Friday, October 9, 2015

The Media's Latest Phony Attack on Ben Carson ^ | October 9, 2015 | David Limbaugh 

How about the next time the mainstream media decide to fabricate a controversy against a conservative presidential candidate, they choose something less laughable?
The media's latest faux gasp concerns Dr. Ben Carson's comments about the Oregon school shooting. When I first watched news reports on it, I didn't immediately grasp the reason for the fuss, not having the artificial sensibilities of the MSM.
Asked what he would do in a similar situation as the victims, Carson said: "I would ask everybody to attack the gunman because he can only shoot one of us at a time. That way, we don't all wind up dead." Not only did he not answer the way the media wanted but also he chuckled upon concluding his answer.
No one in his right mind would interpret Carson's uncomfortable giggle as a statement that he was laughing at the victims or is indifferent to their fate. Do I have to mention that he dedicated four decades to saving children's lives? Yeah, I thought so.
At the suggestion that he appeared tone-deaf and seemed callous, Carson said, "I'm laughing at them and their silliness," meaning the reporters asking him questions.
It rankles the media when candidates don't immediately cower when accused of this or that sin. Carson is particularly annoying to them, not only because he refuses to back down but also because he has the audacity, in their view, to espouse conservative views despite being African-American. Surely, we can all understand their frustration when blacks stray from the left's prescribed way of thinking.
Carson was not judging the victims; that doesn't even make sense. Almost everyone seriously laments the tragedy, and Carson, as a strong Christian, doubtlessly admires those courageous victims who identified themselves as Christians while knowing it would seal their fate.
Rather, Carson said he wanted to "plant the seed in people's minds so that if this happens again, you know, they don't all get killed."
When pressed about his response, Carson used the opportunity once again to criticize our stifling politically correct culture. He said: "We live in a culture now where people decide that everything you say -- 'we need to set up battle lines' and 'we need to get on this side of it or that side of it' rather than collectively trying to figure out how we solve the problem. It's sort of an immature attitude, but it seems to be something that's rampant in America today."
He is correct. In the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if President Obama hadn't exploited the massacre to rail against guns, gun owners and those dastardly right-wingers who cling to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. If Obama and the left weren't so hellbent on confiscating the weapons of law-abiding Americans, we could spend more time grieving, offering our prayers and later -- after the dust has settled -- discussing these tragedies and possible solutions.
When interviewers showed an interest in Carson's ideas instead of trying to entrap him, it was obvious that he had given this serious thought, as he suggested that we need to study the lives of all the people who've carried out a mass shooting. He said we might empower psychiatrists and psychologists "to take the appropriate interventional steps." He would also seek a "mechanism" to keep weapons away from people whom mental health professionals have identified as dangerous, stressing, however, that "we cannot do anything that compromises the Second Amendment." Finally, he expressed his support for armed guards and armed teachers in schools, if appropriate.
Refreshingly, Carson again refuses to back down from the media's onslaught and even doubles down -- saying his experience in extracting bullets from victims has reinforced his conviction in the wisdom of the Second Amendment.
There is no way reasonable people would conclude that Carson was impugning the shooting victims. It's clear he was offering his ideas, in hindsight, on how people might handle such situations in the future.
The same media that castigated Carson for offering constructive ideas on this problem gave President Obama a total pass for lurching to his lectern to rail against guns and gun control opponents. Never once did they criticize him for his insensitivity and callousness, and he wasn't even responding to a question. He planned -- no, premeditated -- his stunningly inappropriate remarks and all but ignored the nation's and community's grief, choosing instead to lash out in anger at people who won't surrender to his demands.
I can confidently say that people are increasingly disgusted with the media's warped and biased perspective and their double standard to destroy conservatives and shelter liberals. Just consider the absurdity of the media's trying to turn this remarkably fine man into an ogre. Ben Carson's popularity increases in direct proportion to his refusal to cower in the face of such attacks and his resolve to stand on principle. This is one of the many reasons so-called outsiders are doing so well in the polls and will continue to. People have had enough of this nonsense.

Better Off Without Leaders Like These [Boehner, McCarthy, Ryan]

The Boston Herald ^ | 10/9/15 | Howie Carr 

Paul Ryan? Are you kidding me? Paul Ryan ... more like Paul Ryan-o, as in RINO. Republican in Name Only.

