Truer words have never been spoken, but surely not on purpose. Rep. Tom Perriello (Democrat, of course) accidentally admits the dirty little truth about politicians. Repeat after me:

If you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.

And yes, he really said it.

This isn’t exactly shocking information. You can see it in the stimulus package, the omnibus bill, the new jobs bill, and of course, Obamacare. You can see it in the endless spending and spending and spending and spending currently going on in Washington by the looters who call themselves Democrats. They’re spending like there’s no tomorrow, and why should they care? They aren’t the ones who will have to shoulder the burden; our children and grandchildren will. It’s like the teenager who goes crazy with Daddy’s credit card because they know that someone else will have to pay for the bill.

Obamacare in particular is the worst theft that Democrats are committing, though. Americans are against it. They don’t want it, and they’re seeing it rammed down our throats anyways, against our will. Costs will skyrocket, care will be rationed, and the quality of health care will plummet. Democrats don’t care. They’re ignoring the voices of thousands upon thousands of Americans fighting them tooth and nail to stop this monstrosity, but Democrats are passing it anyways. Why? Because it increases the size and scope of the federal government, thereby giving them more power and money. They don’t care if Obamacare wrecks it for the rest of us — they’re exempt!

Perriello is letting us know that Democrats are nothing more than power-and-money-hungry addicts begging for someone to do an intervention. Unless we tie their hands, he says, they’ll keep stealing. Well, America, you’ve been informed. Let’s take that burden of responsibility off their hands this November.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Stop the ACLU.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Sen. Coburn gives us some total awesomeness with this video, warning Democrats willing to sell their votes: be prepared.

This is the attitude we’ve been missing from the GOP all along. They’re so eager to play nice with Democrats, that they’ve seemingly forgotten all of their conservative principles. They’ve lost their backbone and forgotten that sometimes, it’s OK to be combative, it’s OK to fight the Democrats every step of the way. This is the spirit I want to continue to see from the GOP.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

This moment, from Bret Baier’s interview on Fox News with Obama, might just be one of the biggest “WTF?!” moments from Obama’s presidency yet. Obama is either completely making things up, living in an alternate reality, or really, really confused.

Actually, my guess is that’s it’s probably a combination of all three.

Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed.

Oh, wait, no. That’s right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual. In fact, the last earthquake in Hawaii to cause any deaths at all was in 1975, and two people died.

In any case, why is he using this argument, anyways? He’s turned this health care bill into a one-size-fits-all solution for everything. Not only will it fix our health care, but it will apparently create jobs and give disaster relief around the country!

Maybe I’m the only person who doesn’t get it, but I just don’t see how disaster relief has anything to do with health care. This is just more evidence that Obama is just talking out of his you-know-where now. He’s become this desperate. And you know, I say good. That means we’re getting to him, and now’s the time to push even harder.

And, Obama? Just a tip. Someone that you supposedly look up to once gave some pretty good advice, someone named Abraham Lincoln. Read this quote. Memorize it. Repeat it to yourself before you ever choose to open your mouth ever again.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

PETA is in hot water over their euthanasia rates right now. Despite reporting an annual revenue of an astounding $34 million in 2009, they only saved the lives of 8 animals. Every other animal turned over to PETA was euthanized. This has critics furious, and rightly so.

The organization euthanizes over 90 percent of the dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats — 97 percent of those brought in — and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent.

The numbers are remarkable in contrast to nearby shelters. In the same town, the Norfolk City Pound euthanized 54.7 percent of its dogs and cats in 2009. In 2008, the most recent year on record, the Norfolk SPCA found homes for 86 percent of its dogs and cats and euthanized only 5.3 percent.

But of course, don’t blame PETA. They’re doing the best they can. Right?

“Our euthanasia program has never been a secret,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations at PETA. “This is one of many, many things that we do to alleviate the suffering of animals.”

Nachminovitch brushes aside the idea that there is a financial motive behind their practice. PETA reported an annual revenue of more than $34 million in 2009. She says shelters don’t cost much money to build or maintain, but when they are jam-packed with homeless pets, the caged animals suffer. The culprits aren’t the shelters that euthanize animals, she adds, but the breeders and pet shops that fill society with 6 million to 8 million shelter animals each year.

“Money can’t buy a good home, so it’s not a matter of money,” she said. “You could build the nicest shelter in the world, but if you don’t have homes for them, they’re still going to sit in a cage.”

