Rhode Island Democrat Tells Defender of Constitution To ‘Go F*** Yourself’

go fu yrslfState Democrat Senator from Rhode Island, Josh Miller was confronted by a radio talk show host about his proclivity toward abolishing gun rights, and when reacquainted with the words of the Second Amendment, said to, “Go f*** yourself.”

Biondi, who said he was there on March 18 to get comments from “Second Amendment hating” lawmakers on the “unconstitutional, draconian gun bills to be heard that night,” walked up to Miller, put the microphone in his face and  said “The Second Amendment shall not be infringed — you people need to understand that.”

Miller didn’t hesitate in his reply.

“Go [expletive] yourself.”

Bill Jacobson of points out that Rhode Island might not be the best state to live in if you want to defend the Constitution, citing its government’s corruption and Democrat and union dominance.

Oh, how I miss my formerly home State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

A State run by the best and the brightest — and the indicted and the investigated and the Democrats and the Unions.

Just a few days ago the feds and State Police raided the office and home of the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives — who has since .

But the dishonorable Democrat has apologized

At the end of a press conference in which I participated, an individual representing a website notorious for conspiracy theories started berating members of the coalition and intimidating elderly veterans, members of the clergy and victims of violence.

It quickly became a highly charged atmosphere, which required the presence of the Capitol Police. The individual in question is not new to the State House and is known for his aggressive and intimidating manner. He also was interrupting legitimate members of the media who were attempting to conduct interviews.

After watching him antagonize an elderly veteran he swung his camera my way, which produced a very human and guttural reaction. I respect both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment. It is important to note that the individual in question was physically removed from a committee room by the Capitol Police later that evening.Regardless of the emotions and atmosphere of the moment, it does not justify the language I used that day. Out of respect for the decorum of the State House and the constituents I represent, I offer my apologies.

Hiding behind veterans, priests and old ladies, the liberals throw their bombs.

But, you know, this sort of thing happens from time to time.  In fact, my own Republican State Senator told a radio talk show host, who was not only a constituent, a member of the Republican Party, at a function where mostly women were present, “Screw you, dude,” when asked about his yes vote on Medicaid Expansion.

When I asked my Senator about it, he said something to the effect that he had to stand up for himself.  He did not apologize.

More strife that the American people have to contend with in a society where the Constitution is being ripped to shreds.


Please follow and like:

The Democrat’s Conflicted Energy Beliefs

The Daily Beast has an article castigating the, for not getting behind natural gas production.

Podesta warned that opposition to natural gas is impractical and not grounded in reality.  “With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s sort of an impractical suggestion.”

Good luck, Podesta.  It was the radical left that brought us global warming fanaticism, and it’s the fanaticism you’ve created that will fracture and destroy your party.

So where does this leave would-be populist Al Gore—who branded Keystone as an —along with would-be Democratic financial savior and Keystone opponent  and the Democratic Party itself? How about a world away from job-craving America, and light years from the mid-twentieth century Democratic Party.

global warmingLet me remind everyone that the so-called Cap and Trade bill that the Democrat House put together with Waxman and Pelosi calling the shots, was actually named the “Global Warming Bill” and it included prohibitions against ALL forms of energy that are extracted from earth- coal, oil, and yes, natural gas.

The Democrat House voted for that Cap and Trade Bill, and it was only a few Democrats in the Senate, from coal-producing states, that made it clear it was going to be dead-on-arrival in the Senate, to save their yellow hides.

So, Podesta has to not only reprogram his base, he also has to figure out how he is going to convince them that Mother Earth can give up her natural gas, but not coal and not oil, even though they are as naturally occurring as you and I.

Please follow and like:

Because Government Is Their God

The Democrats removed “God” from their platform. , the Republican party went from two mentions to twelve from 2008 to 2012, and the Democrats went from one mention to zero, completely wiping God’s name from their platform.


Because government is their god.

When a political party promises there will be no hardship, no punishment, no responsibility, and no accountability to be placed upon the individual as long as he turns his life over to their care, they are attempting to replace that individual’s trust in God with trust in them.

