive futures.”
What does that even mean?
You can read the rest of their MISSION STATEMENT and CORE VALUES by clicking on the words.
I'm so NOT done here, but this topic makes me queazy. On a happy note, here my little munchkin at 12.5 wks:

You can see her head, her torso, her little arms, her booty, her leg bent at the knee!
She (or he) was moving all around, still to little for mommy to feel, but she even has fingers!
If she's anything like my son, her daddy, she'll be sucking her thumb in a couple weeks
and playing her own version of "Womb Soccer!" This is a LIFE! It has a heartbeat!
All of her little baby parts are there, they just need another 28 wks to get big & strong.

Planned Parenthood would have you believe that is OK! It's SAFE! It's EASY!
It's your RIGHT to have that little baby torn up during a D & C and then vacuumed out
by a lovely machine. When you wake up, PROBLEM SOLVED!
But it's not... There will come a time when you realize that along WITH that beating heart
a part of yours was vacuumed out and tossed away too. Planned Parenthood doesn't TELL
you how to deal with THAT GRIEF! PP will tell you, YOU should NOT be ASHAMED! You should
wear a T-Shirt that proclaims: "I HAD AN ABORTION!" Be PROUD that you exercised
your RIGHT to manage your Sexual & Reproductive Health!

There IS SHAME in killing that little baby.
 ESPECIALLY if you COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE exercised
your RIGHT to "Sexual & Reproductive Health" BEFORE you had sex and
"ACCIDENTLY" created a LIFE... Abortion ISN'T "birth control." 
BIRTH CONTROL is "BIRTH CONTROL!"





Saturday, January 25, 2014

#TPFA's Are Asking For YOUR Hard Earned Cash...

Dear Anonymous-Unknown Tweeple:  What kind of BUSINESS is #TPFA that it can ask for "DONATIONS" without providing any information? You are basically a Twitter h/t (that you do NOT "OWN") a Blogspot, a pen-name @KathyAmidon & a dead Communist @FrankMDavisJr!

Have you checked with your States' Attorney General? You are NOT a non-profit so money is going into SOMEONES acct yet WHO is responsible for paying the required taxes on the "Donations" you receive? If you are "Paying people" then you REALLY need a Tax/Empl ID #! If the funky "Fire Ant" is your Logo, has it been REGISTERED? If so, with whom and if not, why not? The "Donation" is going to Benghazi Truth Tea Party Fire Ants. That's called a "Fictitious Business Name" you have to do a Statewide SEARCH to see if it's being used, if not it has to be submitted to the County Clerks office along with the fee & published in an approved newspaper for 21 days. Then you go to the Courthouse for your City Permit & pay the fees (around $35) for THAT. Have you done ANY of THIS? If so, in what State & under what name(s)? 

I was going to donate my $0.02, LITERALLY then realized YOU would have ALL of MY information: Name (that's a given, I use my REAL NAME), my address (in Central CA) and my phone number! Soliciting money or in-kind services should be done via e-mail, snail-mail or during a face-2-fact "event" in order to PROTECT the person who is DONATING to something OTHER THAN a Non-Profit or Licensed Business! 

Again, I would suggest you spend time researching how to turn your "14-hr" days into a viable, profitable & LEGAL BUSINESS rather than hurling accusations, highJacking a very serious h/t and posting page after page of poorly DTP'd ScrCaps...

Start here: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7410972_can-for_profit-business-ask-donations_.html 

And PLEASE, TO ANYONE who's THINKING about "donating," KNOW WHO your money is going to and WHAT it's being used for! Twitter is free & it's $9.99/mo to UPGRADE to BlogspotPro! Scanning ScrCapping & lousy DTPing is FREE! 

"THEY" can NOT "GUARANTEE" a SECURE TRANSACTION even thru PayPal, if YOU don't even KNOW who THEY ARE!!

Beware...


Do you REALLY want to give them money for this?
No info about #BenghaziTruth OR "Activist" events sponsored by #TPFA
Just screenCaps and whiny text!