And that is the problem with Winograd’s movement, according to PETA. The emphasis on “no-kill” means shelters are overcrowded and animals suffer. Instead, the emphasis should be on “no-breed.” PETA promotes spaying and neutering with this in mind and sterilized 8,677 animals last year.

While this is indeed a good point, it’s still hard to believe that there was nothing PETA could do to save the lives of more of the animals they took in.

Let’s look at the projects they’ve been spending their money on recently. Maybe that could give us an idea of just why PETA finds themselves forced to kill thousands of animals every year… yet still call themselves an “ethical” organization when it comes to the treatment of animals. They wanted to make tofu with George Clooney’s sweat. They tried to open a “lobster empathy center” (no joke). They campaigned to get ice cream made with human milk instead of cow milk and to get fish renamed “sea kittens”. They actually had billboards aimed at fat girls called “Save the Whales”, telling them to “lose the blubber… go vegan”. And who could forget their near-pornographic Super Bowl ad, titled “Veggie Love”. Of course, there’s also all of the naked women they feature in ad campaigns.

Maybe it’s just me… but could the loonies at PETA perhaps stop using their money on such crazy ideas, and maybe use it to try to get more of their animals adopted? I don’t know, maybe they could use it to buy some newspaper ads or something. Maybe instead of billboards telling fat girls to go vegan, they could buy billboards advertising the animals they have available for adoption. An animal shelter in my hometown would have a “pet of the day” feature on the morning news every day to advertise their adoptable pets — perhaps PETA could try that. I don’t know, those are just a few of my ideas. But apparently PETA has more important things to spend their money on than saving the lives of animals.

Now, yes, PETA is not an adoption agency. But it seems to me that they’re playing an extremely hypocritical game. They want to shame people who eat lobsters into taking trips into a “lobster empathy center”, but they euthanize almost every single animal that falls into their hands because they can’t possibly do anything more to find them homes? It doesn’t seem like these animals are being euthanized because of health reasons or issues with agression. They’re euthanizing them because they don’t want to put them in a shelter, which is “cruel”. Killing them for pure convenience? Not so cruel. Yes, that sounds really ethical. Let’s recap. Eating fish or lobsters or meat? Horrible, terrible, and unethical. Euthanizing animals out of laziness and for convenience? Completely ethical!

It seems clear that there is literally no reason for anyone to support PETA anymore.

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Socialism is coming to America. And it’s coming in the form of Obamacare. Democrats are intent on taking over 1/6th of our economy with their pitiful excuse for health care “reform”. Their reform is not to make health care more affordable or widespread. It’s to expand the government and to increase the amount of power Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have in DC. They certainly aren’t doing it to help all the little people who just “can’t afford” health care. This is a crisis of culture, according to Dr. Roger Starner Jones, a doctor who specializes in emergency medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Read on:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head, doesn’t it? This is the problem with liberalism. If we go with Obama and Pelosi (and their third little stooge, Reid), then things like responsibility and accountability will become things of the past. Why bother? If the government takes care of you from cradle to grave then why does anyone need to take care of themselves? Liberalism seeks to completely reshape the American cultural and societal landscape. This country was founded on a frontier spirit. The people who moved here and settled on this land were risk-takers, adventure-seekers. They wanted the freedom to find better lives, to take chances. They understood and accepted the dangers and the risks that this involved. They wanted the responsibility of building their lives the way that they wanted them. They fled oppression from all over the world just to have the ability to make their own decisions. Liberalism would take all of that away. With a liberal, socialist, nanny-state government, you won’t ever have to worry about making any decisions yourself.

And Obamacare is one step in that direction.

Oh, sure, they’ll give you all kinds of examples of these poor, poor Americans who “can’t afford” health care. But are these people truly incapable of paying for their own health care? That’s one of the primary arguments being made on the left: that those who live in poverty can’t afford health care and health care is a right that all Americans deserve. Setting aside the fallacious argument that health care is a “right”, let’s examine the premise that America’s poor can’t afford health care.

Does anyone remember a study from Heritage done about six years ago examining poverty in America? It certainly gives you a different perspective on just what we consider “poor” to be.