Sandra Fluke’s demanding appearance in front of an interested Democrat panel of legislators is one example.  Her plea for taxpayer subsidy of contraceptives in direct challenge to Catholic universities’ faith-based objection, showed this disconnect and disrespect of moral objection.  She looked to government to provide her needs as she saw fit, instead of empowering women to see to their own needs.

The modern Democratic Party fights for government’s power rather than God’s because God’s judgement places expectations upon them, whereas government can, if they get their way, absolve their indiscretion without judgement, without personal responsibility.

President Obama tells us that without government’s infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, internet and so on, we can’t build a business and make our lives better.  In fact, he asserts that it cannot be done without the partnership of government.  In this, he tells us that we have no worth, no labor worth using, and no property worth keeping without government.  And to that end, when a small business is born, government slaps a hefty tax on it to ensure that it will partner with government.

If we, as citizens of a nation under God, are to comport ourselves in a manner to coexist in a civil society, we take on the personal responsibilities necessary to that end.  In that way, we stay within the law of God and of Nature.  But if we cast off God’s expectations of us, with the blessings of government, there is no longer any lines of right and wrong.

That is why, when the modern Democratic party says we are all citizens of our government, and are drawn to serve one another, any argument against the laws of current government, is met with incredulity and offense from those who would replace the laws of God with the laws of temporary men and women in power.

God says it is right to be charitable to the poor.  The last shall be first, and the first, last.  God does not say it is right for a government to take from one and give to another because he also says thou shall not steal.

God gives us a moral and righteous compass in which we all should try to live, but when government provides the compass, it’s purpose is to provide equality and force those with much to give to those with little.  God’s love is then diminished as unfair, whereas government’s is exalted to cure unfairness.

When the framers of this nation said that our rights come from God and Nature’s God, it causes a mental rift in the minds of the modern Democrat party.  After all, what is nature, and what is natural?  Is it natural for a man and a woman to want to marry?  If so, then is it unnatural for a man to marry a man?  And if that moral absolute is God’s law, then government is needed to change it.  Is it natural for a man to be physically stronger than a woman?  If so, a woman has no power, ultimately, and it is necessary for government to take away his other attributes and rights to cure that disparity.

God is repressive in the minds of the modern Democrat party, and government is progressive.  But progress in the ways of diminishing human nature and humanity itself.

God says we are to love ourselves because He is within us.  He gives us a mind and a soul and His commandments and examples throughout the Bible of what is good and righteous in His eyes and what is not.

Government can override those laws considered too harsh, but when it does so, we lose our trust in ourselves and therefore, in God.

When we lose ourselves and our ability to govern ourselves, government steps in and takes over, controlling every aspect of our lives as if we were mere children of Father Government.  But when we believe in God, we are strengthened and empowered to do right by man and God and in turn, are in control of our lives, which is something not permissible in a nation ruled by man.

After all, if you, as an individual are allowed to reach your full potential, your dreams fulfilled by your own effort, you are then suspected by government of not playing fair, because there are still people under government’s thumb who do not and cannot reach their full potential.

And that is the problem with a massive, powerful government.  In the end, no one reaches their full potential, because government busies itself with affecting your potential, and changing the spirit of the law to fit it’s logic-of-the-moment.

Government is needed in society to provide order, keep the peace, and protection from attack.  But when government exceeds it’s boundaries, every one of those responsibilities is compromised.  Government cannot provide any of those things when it becomes so obese it cannot function.

When the Constitution was adopted, it laid out what government can do, and what it cannot do.  Obama said himself, that his attitude toward the Constitution is such that he complained it does not spell out what government ‘should’ do on behalf of the people.

A representative of government is a representative of the people, not an organizer of society.  Society was organized by the founding documents, which was also organized by the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  We do not bow to men, we bow to God.

The modern Democratic party seeks to rid itself of God’s law and our Constitution, based on God’s law, because if God’s law is observed by each of us, they cannot control us.

And that prospect gives them no power.

