Print

The liberal democrats need look no further as they have found a candidate for party figurehead.

Mike Dickinson, opponent for David Brat in Virginia's 7th Congressional District, has put himself front and center as the spokesperson for liberal democrats.

A self-proclaimed hater of all things conservative, Dickinson has even astounded liberals with his "reward" offer for nude pics of Kendall Jones, the 19 yr old the left has declared war on for her posting of hunting pics on her facebook account.

This is all very ironic from one of those that condone and support the murder of children in the womb yet vehemently hate those that support life and liberty.

First let me say, though I don't personally know Kendall Jones, that I'd be more than happy to have a private, personal discussion with Mike Dickinson on this subject. I'm willing to bet at the end of our discussion, he'd be much less willing to "put a hit out" on a young female like Jones. As a father of girls, I'd gladly defend her against this hippo.

Dickinson, a failure in the adult entertainment industry, likely pays for any nudity he sees, judging from his persona and appearance.

This goofball does have a bit of a history regarding hatemongering.

Here's a few of his past comments:

 

I have a suggestion for Mike Dickinson. If you're going to "go to war" with us NRA and TEA Party folks, you should perhaps be armed with more than the vomit you've been spewing.

Many of us know what "going to war" really is.

I would venture to guess the only war you've fought is deciding which latte you want at Starbucks.

As for deserving of a target, maybe Kendall Jones has already foreseen your own future.

Perhaps this is what upsets you so?

 
Print

My Facebook news feed is inundated with posts of cute kittens, twin tornadoes, and the full quota of "I'm such and such (fill in the blank), which one are you" but the ones that really make me facepalm are the conspiracy "facts" that the libertarian crowd likes to pass to each other. Whether its the police, the government, or the military, you can count on the usual Paulbots providing a daily dose of "9/11 was a hoax", "the police are arming for war on Americans" and even that the "CIA is actually behind the ISIS takeover in Iraq".

Some of those I've had as FB friends for a long time now succumb to the pressure and actually continue passing on these "newsflashes" as if its their duty. My list of "friends" has dwindled quickly lately as this trend seems to be growing at a much faster rate and my unfriend button is showing some wear.

Much of the reason for the libertarians pushing their agenda in this way is to sow the seeds of "anti-government" in an attempt to enlist aid for their platform of legalizing drugs, allowing prostitution and supporting abortion along with having a foreign policy akin to a turtle pulling itself into a shell and ignoring the atmosphere outside of it.

You might notice that those platform items I listed above make one think I'm talking about liberal democrats. You're not far from the truth.

The Libertarian party is basically filled with liberals that oppose big government and gun control. Regarding basically every other issue at the forefront today, the overwhelming majority of those obnoxiously professing to be libertarians are part and parcel of the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

Since last Tuesday's primary election in South Carolina, countless of these Paulbots have declared that they will not vote for Lindsey Graham in the general election in November but instead vote for the Democrat Brad Hutto. There are a few that are pushing the obscure Libertarian candidate what's-his-name but the real Libertarian, Lee Bright, was easily defeated by Graham in the primary.

So, in effect, the libertarians, as part of the overall liberal plan to infiltrate and divide the Republican Party, will be doing their best to elect a liberal Democrat to the US Senate. As their efforts haven't worked in the past, they are now attempting to do it from within.

While their efforts are nowhere near getting their own candidates elected, they are affecting elections in regards to true Conservative candidates bucking the establishment. Their attempts to get a Paulbot in office by misleading others into believing they are actually conservative do nothing more than assure that the wave of those like Trey Gowdy, Jeff Duncan, Tim Scott and Jim Demint is slowed to a trickle.

I'm honestly thinking that their efforts are geared toward driving anti-government sentiment in such a way that they get more support for their hope of an armed uprising so many of them speak of. The recent shooting in Las Vegas of two cops and a concealed-carry citizen that attempted to stop their rampage was by none other than a couple of the hard-core libertarians such as those you could find in Lee Bright's list of supporters. Many of them are adamant in their hatred of the police and when the liquor is flowing, they tend to make goofy videos slurringly chastising those that don't think like them.

Maybe one day they will get their uprising.

Perhaps we can call it the "Drunk Rebellion"

 
Print

Its not often I agree with the hired bowtie Wesley Donehue but I do have to make an exception here.