All these fools were running around Capitol Hill yesterday like Chicken Littles, elbowing one another out of the way to get to their Fox liveshots. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! U.S. Rep. Peter King, RINO-NY, actually said yesterday, “People are crying.”
Get a grip, pal. There are worse things than having nobody at the top. Having Barack Obama at the top comes immediately to mind.
Last week, John Boehner decided to spend more time with his bartender. So his majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy stepped up. The House is like the Elks Club — when the boss leaves, all the exalted grand pooh-bahs move up one slot.
McCarthy is from Bakersfield, Calif., but he’s no Merle Haggard, not by a long shot. Mark Levin described him as “Eric Cantor — minus 10 IQ points.”
If the rumors on the Internet since last January are true, Levin was generous. The story is that he was playing doctor with the shades drawn with a congresswoman. And that he had dumped her, which was why she hissed to a reporter last week, “I’m apparently not high on his priority list.”
Welcome back to high school.
Do you recall what brought Newt Gingrich down? Touching everything but the third rail. Ditto his successor for 48 hours or so, Bob Livingston. And the following Republican speaker, Dennis Hastert.
These national GOP speakers are as dirty as our own state Democratic speakers.
And yet … somehow Kevin McCarthy apparently thought that no one would notice that he was, ahem, overly affectionate with the nice young lady who describes herself “as a mom, Christian and nurse, I am pro-family.”
And now it’s the turn of Paul RINO. He was described last night by National Review as “the undisputed intellectual leader” of House Republicans, which is like being an admiral in the Swiss Navy.
I wonder. Until last night, RINO didn’t want the job. He’s been around the block. He knows what happens when you become speaker. It’s like becoming capo of a crime family — there’s a target painted on your back.
Why didn’t Rep. RINO want to run for speaker in the first place? Does he know something the rest of us don’t — yet?
I know a guy, he used to be in the Mob. He was in the gangster equivalent of human resources. His specialty was severance, if you get my drift. He was so good at what he did that after a while, his associates were reluctant to even climb into the front seat of his car beside him.
“I always wondered about them if they wouldn’t get in the car with me,” he mused. “It made me suspicious. Had they done something I didn’t know about? It always made me wonder. And you know, I didn’t have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.”
So the next speaker may be Paul RINO. Good Lord. Who’s going to be the GOP candidate for president — Carly FioRINO?

Matt Drudge asks: ‘Why aren’t we seeing Hillary’s lovers?’

conservativefiringline ^ | October 7, 2015 

Matt Drudge, creator and editor of the Drudge Report, spoke with Alex Jones about the Internet as a whole, and then dropped a bomb on Hillary Clinton.
"Why aren’t we seeing Hillary’s lovers?" Drudge asked. "Where’s the cover-up on this?“
Of course, there have been rumors of Clinton’s homosexuality for some time. An article at the Center for Western Journalism notes:
According to (Gennifer) Flowers, rumors of a romantic relationship between Hillary and Huma Abedin was not surprising. Married to disgraced politician Anthony Weiner, Abedin also stood by her husband throughout a prolonged sex scandal.
Flowers said she could offer only speculation into that issue, though, and based her comments only on direct conversations with Bill Clinton.
“I don’t know Huma or the Weiners,” she said. “I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care.”
In 1992, Flowers, a former reporter, admitted having an affair with Bill Clinton for 12 years.

DOJ requires employees to verbally affirm homosexuality

examiner ^ 

Report says Obama's Justice Department requires Christians to verbally affirm homosexuality regardless of beliefs.
A brochure emailed to Department of Justice employees requiring them to verbally affirm homosexuality regardless of their personal beliefs has sparked accusations of religious intolerance and viewpoint discrimination, Todd Starnes reported at Fox News Tuesday.
"The brochure was created as a resource from DOJ Pride, an association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of the DOJ," Starnes wrote.
According to Starnes, Liberty Counsel, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty, is representing an unidentified female DOJ worker who received the brochure, called “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.”
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said the woman is terrified she might lose her job unless she publicly affirms homosexuality – and she’s not alone.
According to the brochure, employees are required to verbally affirm homosexuality and place pro-gay stickers in their offices.
The brochure says. “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
“This administration is pushing the most radical, immoral agenda on the American people,” he said. “Christians are not merely required to ‘shut up,’ but now they are being coerced to embrace immorality that goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
“Christians are frightened and terrified of losing their jobs,” he added. “You just can’t keep your head down and do your job. Now you have to become an advocate for the LGBT agenda – and if you don’t – the DOJ will consider that to be intolerant.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

None of my business!


Before it is too late!


The Last time!


Gun Control!






Make no mistake!


Save Me!


Best performance?


What do you mean?


New Sheriff in Town!


The Bravest!








Which Sign?