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America’s “poor” live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or welloff just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowestincome onefifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

So, those who live in poverty in the United States seem to have it pretty well off. They aren’t overcrowded, they’re reasonably well-fed. By most rational standards, that would be described as living comfortably. You own your own house, have a couple of cars, color TVs, DVD players… sounds like America’s poor have it made. If they can’t afford health care and really need it, is it possible that maybe they could afford it by selling one of their cars? Maybe a TV? Perhaps they could get rid of cable. Dr. Jones’ patient mentioned above could maybe quit smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day, stop spending hundreds of dollars on tattoos, and maybe get Payless brand shoes instead of some expensive name brand. Maybe then she could afford to buy a private health insurance plan through, I don’t know, Blue Cross Blue Shield rather than making responsible taxpayers have to pay for her health care.

And Obamacare sums up the problem with this country in a nutshell. We went from a nation of people who wanted nothing more than to be in control of their own lives to a nation of people living off an entitlement mentality, desperate for nothing more than to get their slice of the government pie. Obamacare is just a symptom of the liberal socialist disease. As Dr. Jones said, this is a crisis of culture. Our culture is becoming rotted and we cannot survive it. Obamacare is just the beginning. If we value our country, if we want to keep that enterprising, entrepreneurial, frontier spirit alive — instead of an attitude of entitlement — then we must stop this bill.

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Stop the ACLU.

(5 votes, average: 4.40 out of 5)

 Loading ...

So far, we’ve spent $179,883,065 in humanitarian assistance to Haiti. We’ve sent our military there to help distribute food and water, to help find the missing, and to help rebuild the ravaged nation. But Obama is afraid that we’ll be considered “occupiers”, and so, the United States flag is not to be flown over any US installation in Haiti.

But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world’s — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.

The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.

The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.

“We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery,” the U.S. government’s Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

“An international partner”?? This may be an international relief effort — with the United States as usual giving far more than any other country — but that hasn’t kept other countries from flying their flags. France, Germany, and Croatia are all flying their flags, just like every other country. I doubt anyone in Haiti is weeping over the French, German, and Croatian occupations taking place because of it. No one besides Obama is idiotic enough to think that flying our flag means that we’ll be seen as an occupation force. It’s perfectly clear to everyone with a brain that we are in Haiti for one reason alone, and that is to give relief.

Considering the amount of money, time, and manpower we’ve contributed to the relief effort in Haiti, one would think that Obama would be proud to have our flag flying in Haiti. But Obama isn’t a president who is proud of his country, is he? He’d rather apologize for the United States than take pride in it. We are literally saving lives for no gain of our own in a foreign country, and he’s still apologizing.

And does this show something more troubling? Apparently, this entire flap started because of some squabble with Prime Minister Bellerive, who didn’t like that we flew a flag over a temporary consular station on the tarmac. So instead of standing his ground, and standing up for his country and the good work it is doing, Obama caved. He has no backbone to stand up to any leader of any foreign country! And this man is supposed to be our Commander in Chief. How is the United States ever going to gain respect if Obama is completely and totally spineless?

This isn’t smart diplomacy. This is pure idiocy, and it’s shameful. It’s pathetic that the leader of our country would be so ashamed of the country he’s supposed to lead. It’s sad that our president so clearly does not love his country.

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

When Scott Brown voted for the jobs bill, a lot of conservatives felt betrayed. They seemed to have forgotten that he is, at best, a Massachusetts Republican. He was never going to be a true conservative. Everyone knew during the election that he was a moderate, but a good number of conservatives apparently chose to ignore certain aspects of his platform. The most important thing right now, anyways, is that he votes against health care. And anyone who was afraid that he’d back out on that promise can rest easy after watching this week’s GOP weekly address.

He flat-out knocked it out of the park. Everyone needs to watch this video to understand just how much is wrong with Democrats and Obama.

Let’s remember, this is why we need Scott Brown. We needed the 41st vote in the Senate to be able to filibuster this health care bill. After this nightmare is passed, if he’s still a disappointment then we can elect someone else. But right now, he’s got a very important purpose to serve, and he’s doing so beautifully. Bravo, Senator.

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

New warnings have surfaced that the United States — and the UK — are in danger of losing their top-notch AAA credit ratings.

The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview.

Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

“We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”

… Under its adverse scenario, which assumes 0.5 percent lower growth each year, less fiscal adjustment and a stronger interest-rate shock, the U.S. will be paying about 15 percent of revenue in interest payments, more than the 14 percent limit that would lead to a downgrade to AA, Moody’s said.