On a facebook thread on Sheri Few's page, Donehue said this:

If you're wondering why I'm spending my free time getting the truth out about you now and how I'm going to do the same with your state contract, the answer is YES - because you ran radio ads LYING about Peeler's position on Common Core. And I think it's shady as hell that you are getting money to run those ads and pad your personal pocket while your campaign just happens to be singularly focused on that same issue. I find the line between your personal finances and your campaign to be very unclear, perhaps nonexistent. I think living off your "competitive bid" while railing on state and federal spending is the height of hypocrisy. And I think you're absolutely batshit friggin crazy. Lastly, everyone knows I'm arrogant but what the hell do you call begging Sally to drop out because supposedly you can win and she can't? Even I'm not that damn arrogant.

Kudos to Wesley for saying what most everyone in that thread was thinking.

In 2006 and 2008, Sheri Few ran in a primary for SC State House seat 79 and was defeated

In 2010, she ran for the seat again and actually won the primary, only to be soundly defeated by a Democrat for a seat that had been in Republican control for about 30 years. This AFTER saying she would win the general election handily.

A few days ago, after being defeated in the primary for SC Superintendent of Education, Few made news by calling for Sally Atwater to step aside and let her (Few) face Molly Spearman in the runoff.

"If Sally Atwater is not going to run a credible campaign against Molly Spearman, then she needs to step aside and let me give Republicans a clear choice on June 24th," Few said. 

Now I'm having a difficult time understanding how Sheri Few (with her record of defeats ESPECIALLY a for a seat dominated by Republicans for 30 years) thinks she's more electable than Atwater when primary voters just showed us she's not... Anyone got factual data backing up her claim?

I'm still struggling to find Sheri's qualifications for the job. Perhaps the Liberty Caucus folks that so obnoxiously pushed Lee Bright and now pushing Few could list those qualifications?

Thought not.

It appears Wesley Donehue hit the nail on the head. But then again, the group Sheri Few is running with appear to be cornering the market on "batshit friggin crazy".

 
Print

Barack Obama was taking questions from Tumblr users yesterday and in addition to uttering some nonsense about the world being safer than its ever been, he had this to say about just after he leaves office:

"I know what I’ll do right after the next President is inaugurated. I’ll be on a beach somewhere drinking out of a coconut."

So, given the perceived need for some R&R by the President, I did a bit of research as we've heard numerous times about the spending by the Obama's on vacations

This from Judicial Watch:

The records, revealed Friday, include the Obama family’s Christmas vacation in Hawaii from Dec. 21, 2012, to Jan. 5, 2013. During that stay, the president took a short break and flew back to Washington to work on a budget deal, then returned for the rest of his vacation.
Obama vacation Marthas Vineyard

The second trip was in early August, 2013, when Obama flew to California for a private fundraiser with DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, then appeared with Jay Leno on the “Tonight Show.” Later that month, the Obama family vacationed in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in August 2013, after repeated stonewalling by the White House. The group reported:

    *    The outbound flight to Honolulu for the Obamas’ 2012-13 Christmas vacation cost taxpayers $2, 214, 393.60. The return flight to Washington cost $1,871,961.60. Flight expenditures alone came to $4,086,355.20.

    *    The outbound flight to California in August, 2013 for Obama to dine with Katzenberg and appear on the “The Tonight Show” cost taxpayers $1,209,926.40. The return flight to Washington cost $935,980.80. Flight expenditures alone came to $2,145,907.20.

    *    The outbound flight to Martha’s Vineyard for the Obama family’s August vacation cost taxpayers $890,323.20. The return flight to Washington cost $273,945.60. Flight expenditures alone came to $1,164,268.80.

    *   The grand total of $7,396,531.20, Judicial Watch pointed out, only accounted for flight expenses for the three trips.

And from IJR

Obtained via a Freedom of Information request, here are some of the Obama presidency’s spending items:

  • Since 2009, a total of $40,000,000 has been spent.
  • This year’s Presidential golf outings to California and Florida, including $3,000,000 in flight expenses.
  • 2013′s Africa trip and Honolulu vacations for the Obamas cost $16,000,000- for flight expenses alone.
  • 2013′s Ireland trip tab: $8,000,000.
  • Michelle Obama’s 2-day side trip to Dublin cost $250,000, including a $3,500 per-night suite.

So the Obamas, since 2009 have spent an average of $625,000 PER MONTH of taxpayer money on vacations and fundraising trips

I can't possibly understand how Barack Obama WOULDN'T think the world is a better place.

His view is seriously distorted by the coconut juice.