"He/She doth protest too much me thinks!"
                                                  ~Shakespeare






Monday, January 20, 2014

Article II, Section 1...

Below is a line by line dissection of Article II, Section 1... First, my two-cents:

Why is Barry UnConstitutional? REGARDLESS of WHERE he was born, his mother was a US Citizen & his father was a British Subject. Period. Doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or a village in Kenya - His allegiance can be split and if you've read any part of "Dreams FROM My Father," it will be readily apparent that Barry is an Anti-Colonialist, just like his baby daddy!

So WHY is he still in office? REGARDLESS of who became POTUS if he were removed from Office, Biden was complicite as was Nancy Pelosi who filed his paperwork for the DNC so it would most likely be Cry-Baby Boehner but the bottom line is: ALL of the Legislation (like it or NOT) that he's signed into law and ALL of the MANY Executive Orders he has issued would be NULL & VOID. Where does that leave the United States as a Country? Completely, 100% open & VULNERABLE for a coup by whomever is STRONGEST.

If you think about that for a minute, Barry has weakened our Military, allowed MILLIONS of Muslims into the US (legally or not), the dollar has been devalued by quantitative easing, the Dept of EDUCATION has enough ammo to hold off the enemy, but therein lies the rub: "We the People" have been DECLARED the ENEMY! It's all over the Homeland Security website! WE are the ENEMY, jihadist/muslim extremists/hamas et al, are NOT! They "coExist" WE are on the FRINGE!

You have to read the article below coming from a place we've never been or had to go. ALL of the Founder's were British Subjects. They came here to ESCAPE the Monarchy, formed the 13 original COLONIES and EVERYTHING ABOUT a person who is ELIGIBLE to be President of the United States came from a place of SUSPICION. EVERYTHING! Down to having to have LIVED in the US for 14 yrs & being at LEAST 35 years of age! The last President to have "a" parent, his father, that WASN'T born in the US was Wilson (#11) if memory serves.

Let's go back to WHY is Barry STILL occupying OUR White House. He has usurped the office of President. To REMOVE him is to ACKNOWLEDGE that he is, in fact, a Constitutional POTUS. The PRECIDENT that would be set is even WORSE than the PRECIDENT already set. I believe the Republicans thought Mitt was ripe for the taking... Then came Benghazi and we all know how that played out. Followed by hurricane Sandy and the "Love-fest" between Barry and Crissy - THAT played a MAJOR role in the 2012 debaucle, stir in voter fraud (125% of registered voters voted 100% for Barry with ZERO votes going to Mitt in a precinct in Ohio - that's a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY!) and voila, the incumbent gets a 2nd term.

As for the others I mentioned that raised feathers: I haven't done a TON of research on Ted Cruz, but I know that he was born in Canada. IF both of his parents (BOTH OF THEM) were US Citizens, that would be OK - but it's my understanding that only his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth. Even if his father BECAME a citizen AFTER Teds' birth, he would be a "NATURALIZED" citizen, NOT "Natural Born" (remember, NATURAL BORN as stated below is being born of TWO PARENTS who are CITIZENS at the time of BIRTH to PREVENT a "split" allegiance).

Marco Rubio: He was born in America to immigrant parents who became citizens when he was 3 yrs old making HIM "Native-Born," NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. If there's an Amendment to the Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility in the future, I'm of the opinion that it will ONE DAY be OK for a person born under these circumstances to run.

Bobby Jindal: I haven't don't a lick of research on him because it's widely known that he's NOT "Natural Born" - To represent the People in Congress is OK, however he's NOT eligible to run for High Office.

I know this is long, but I was seriously tired of the 140 character crap. I started to BLOG and I got side-tracked.