Please follow and like:

Better Off Now?

Dear American,

Where do you live?

How do you turn your lights on? Check out how , and

Are you confident your job will be there for you?  How about your pension?  

Are you comfortable with a down economy?  Check out the


What are we going to do about the , , , and control over our health-care decisions that will soon complicate our lives due to the government takeover of the health-care industry?

And are we certain that are helping us on a national security level?

 Americans are living in great fear and anxiety over the uncertainty this administration is causing.  Without a doubt, not only are we not better off, we are pissed off.


Please follow and like:

Democrats, Please Just Say It!

E.J. Dionne wrote a interesting argument today that appears at Real Clear Politics entitled, He is really sick and tired of Democrats side-stepping what to him is quite obviously their deep-down belief that government can create a heaven on earth.

It is not true, I believe, that all Democrats believe that government can fix all ills, but the leadership has pushed that party so far left, the extremists of every pet issue and project have taken over, causing what we are now observing as a Democrat Civil War.

Dionne uses Reagan’s famous quote, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” to rally his side against those trying to encourage individual liberty. The only way government can be the solution is if individuals are leashed by it.

Dionne states, “One of those valuable things is that government creates jobs — yes, really — and also the conditions under which more jobs can be created.”

It’s funny that his argument had to be muddled a bit with the second half of that sentence. I’m sure he disliked the fact that he had to add a conservative argument to his bogus rule, but it shows how weak the liberal game has become. The fact is that government can create the conditions under which more jobs are created, however, it is only when government is cut back and it’s power subdued that those conditions are possible. Dionne’s addition of the logical conservative argument negates his bogus rule that government creates jobs. Government cannot be the solution if in order to be deemed successful, it must have both hands tied behind it’s back and it’s mouth duct-taped. He rightfully chooses to point out that many Democrats are not willing to remind voters that they believe government is the solution, and that conservatives point it out all the time, but I don’t think he understands why.

“And the events of recent weeks suggest that if progressives do not speak out plainly on behalf of government, they will be disadvantaged throughout the election-year debate. Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election owed to many factors, including his overwhelming financial edge. But he was also helped by the continuing power of the conservative anti-government idea in our discourse. An energetic argument on one side will be defeated only by an energetic argument on the other.”

Ok, just say it Democrats. Tell the nation that although cutting back the power of government is so popular that it wins elections in Democratic leaning states, only the opposite of what works is their lone recourse. Tell them that Wisconsinites were simply overwhelmed with an energetic argument that made complete sense, and your job is to espouse the greatness of that which they just humbled. Do it. I beg you.

If doing the opposite of what works is going to be your prerogative moving forward, your energy will only come from enjoying the feeling when you stop banging your head against the wall. If that’s the path you are willing to take, be my guest.

Dionne then describes the greatness of Lincoln and Roosevelt as examples of Presidents willing to use federal power to their advantage, stating, “A belief in government’s constructive capacities is not some recent ultra-liberal invention.”

No, it’s not some recent liberal invention, but nowhere have I ever read a quote by Abraham Lincoln that government is the solution to the nation’s ills. Rather, he described an America whose liberty for individual citizens did not falter upon knowing the color of their skin. He made it clear that the union must be preserved if we are to be a great nation, and was willing to end slavery once and for all. To compare him to Roosevelt, whom Dionne suggests is equal because of his creative reading of the constitution and willingness to convince Americans that they had no hope but for government, is not only laughable in an intellectual approach to the parallel, but a mockery of simple logic. Lincoln ended the practice of slavery, and Roosevelt substituted the slave owner with an all-powerful government. The two could not be more radically different.

Besides, Dionne is trying to persuade Democrats across the nation to wave the flag of government, while simultaneously trying to hide the fact that they have to pay for it. More government means more taxes. More taxes means less autonomy. Less autonomy means less control of your own future, and the shifting of your responsibilities to government. He tries to say that the party is losing the argument because of an anti-government virus that is spreading through the nation, but fails to recognize that you have a mind of your own.

And that is the core of his argument.