This has caused stocks to drop as fears about the US economy continue to grow. Right now, our debt loads are stretched to the max. If our rating drops, it will become more expensive for us to borrow money. We aren’t the only country with this problem — stocks are dropping in the UK and in China as well — but it certainly doesn’t make the matter any better to know we aren’t alone.

Our deficit is over $1.5 trillion right now. Considering our lackluster economy, and the way our government is spending like there’s no tomorrow, it’s not surprising that Moody’s isn’t all that confident about our credit. And the economic geniuses in Washington right now have no plan besides exactly what Obama campaigned on: hope and change. They hope that we’ll see rapid GDP growth, which will change the amount of money in our treasury.

For now, our credit rating is safe. But if things keep going the way they’re going, we’ll no longer be one of the seventeen countries with a AAA credit rating. But look at this graph, and tell me how optimistic you are about us getting our debt and spending under control:

If things keep going the way they are going, we will lose our AAA credit rating. Stocks will continue to drop. The unemployment rate will rise. And yet, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are working to take over 1/6th of the US economy. Clearly, this isn’t the best time to be taking on more government expansion. Right now, politicians should be working on getting our deficit and our spending under control, not taking over health care.

What will it take for Obama to get that message??

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Stop the ACLU.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

After learning that Adam Kokesh was endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, among others, I decided to find out how much the RLC knew about Adam’s anti-military and anti-American activities, his multiple arrests, and his overall background. I e-mailed my questions to Aaron Biterman, who agreed to speak with me about the endorsement of Adam Kokesh. The following is our e-mail exchange.

Hi Aaron, thanks for helping me out with this.

I saw that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed Adam for Congress. When the endorsement was made, was the RLC aware of the following:

• that Adam was demoted from a sergeant to a corporal for smuggling a pistol bought in Iraq to the United States, and that he still continues to represent himself as a sergeant anyways, which is a blatant lie?
• that he printed and distributed an Islamophobic flyer on George Washington University but made it appear to have been made by the Young America’s Foundation?
• of his involvement with groups such as CODEPINK, A.N.S.W.E.R., The Communist Party of America, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other similar groups while working with Iraq Veterans Against the War?
• of his multiple arrests?
• of his anti-American and anti-military views as evidenced by his actions during anti-war protests, including holding an upside-down American flag, doing mock patrols, and die-ins, most of which were done while wearing a Marine Corps uniform?
• that he traveled to Germany and encouraged soldiers there to go AWOL?
• that when the Marine Corps investigated his actions during anti-war
  protests while in uniform, he replied o a major and told him to “please,
  kindly, go f*ck yourself”?

• that the Marine Corps responded by downgrading his honorable discharge to a general discharge?
• that despite this, Kokesh still claims to have received an honorable
  discharge, which is another blatant lie?

• that he organized and participated in Winter Soldier 2, which was
  designed to malign and undercut the morale of our soldiers?

If the RLC was not aware of the above, will the endorsement for Adam
Kokesh be rescinded?

If the RLC was aware of all this, why was he still endorsed for Congress?

Do these things not bother the Republican Liberty Caucus?

Does the Republican Liberty Caucus feel that these actions and views are suitable for a representative?

Does the RLC feel that the above actions are acceptable? Do they condone his anti-military, anti-American views?

Looking very forward to hearing the answers to these questions.

Thank you,

Cassy

Aaron responded by basically saying that no, the RLC was not aware of these things, but will continue to endorse him anyways based on Adam’s platform.

Hi, Cassy.

The Republican Liberty Caucus assesses candidates on their issue positions, not what pranks they pulled in college or people they associated with who we might not like. Most of your criticisms fit under the category of “he’s an anti-war protester and therefore he’s evil,” and that’s just not relevant to our endorsement process.

A RLC endorsement is simply advice to our members that a candidate is worthy of consideration for their support and assistance — it does not require members to support or contribute to any endorsed candidate. The RLC itself never contributes any dues or contributions directly to any political campaign or ballot proposition.

When we made the endorsement, we were not aware of the information you listed below. However, as I said above, the RLC endorses candidates who share a commitment to our mission statement of limiting the size and scope of government. Adam Kokesh’s platform is “peace, freedom, and prosperity” (see http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/sites/kokesh.netboots.net/files/SlimJimPrintOut_0_0.pdf). He also includes a strong statement of truth at his website: Government’s sole purpose is to protect our rights.