Before Barry was elected back in '08 I did a SHITLOAD of research on him - quite simply because I saw him on "Oprah" & I LIKED him! After the election, everything (ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING) was scrubbed! And no matter how you slice it or whichever EO came first, Barry's records are SEALED! Why? Not because when he born his parents thought "Oh, he'll be President in 45 years so we're not going to leave a paper trail!" but because of the MANY Communists ties that his Grandpa Dunhum had, the relationships that his mother had, the classes she took, the thesis she wrote (I read it, used to be OUT THERE on the 'net!) about Communism in America, her ties to Frank Marshall Davis, Jr. who was Barry's Mentor from a VERY young age - molestation - adoption - StanAnn relinquished Barry's US citizenship when he was 8 or 9 & she moved to Indonesia. He could NOT be a US citizen & attend school there. After StanAnn remarried, Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro & he has a 1/2-sister named Mia or Mya Soetoro that was born in 1971. When she was 2 or 3 Barry became too much to handle so mamma shipped him back to Hawaii where he lived with StanAnn's parents. This is where it gets all weird & THIS is the paperwork that's been sealed. His name had been changed to Barry Mohammed Soetoro, he was a citizen of Indonesia. Grandma Dunham worked for the Hawai'i registrars office for many years, Barry has the Social Security of a dead man, his same age from CT named Harrison J Bounel. From here it gets all Tom Clancy/Vince Flynn but the truth will come out & you guys are gonna say: "There was CRAZY fxck'n CHICK on Twitter, I SWEAR she said ALL of this SH!IZ! And now, HERE IT IS! WoW!"

A couple things to add: I was born the same year as Barry only in California at the same hospital my father was born at. My Great Grandfather was one of the ORIGINATOR's of THE "International Alliance for Theatrical Stage Employees" (Union) that's the LOGO you see at the END of every single TV show, movie or at the bottom of ALL playbills if you're at the theatre (sans H.S. & local productions, usually!). I was raised a Democrat - BIG TIME! I.A.T.S.E. AND Teamster's, my dad was also a short-haul truck-driver so I have a view from both ends of the political spectrum. However, I am FIRMLY planted, much to my parents & brothers' dismay, on the RIGHT SIDE of the fence! Oh, my last name REALLY IS Snow (maiden name) White (2nd husband with whom I share a daughter) born "Baby Girl Snow-White" lest you look at my name and decide to strip me of any CRED! #Seriously

-------------------[end my 2cents begin the dissection]---------------
Article II, Section 1

The founders of our Nation wanted a nation for everyone, where ones status of birth would not limit their ability to succeed in almost any task that they could set their hearts and minds too.  Yet, they had put pen to paper to set aside only one aspiration from all citizens and to reserve that for a class of citizens whose members are called “a natural born citizen,” the office of the President of the United States of America.  

Article II, Section 1

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

There are some interesting phrases here that all have significance to the mindset of the Founding Fathers.  The key phrase here is, “a natural born citizen,” as opposed to “a native born citizen,” “naturalized” or even “a citizen.” Before we look at what “a natural born citizen” is, let’s look at the other phrases, so the clear meaning of a Natural Born Citizen becomes clear.

Looking at the text of the Constitution there was a small window of opportunity for a class of citizens, who were just simply “a citizen” to become the President. This Grandfather clause expired with the death of the last citizen born before June 22, 1788.

or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,

Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subjects, they needed to include themselves as possible Presidential candidates. These “original citizen” Presidents included, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and the last “original citizen” President was William Henry Harrison.

If they had not included themselves, then the age requirement included in the qualifications for President would mean that America would have to wait until July 4, 1811 for the first “natural born citizen” to come of age.

neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years,

Yet, they were not so liberal in just allowing any former British subjects to be President. Note that also the qualifications for President is included a duration of residency.

and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

To understand why they choose 14 years, is to start to understand why they also penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” Our Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and if we subtract 14 years we come to September 17, 1773. Nothing significant happened on this date, but it creates a state where our first “original citizen Presidents” needed to be physically present at the start of and during the War of Independence, unless like Franklin they were overseas engaged in the business of the United States. This is born out in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America (July 7, 1798), and this is also in many of the debates on ratification.

Because as stated there were no “natural born citizens” ready to be President, the age and duration of residency also created another significant point. Thirty-five minus 14 is also 21, the “age of majority.” This means that these “original citizen” Presidents would have needed to make a conscience adult decision to be an American and would have earned the right to be President, by willingly risking their lives simply by being present in the thirteen States, while this Nation fought for its independence.