If you believe that government is the solution, you believe you are not able to make your own decisions, and the only people arguing for larger government believe you are unable as well. For them, individual liberty is to be savagely defended for every perverse interpretation, but when it comes to what you do with your money and labor, you are just not suited to understand.

Dionne argues that the stimulus’ good news has been overshadowed by anti-government rhetoric. He says that if not for the stimulus, unemployment would be worse, therefore, government does create jobs.

With that logic, the only solution is a totalitarian state. All of your labor should be offered to government in order to keep the unemployed at a rate twice as high as the previous administrations. All of your labor should be given so that it can be proved once and for all that government is the solution.

He concludes with,

Let’s turn Ronald Reagan’s declaration on its head: Opposition to government isn’t the solution. Opposition to government was and remains the problem. It is past time that we affirm government’s ability to heal the economy, and its responsibility for doing so.

Yes, just say it, Democrats, resistance to the greater glory of government is futile. Surely the people of the nation will react to that in your favor.

It is rather more likely that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, would overwhelmingly agree with Reagan, not only on the original quote which Dionne wants turned on its head, but on the following:

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
Ronald Reagan

Man is not free unless government is limited.
Ronald Reagan

Quotes via .

Please follow and like:

Rangel Uses God For Political Gain

Rangel makes fiscal responsibility a moral argument.

He asked, “What Would Jesus Do?

, written by Jeannie DeAngelis of Big Government is sophisticated and informed.  She puts it in very clear terms that Rangel is simply using God for political gain.  She throws the idea of Democrats funding abortion and not paying their taxes, right back in Rangel’s face.  Arguing against this tripe is simple, and Jeannie soundly rebukes Rangel.

In :

“What would Jesus do this weekend? Or Moses. Or Allah. Or anyone else,” the New York congressman said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I don’t want this book (debt negotiations) closed without the clergy having an opportunity to forcefully express themselves as well as I know they can do.”

“I have not heard from those people who have been called by God to protect the poor. I haven’t heard them,” he said. “The issues that are going to be discussed this weekend involve spiritual, moral issues.”

And Rangel’s plea to the poor and helpless? Call your religious leaders and ask, “what is Medicare all about? What is Medicaid all about? Why do we have taxes?'”

Jesus Christ would have asked that we offer our help to the least, the poor, the elderly.

What He would not do is use coercion through government, under penalty of fines or imprisonment to do the same.

Fiscal responsibility is a moral argument, however, Rangel uses the victim’s approach. What is immoral is having morally repugnant leaders in DC determining how we are to care for the poor and elderly.

Those religious leaders that Rangel calls on should stand up and say, “We take care of our poor, and our elderly, but the ranks of the poor and elderly get larger every time lawmakers try to make things equal.”

Please follow and like:

Wisconsin Democrats Reach Legend Status

Do you think it was orchestrated by Obama, or just a local Democrat? When the Wisconsin Democrats left the floor of the Capitol on a short yellow bus and ended up in Illinois, they reached legend status. And not in a good way. From now on, whenever anyone runs away politically or a pundit tries to evade the issue at hand, they are going to be referred to as a Wisconsin Democrat.

On a serious note, a friend of mine, CJ got a note from a fellow who was in Madison, and it kind of proves to me that what happened in Wisconsin was no small, spontaneous sequence of events.

“I was there on Tuesday and testified before the joint finance committee. Since then the Democratic Senators got on a bus and left the state, we are one short of a quorum to vote. Today the majority of the schools closed due to teachers calling in sick, the unions are busing people in from out-of-state, stairs are blocked, restrooms are a permanently occupied to prevent use by anybody, elevators full and kids are running through the halls pounding on doors and yelling. The capital police have the building completely in lock down for security reasons. No business can be conducted. Saul would be proud of their actions. It is like being a third world country, it is truly sad.”

The man was referring to Saul Alinsky who wrote “Rules For Radicals.”