Which groups Kokesh associates with or what rallies he attends has little relevence to our endorsement process. Additionally, the RLC has a fairly “Big Tent”. While Kokesh holds “anti-War” views, several other candidates we have endorsed hold views that are different than Kokesh on the foreign policy issue. For example, check out this candidate’s views on foreign policy (he was also endorsed by the RLC): http://www.houchenforcongress.com/issues.html.

The RLC favors candidates who have a constitutional view on foreign policy, which includes the need for a Congressional declaration before going to war. Additionally, all of our endorsed candidates believe that the U.S. has too many troops in too many countries across the globe. This is the traditional conservative foreign policy position and has its roots with Robert Taft, and, before him, George Washington.

Best Regards,
Aaron Biterman
Outreach Chair
Republican Liberty Caucus

Needless to say, I found it extremely troubling that none of Adam’s past affiliations or actions would make a difference to the RLC. The idea that “which groups Kokesh associates with or what rallies he attends has little relevence” is disturbing to me. Considering that Kokesh has never held public office or even a job since leaving the Marine Corps, the groups he associates with and the rallies he attends are really the only clues we can get to judge his character by. Or does that no longer matter, as long as someone says they stand for the right thing? We have no way of knowing if Kokesh actually believes any of the things he says he believes in. Considering who he’s aligned himself with in the past — radical liberal and Marxist groups — why should we trust him?

And even if he does truly have all of these libertarian ideals, what about the things he’s done? Character matters. And someone who has been arrested multiple times, encouraged soldiers to go AWOL, and repeatedly lied about his rank and discharge doesn’t seem to have good character. Are we just going to start letting people into our party because they say they have the right set of ideals, regardless of the content of their character? That makes us no better than Democrats like William Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Massa, and Charles Rangel. The RLC is basing their endorsement of Adam Kokesh on nothing more than what Adam Kokesh is saying about himself. The red flags about him are being completely ignored because he’s saying what people want to hear.

Now, let’s say that in the very short time since Adam Kokesh has stopped associating with groups like IVAW, CODEPINK, and A.N.S.W.E.R. that he did have a change of heart. What does that tell us? That he has extremely poor judgement, makes bad choices, and apparently is a poor judge of character as well. Is that the kind of person we want in Congress with an (R) next to their name? He’s held no job since being in the Marine Corps except being a professional anti-military activist. So he’s someone who has poor judgement, makes bad choices, and has no professional experience to his name at all. The only experience he does have — as a Marine — led to his being demoted and his honorable discharge reduced to a general discharge. That doesn’t exactly speak well for him, does it?

Adam Kokesh may very well vote the way we want him to vote. He might lower taxes and he might be against government run health care, and he might help reduce the size of our massive government. But do we look the other way when someone has done the things that he’s done? There are plenty of other people who would do all of the same things that Adam Kokesh would do, without any of the baggage — like Tom Mullins, for example.

In the case of Adam Kokesh, you really have to decide for yourself. Does character matter at all to you? Does someone’s history matter? Can you choose to overlook someone’s actions and affiliations? I don’t think so. We need representatives who have more than just the right voting record. They need to have good character, too. And maybe the RLC doesn’t care about someone’s character, but I do. And I think most of you do, too. Adam Kokesh doesn’t have the character we need… and h’s not the kind of Republican we need.

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

(11 votes, average: 2.91 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Who would’ve thought that murdering three of your coworkers could get you fired?

University of Alabama in Huntsville officials have fired professor Amy Bishop, who’s accused of shooting and killing three colleagues last month.

A one-paragraph letter dated Feb. 26 was mailed to Bishop informing her the university had terminated her employment effective Feb. 12, said UAH spokesman Ray Garner.

Bishop was suspended without pay retroactively on the day of the attack, Garner said.

Bishop has been charged with capital murder in a shooting that also injured three others in a faculty meeting on Feb. 12. She has been also charged with three counts of attempted murder.

Guess this just goes to show that if you’re a liberal extremist academic, you literally have to kill someone to get fired.

And in Amy Bishop’s case, it only took them fourteen days to do it!

Hat Tip: Jammie Wearing Fool

Cross-posted at The Green Room.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...