Yes, there is a small window of opportunity, when someone could have come to America and became President, without having risked their live in a War of Independence. This short period was from February 4, 1783 when Britain formally declared an end to the War of Independence until September 17, 1787. Our Founding Fathers were men of the highest principles and integrity, they said what they meant and meant what they said. In the same Constitution, that holds the qualifications for President, is written Article 1, Section 9, these same men wrote,

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
 
They were not going to treat this 1783 to 1789 class of “immigrant citizens” guilty of being unfaithful to America by passing a law saying so.  A Bill of Attainder is a law that makes a group of citizens guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial. Ex post facto law is a law passed after the fact to make something illegal or legal, at the time it happened. They chose instead to set a date, September 17, 1787 that allowed anyone who was an original citizen on that date regardless of place of birth to be President. If you became a citizen on September 18, 1787, it would have been too late for you to qualify to be President of the United States of America without being a natural born citizen.

Returning to the phrase “a natural born citizen,” you can now see that the Founding Fathers made a conscience effort to insure that the office of the President of the United States of America would have been held by only those men who were loyal to the cause of the United States of America. They selected as criteria for themselves loyalty above all else. The President of the United States must be above all else loyal to this Nation, and the principles that it was established upon.

As they pondered the Constitutional office of the President, they knew that one day their generation would pass away. Those men who proved their loyalty on the field of battle would eventually sleep under the field. This pool of men with proven loyalty to the Nation would literally die out one day. Sensing this, they knew that they could only trust the power of the office of President to a group of citizens who would have the best chance of being loyal to the country, those who only know America and only knew what it was like to be American.

On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The common sense of this was immediately and unanimously incorporated into our Constitution. It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.

If they choose as a requirement for President for themselves, proven loyalty, and what they would choose for the next generation of Presidents would be “natural loyalty.” How they determined what natural loyalty is they looked toward nature. They did not need Congressional studies for a definition, as it was self-evident to them. A persons place in life comes from ones parents. This concept is found in nature, it is self-evident. Nature claims kinship, our most primitive and natural form of citizenship, from blood, while nations claim citizens from the soil, or their place of birth. The decided that the best way to protect the integrity of the office of President of the United States was a combination of the two.

The next time the term “natural born” would be used by the first Congress. Chapter III, of the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “a natural born citizen” was one whose parents were citizens of the United States, regardless of where they were born. They used the plural, and not singular. The majority membership of the first Congress was made up of both members from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. It is obvious that these men, who wrote the both the Constitution and first naturalization law seen that it was the parents who instilled a sense of belonging to their children. This sense of belonging would be deemed loyalty.

The fact that they wanted parents, in the plural to be citizens is because they wanted to limit as much as possible any political and emotional attachment to the “old world.” They wanted neither the mother nor the father to influence “a natural born” candidate for President, with a sense of foreign allegiance. They made the requirements for “a natural born citizen” to be from parents who were either born in the United States or made a conscience decision to become “naturalized citizens” of the United States. They observed in the law of nature that a child follows the condition of their parents, and if the parents were split in their loyalties, the child would be split in loyalty to America.

With the Naturalization Act of 1795, they amended the law that allowed a foreign-born child of American citizens to be called “natural born,” not because they believed they were wrong on the premise of the loyalty deriving from the condition of the parents. They were not, because they still granted “naturalized citizenship” at birth to these children. What they realized is that other nations were not following the law of nature, but were instituting feudal laws that were based on Roman law. These laws said, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, that any child born on the soil of the King, the King had the right to claim as a subject of the Crown, forever. Their intention was to insure that “a natural born citizen” would have only one natural loyalty, and could be legally claimed as a citizen of only one country.

No one can deny that it was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to protect the sanctity of the office of the President of the United States from foreign influence, either natural or legislated. They believed that the parents American citizenship, either natural or by choice would guard against the influence of foreign cultures. That birth within the United States of America by American citizens, made sure no other world power could ever make a claim for the allegiance of our President.

At the end of the war of Independence, England wanted to give Americans dual citizenship. In correspondence between David Hartley an British negotiator for the Treaty of Paris, and Benjamin Franklin, in which Hartley writes, “Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.” While some may have considered this a good thing, the Founding Fathers reject this “last minute” act of generosity for the Trojan horse it was, that tried to subvert our Nation into a nation of dual citizens, whose citizens were ultimately subjects subservient to the Crown.

Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation, but is merely a puppet of worldly powers. Imperfect as some may believe, it is our legacy. A heritage paid for by the blood of patriots that is ours to either, guard and protect or to abandon for the always-changing temporary passions of the multitudes.

http://birthers.org/USC/ArtIIS1.html

Sunday, January 19, 2014

I Was a "Birther" Before it Was Cool....

Birther A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto.

"Did you know that Barack Obama's parents concealed the location of his birth because they knew he would grow up to be President? What? Of course it makes sense, I'm a birther!"

Seriously! If you GOOGLE birther, that's the Urban Dictionary definition! It's really NOT even a word, meaning you can't play it during "Scrabble" or "Words With Friends" and when do a Spell-Check, it's hilighted all over the page! See: 

First, a confession. I was watching "Oprah" when she introduced "Barack Obama" as her Senator & friend. I LIKED HIM! A LOT! I honestly thought "Dayumm! If we have to have a (D) for President, he's like 100 X better than Hillary! Oh my God!"[1]

----------[End Confession!]---------
I was NOT blinded by his bleached teeth! Plz READ ON!

Then I started doing research. Before Jerome Corsi, before Glenn Beck, I swear, I HAD EVERYTHING! A lot of my notes are on the HD of my PC that crashed (it's right down there under my desk along with pictures that I really NEED...), but the day after the election EVERY SINGLE LINK was DISABLED... Not some, ALL OF THEM! Scrubbed CLEAN! Just.. GONE

Apparently, for good reason...

Before I continue with what I know from what I read BEFORE everything was GONE, I have another confession. I was raised a Democrat


I came to my senses in 1992 when I changed jobs & my co-worker whose position I was replacing was RIGHTER-than-Rush! He introduced me to #RushLimbaugh. Everything that had always just BEEN started to make SENSE and I knew why I was always uncomfortable with the liberal ideology. It was almost commiserate with a religious experience in that there was a REASON why NOTHING ever made sense but I didn't know any better!

Back to Barry (I ALWAYS call him Barry, that's what I know his name to be and that's how I roll!).






                                

1. I live in Cali so when you say "Oh My God!" God is pronounced like Gawd!

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

William J. H. Boetcker -- "The Ten Cannots"

The Ten Cannots

An outspoken political conservative, Rev. Boetcker is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots that emphasizes freedom and responsibility of the individual on himself. Originally published in 1916, it is often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln. The error apparently stems from a leaflet printed in 1942 by a conservative political organization called the Committee for Constitutional Government. The leaflet bore the title "Lincoln on Limitations" and contained some genuine Lincoln quotations on one side and the "Ten Cannots" on the other, with the attributions switched. The genuine Lincoln quotations may have been from an address on March 21, 1864 in which Lincoln said "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." [1] The mistake of crediting Lincoln for "The Ten Cannots" has been repeated many times since, notably by Ronald Reagan in his address to the1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.[2][3]
There are several minor variants of the pamphlet in circulation, but the most commonly accepted version appears below:
  • You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  • You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
  • You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
  • You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
  • You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
  • You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
  • You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
  • You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
  • You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
  • And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
Boetcker also spoke of the "Seven National Crimes":[4]
  • I don’t think.
  • I don’t know.
  • I don’t care.
  • I am too busy.
  • I leave well enough alone.
  • I have no time to read and find out.
  • I am not interested.

I LOVE "watching" the @GlenBeck Radio Show - He introduces some REALLY COOL STUFF...

#HatingBreitbart - On Netflix - a MUST SEE!

@HatingBreitbart #Fight4Breitbart #BreitbartIsHere

I made it to the end b4 I started to cry! What an amazing man. What a legacy. What a MISSION! What a MOVIE! What a life that ended WAY too soon...

If you didn't know Andrew b4, you will know a small piece of him after watching "Hating Breitbart." All I knew is what I saw on FNC, little snippets of a Conservative man calling out the Liberals on their lies...and there were MANY! ACORN (O'Keefe getting "O'Keefed!" PRICELESS!), Sherrod, allegations that TEA Party ppl hurled the "N"-word 15 TIMES at a black (D) Senator and of course, Anthony Weiner.

In my head I know that in death we are supposed to celebrate the lives of those who have passed. How, moving forward (the GOOD "forward," NOT the bassackward BARRY-FORWARD), do any of us carry on the work of this man? I don't have the answer yet, but I feel like a FLAME, that was dimmed long ago has been reignited and it can't be ignored. 


We all have a VOICE! We all have a NEW MEDIA OUTLET for that VOICE! I think using that VOICE in a CONSISTENT and TRUTHFUL message might be the way... The ONLY WAY to expose what continues to happen behind the West Wing Door. So if you're a liberal, a progressive, a socialist or a communist (they are ALL one-in-the-same) you won't like me. And honestly, I don't give a shit! What I have, what WE HAVE (the Conservatives, the REAL REPUBS, the Libertarians, those with half-a-brain and a modicum of common sense) is the TRUTH! 

That's what I want from Barry, that's what WE the PEOPLE deserve, WHAT Andrew DUG DEEP to FIND, is the Goddamn TRUTH... When you find it, SHARE IT! If it's a half-truth, don't want it! Keep it to yourself. I want the GOD AWFUL, down and DIRTY, NAKED-fucking-TRUTH and nothing but...

...The Truth...

Amy Nicholson on "Lone Survivor"

Before today I didn't know the name #AmyNicholson (I'm moderately embarassed she shares my moms' Maiden name, but rest-assured there's NO RELATION!) as the day has gone on, I wish I never HAD heard her name. This humanoid, who no doubt has a "Once You Vote Black, You Never Go Back" bumper sticker on her tiny lil electric car in LeftieWeird CA, is by far one of THE MOST vile & disgusting individuals with whom we must share oxygen.

Lemme start by saying two things: 1. I haven't read Marcus Luttrells' book "Lone Survivor;" and 2. Nor have I seen the movie by the same name starring MarkyMark Wahlberg #heart. 

Why, you ask? Because I'm pretty sure it was just released in all cities last Friday and the TRAILERS bring tears to my eyes. That said, I wear glasses & when I cry they fog up, I can't see and it's just a MESS...

So watching Stu struggle to read #AmyNicholson's "review" on @GlennBeck's radio show made the bile rise in my throat. Thankfully I haven't eaten. Let's start with the TITLE:

"Lone Survivor Has Too Much Violence and Jingoism for Its Own Good"

Me, being me, I had to Google "Jingoism" because it's not in my "patriotic" vocab. It's a lovely word and me thinks the "lady" doth "project" since it seems it was HER ?resident and HIS "foreign policy" (or lack thereof) who sent OUR MILITARY into Afghanistan to begin with... I digress:

Jingoism is patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.

Jingoism 1. belligerent nationalism: extreme patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility toward other countries.

Oh, and it gets better! I'm just going to copy & paste what this lady (term used loosely) wrote. Whether you've seen the flic, or not (and I doubt she did) let's DISCUSS!

"Here's a movie that'll flop in Kabul. Lone Survivor, the latest by Battleship director Peter Berg, is a jingoistic snuff film about a Navy SEAL squadron outgunned by the Taliban in the mountainous Kunar province. After four soldiers — played with muscles and machismo by Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster — get ID'd by Afghan goat herders, they're in a race to climb to the top of the nearest summit and summon an airlift before these civilians can sprint to the nearest village and alert local leader Ahmad Shah. It doesn't go well." http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-26/film-tv/lone-survivor-mark-wahlberg-review/

I'm going to take a little break here. Let's discuss on Twitter... My teeth are grinding and it's difficult to type with clenched fists...