So, besides the Wisconsin Democrat side show of running away and holing up in a Best Western in Illinois, we have this spectacle of absolute anarchy, and it was obviously orchestrated. The teachers of Wisconsin, at least a majority of them were complicit, somebody had to organize the children to be disruptive, somebody had to get a whole bunch of people to just hang around in the bathrooms all day, this is truly sick, and here’s the problem. The American people will not stand for this. Just like the fellow said, it is sad, but it is also angering the American people.

I’m reminded of a friend of mine, a tea partier, who walked miles and miles to knock on doors last fall, and he came to a house, and after an initial greeting, my friend asked him if he was a Republican or a Democrat. The man got very animated, angry, and he said, “I’m a proud Democrat, and I’ll tell ya, if they don’t stop doing what their doing, I’m throwing the whole bunch of them out!”

Whoever orchestrated this crap in Wisconsin had better notice that you can’t treat America like the streets of Chicago.

Update: FReeper FreeAgent points to this happening in 2003–, Eleven Democrat Texas state senators fled to New Mexico for 46 days which prevented a quorum to avoid voting on redistricting. Organized by

Please follow and like:

David V. Goliath: How Obama and the Democrats Will Lie Their Way Through 2010

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court killed the campaign finance reform law known as McCain-Feingold.

So why is President Obama upset?

, and their anger at “rich” corporations to create political heat for Republicans because of this decision.  Almost every where a person will turn on the internet to understand what this decision means, or how it began will come up with the answer, it is conservative judicial activism.

But it isn’t.

The case was called Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, and is subject to hearings in both the House and the Senate next month.  Dave Bossie, who heads up the group Citizens United, made a film about how Hillary Clinton was unqualified to be President.  Before distribution, he asked the Federal Election Commission if, because of McCain-Feingold, he would face jail time by promoting it’s viewership.  Bossie shared their response on Mark Levin’s radio show on Thursday:

“….they told me I could go to jail for five years per criminal code violation. The bureaucrats at the FEC said, you can’t show your movie, on video on demand, even, if people want to participate, meaning, they affirmatively say, ‘I wanna watch it,’ they can’t even do that.  We can’t show ads so the people can buy the dvd, we can’t put ads on the air that say,  ‘go watch the movie in a movie theater.’  So yeah, we were totally shut down, and I said, well that’s not right,…..I’m not going to wait for them to come to me, I’m going to well, sue them.

If that isn’t the proverbial David versus Goliath, I don’t know what is.

Bossie explains in the interview how the Supreme Court initially throws his argument out in March in order to get at the bigger, freedom of speech issue.

Levin:  Now how long did this litigation take?

Bossie:  Um, we’ve been at the Supreme Court since December of ’08.

Levin:  And, you’ve been there twice, right?

Bossie:  Yeah, we had our first argument in March of ’09, on the last minute of the last day, in June, we thought we were going to get a ruling, they ordered a re-hearing on much bigger constitutional questions I might add, because we didn’t look to eviscerate  and destroy all of McCain-Feingold, we just wanted the right to be able to make and show our films and advertise our films.  So, but the Supreme Court came back to us and said, no no, we’re not going to just deal with your little questions, we’re going to deal with these big, Constitutional questions , which to be quite candid, was exactly the opposite legal tactics we had chose to do…

Levin: Yeah, now let me explain that, just very briefly, now, you guys, because I read the opinion, you guys basically were saying, look, this doesn’t apply to us , look, we are free to do this, we’re not a for-profit company, and basically what they said was, look you lose on all those grounds, because we want to address and there is no avoiding it, the major freedom of speech argument , and in the end they say, but you win the big issue.  Which is, free speech right?

Bossie:  That’s exactly right, Mark.  We have a total and complete vindication.

I don’t know, but my suggestion would be that Obama and the Democrats are going to try to say, that at this point, the Supreme Court uses “conservative activism” when it tells Bossie that he loses his case, but will hear arguments on another issue.  That because Bossie was doing a film against a Democrat, and that the lawyer in this case was the “evil” Ted Olson, litigator for Bush V. Gore in 2001, and that the court is just really conservative, are obvious reasons why the Supreme Court did not leave the issue there, and proves it’s “conservative activism.”

