LORRA OF PANTHERVILLE...
Pass it on...
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that
contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have
nots, it’s the dos and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey
the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s
the divide in America .
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about
civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred,
greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political
party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s
about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a
couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting
“income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people,
that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will
take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit .
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying
America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common
sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a
betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers,
they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of
victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise –
that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the
successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the
consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in
society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of
success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater
likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in
personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip
college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a
diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of
wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and
life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is
determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.
There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an
inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.
While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical
school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a
choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot
better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away
his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free
choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take
away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is
no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit
of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of
government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even
if the other guy sat on his #$%$ and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a
lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of
outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall
ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you
get."
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who
achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be
rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to
upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a
lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the
successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his
party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the
votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by
the differences in our incomes, it is divided by the differences in our
efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success
comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a
separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans
against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer.
Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each
day to proving the truth to Lincoln ’s maxim that a house divided against
itself cannot stand.
"Life is ten percent what happens to you and
ninety percent how you respond to it."
Lou Holtz
Leo "Lou" Holtz (born January 6, 1937)
is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and
motivational speaker
=================================================================
Samuel L. Jackson is nothing but a glorified hood rat who mastered the "art" of delivering the F-word.
January 1, 2016
Pass it on...
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that
contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have
nots, it’s the dos and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey
the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s
the divide in America .
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that
contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have
nots, it’s the dos and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey
the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s
the divide in America .
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about
civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred,
greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political
party that loves power more than it loves its country.
civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred,
greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political
party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s
about time someone said it.
about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a
couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting
“income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people,
that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery.
couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting
“income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people,
that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will
take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit .
take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit .
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying
America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common
sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a
betrayal.
America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common
sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a
betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers,
they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of
victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise –
that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the
successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the
consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in
society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of
success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater
likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in
personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip
college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a
diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of
wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and
life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is
determined by the course we take.
they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of
victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise –
that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the
successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the
consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in
society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of
success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater
likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in
personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip
college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a
diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of
wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and
life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is
determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.
There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an
inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.
While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical
school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a
choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot
better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away
his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free
choices lead to different outcomes.
There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an
inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.
While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical
school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a
choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot
better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away
his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free
choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take
away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is
no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit
of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of
government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even
if the other guy sat on his #$%$ and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a
lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is
no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit
of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of
government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even
if the other guy sat on his #$%$ and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a
lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of
outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall
ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you
get."
ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you
get."
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who
achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be
rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to
upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a
lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the
successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his
party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the
votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by
the differences in our incomes, it is divided by the differences in our
efforts.
achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be
rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to
upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a
lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the
successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his
party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the
votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by
the differences in our incomes, it is divided by the differences in our
efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success
comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a
separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans
against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer.
Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each
day to proving the truth to Lincoln ’s maxim that a house divided against
itself cannot stand.
separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans
against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer.
Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each
day to proving the truth to Lincoln ’s maxim that a house divided against
itself cannot stand.
"Life is ten percent what happens to you and
ninety percent how you respond to it."
ninety percent how you respond to it."
Lou Holtz
Leo "Lou" Holtz (born January 6, 1937)
is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and
motivational speaker
is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and
motivational speaker
Samuel L. Jackson's America-Bashing: a Huge Disservice
By Lloyd Marcus
Okay, I will say it out loud. Far too many Hollywood celebs are self-aggrandizing idiots when it comes to politics and culture. Their worldview makes them feel superior to the rest us. Neither facts nor common sense will change their minds. Ronald Reagan nailed it when he said, “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
Here's a prime example of a liberal making void-of-reality statements while thinking himself superior. Black superstar actor Samuel L. Jackson said he wished the San Bernardino shooters “was another crazy white dude” rather than Muslims. Jackson said such attacks gives people “legitimate reason” to look at their Muslim neighbors and friends the way they look at young black men.
Mr. Jackson, I am black. I resent your assumption that Americans are racists looking for reasons to look cross-eyed at Muslims and young black men. Frankly, members of both groups (Muslims and blacks) have declared war on Americans.
So tell me, Mr. Jackson. How are we supposed to deal with the fact that practically every terrorist attack resulting in the maiming and murder of Americans has been by Muslims? Also, though underreported, black youth flash mob attacks, the knock-out game and polar bear hunting attacks on innocent whites are frequent.
The Black Lives Matter hate group which Mr. Jackson and his Hollywood homeys hold in high regard have declared open season on killing cops and “crackas” (white people). How are Americans supposed to process that?
A white friend was mugged on a Baltimore street. My friend admitted he was preoccupied. Had he been paying attention, upon seeing the group of thuggish young black males approaching, his street-smarts would have kicked in causing him to cross over to the opposite side of the street. Mr. Jackson would deem my friend a racist guilty of profiling. In the minds of liberals, politically correctness trumps everything; even self-preservation instincts and life-experiences.
What I find so scary about the Muslim thing is we have no way of knowing who is for us or “a-gin” us. All the successful terrorist attacks maiming and murdering Americans were by Muslims who presented themselves as harmless neighbors, friends, and co-workers.
The Boston Marathon was bombed by the seemingly Americanized Tsarnaev brothers. They killed 3 and wounded over 260, many maimed for life.
For crying out loud, the Muslim terrorist at Ft. Hood was a major in the U.S. Army! Major Nidal Hasan, shot and killed 13 and injured over 30 while yelling, “Allahu akbar! (God is great!)”
The San Bernardino shooters were undercover Muslim terrorists. They left their company's Christmas party, returned later wearing combat gear and killed 14 coworkers.
Again I ask Mr. Jackson, how should we as responsible reasonable Americans respond?
And another thing. What is up with Jackson and other mega-rich black celebs constantly trashing white Americans whose patronage made them ga-zillionaires?
While promoting her movie, Selma, Oprah made the absurd claim that the 1950s persecution of blacks featured in her film still happens daily in America. With all due respect Oprah, your accusation is irresponsible, divisive, and insulting.
Oprah Winfrey and I were coworkers at WJZ-TV in Baltimore before she became the nationally renowned “Oprah.” Oprah cohosted our local morning talk show. Blacks were a bit suspicious of her for being comfortable with whites. Black viewers did not make Oprah a megastar. White viewers made Oprah.
Samuel L. Jackson, Oprah, and other black celebs relentlessly bashing America is a huge disservice to all Americans, particularly black youths. Rather than saying their success is “because” of America, most black celebs promote the liberal spin, saying their success is “in spite of” America. The truth is America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. The Left is relentless in its efforts to insidiously hide the blessing of America from minorities.
Proverbs says, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” In other words, belief is a powerful thing. So when black superstars tell black youths that America is forever racist and white cops shoot them on sight, they believe it. The lies become truth in their minds. Angry young blacks respond accordingly. (video has explicit language)
Mr. Jackson and other black celebs, your insistence on portraying America as a hellhole of racism towards minorities is irresponsible, divisive and hate-generating. Your supportive public deserves much, much better.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
==============================
Huckabee: Obama Spying on Members of Congress ‘An Impeachable Offense’...'Richard Nixon Resigned For LESS Than This'
Mike Huckabee reacts to reports that the NSA spied on Israeli leaders and U.S. lawmakers.
HUCK: "The real issue was whether or not the President was aware that members of Congress were being tapped, if that's the case and the President was aware of it, I believe this is not only unconstitutional, I believe this is an impeachable offence. Richard Nixon resigned for less than this. I don't think we can just gloss this over"
Good for Huckabee for calling out the Adm. like this. Why aren't ALL the other Republican candidates doing the same?
WATCH:
A warning from someone who knows...
|
I skimmed this report to page 33 and had an epiphany. The fact that we have a 200 page report about Clinton's damage to OUR White House is reason enough for anyone to vote for Trump. The people who don’t care about this are the very ones who will vote for her, just as they voted for obama twice.
At this point, Hillary’s best move would be to fake her death so America can move on. Really. No way she can withstand months of Trump on her rump. It is going to be her worst nightmare.
Many 2016 Voters Don’t Know Team Clinton Trashed The White House In 2001 – Here’s the GAO Report…
Posted on December 31, 2015
People who are wondering why Donald Trump might be referencing some historical Clinton issues, might do well to refresh their memory on how vengeful Clinton staffers trashed the White House when Vice-President Al Gore lost to George W Bush in 2000.
When considering how the office of the presidency is regarded by the Clintons, a new generation of voters may not know about Team Clinton: writing vulgar messages on the White House office walls, destroying furniture, slicing chair cushions, ripping phones out of walls, removing the historical door knobs, stealing items, switching around the fax machines, gluing desk drawers closed, carving into desk tops, removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards, and much worse.
Here’s the 200+ page General Accounting Office (GAO) report:
No comments:
Post a Comment