However, during the first session that began in March, something happened to create the larger issue.  Justice Kennedy, hardly a conservative, but a consistent proponent of the freedom of speech, asked the then Deputy Solicitor General a simple question.  Agian, from the Mark Levin radio show:

Bossie : …..during oral arguments, and that is where we won this case, we won this case during oral arguments, and it was when Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion, who is a first amendment advocate, but not necessarily a conservative, he is somebody who has been good on free speech issues, historically.   But he asked a very simple question of the deputy solicitor general in March and he said, If the content of this film was in book form, would it be the position of the government that you could constitutionally ban books? And the Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart was very honest and he said,  Yes.  It was a chill in the room.

The question posed by Justice Kennedy created an unresolved issue at the end of Bossie’s original hearing.  When the Supreme Court took up the issue again last September, Justice Ginsburg asked the new Solicitor General, Alana Kagan to clarify the “book issue” from the March hearing and Bossie explains:

….the Solicitor General herself said, well you know what, we do have the Constitutional authority to do so, but  trust us, we’ve never prosecuted anyone for it.  Which in turn got the chief justice John Roberts to lean across the desk, we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.  In both oral arguments,  the issue of banning books is what won me the day.

The bottom line is, that freedom of speech, no matter the form it takes, book, movie, dvd, blog, whatever, cannot be limited.

McCain-Feingold said that certain entities could not exercise political free speech 30 days before a primary, and 60 days before a general election.  Bossie’s argument was a sort of discrimination case, in that, since he didn’t have a media badge, he didn’t have free speech before an election.  McCain-Feingold was struck down because it exempted the media and regulated everyone else’s free speech.

If left in place, more regulation of talk radio, the internet, and other forms of how people communicate their views would be imminent.

Because McCain-Feingold was struck down, the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission can be the reason why we are able to hear radio talk shows and read blogs and say what we think, because it affirms our freedom of speech.

The Democrats will also claim that money given to political parties by corporations are as good as bribes and not freedom of speech by the corporations.  They will not remind the voters that this decision frees unions to do the same.

The Democrats will not tell their voting block that this ruling protects citizen’s  right to speak their mind.  They will lie.

Please follow and like:

Harry Reid Is A Bigot

Harry Reid was quoted in a political book as saying privately that the US would be “ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ ”

I listened to talk radio intellects Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin duly hammer Reid and Democrats in general for the double standard they openly displayed in dismissing the quote to try to quickly get past the embarrassment.

Rush played endless clips of Democrats being racially insensitive, and pointed out that the comment shows that Reid thought that the country would not support a very black man with a negro dialect.

Levin attacked the quote as well, and showed how Obama, the President of the NAACP and Al Sharpton chose to deal with the quote.  Obama called the quote “unfortunate.” The NAACP President said the quote was “not offensive,” just “awkward.” Sharpton said he was offended, but attacked Senator Trent Lott for a quote given 8 years ago.

They all focused on the word ‘negro.’

At the heart of all the back-tracking, strange equivalence, and mental gymnastics surrounding the quote however, is a more serious matter.

The quality of each human life and its individuality.

Harry Reid looked at a man and thought he was a more worthy individual than another based on the tone of his skin and his ability to fake a speech pattern.  It shows  his point of view as bigoted.

It is the trademark of the Democrat Party in fact, to gather people into groups in order to figure out how to promise them something they will find appealing and then purchase their vote.  In Reid’s mind, Obama seemed to check all the correct boxes of Democrat voters.

A caller to Levin’s radio show, an individual named Jewel from Chantilly, VA, said that as an African-American, he thought the comment showed Reid to resemble slave owners of the past who allowed only the light-skinned blacks to serve at the house, and kept the dark-skinned blacks in the field.

Jewel’s comment struck me as the explicit truth.

Reid’s shallow apology, that he could have used different words, rings quite hollow.  Why bother?   My guess is that we would still have understood any other words he chose to use, and he would still be proved a bigot.

Please follow and like: