How Could Anyone With An IQ Above 4 Vote for Obama or Hillary?

Socialism is not the Answer

Free Republic

It is stunningly clear that Obama is a muslim who hates America’s traditional values and is intent on destroying America as all of us patriots know it. Hillary Clinton is just another Marxist like Obama who is more interested in fattening her own wallet than giving a damn about what happens to our country.

HOW CAN ANYBODY BE SO STUPID AS TO VOTE FOR EITHER ONE OF THESE P.O.S. WHO WANT TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY??????????????????????????????????

View original post

State Dept: 22 “top secret” e-mails on Hillary’s unsecure private e-mail server

WINTERY KNIGHT

Put an orange suit on her and ship her to Gitmo Put an orange suit on her and ship her to Gitmo

This is from The Federalist.

Excerpt:

Hillary Clinton’s email woes just got a whole lot worse Friday after the State Department announced it considers 22 of her emails to be “top secret.”

Last week, Fox News reported that Clinton has shared extremely sensitive information, including intelligence obtained from human spying, which could have put lives at risk.

Some information contained in the email was classified as “HCS-O,” an intelligence agency code for human spy operations on the ground, or “HUMINT Control System Operations.” Additionally, several of her emails contained information for “special access programs” (SAP), which is a level of classification even higher than “top secret.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby has confirmed that the 22 emails containing SAP information were indeed top secret, though he maintained that the documents were not deemed classified at the time they were…

View original post 549 more words

You know that “Gun Show Loophole”?

Guns and the Left

Vermont Loon Watch

There never has been

a Fascist or Communist

Government that wanted

an armed Citizenry.

Gun grabEvery Lefty politician dreams of being the one who disarms America. The Second Amendment is the bane of their existence. Obama would like nothing more than do what the Reds did after the revolution; tell the people to turn in their guns. Fear not, the State will protect you. How did that work out?

Yes, The Australian Model On Gun Control Means Bans and Confiscation

Nobody wants to take your guns. That’s what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There’s also the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That’s essentially a gun ban.

Both Hillary Clinton and President Barack…

View original post 145 more words

Question of the Day……

LET’S SHOOT YOU SOME NUMBERS . . .

Buy Ammo

Socialism is not the Answer

http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/17104-AMMO-No_such_thing_as_too_much.jpg Photo via joeforamerica.com

Free Republic

I have never, ever had anyone tell me that he had too much ammunition. Not in a combat zone, not in a civil disaster, not even in peacetime. Never. Nor have I lived through a time where our governing class was so deeply corrupt, so utterly foolish, and so dangerously focused on the perpetuation of its own power that it risked bringing down everything we have built not merely in the United States but in the entire West.

Right now, if you are watching the news, you have questions about the future. And the answer to all of them is to buy ammo.

Buying ammo is a no-lose proposition. Look, the worst thing that happens if you buy more ammo is that you have more ammo. Plus, much of our consumer ammo is made by hardworking Americans, and many of those ammo makers are located…

View original post 141 more words

1941 is now

Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan

Since 9/11 liberals have made it clear in a thousand little ways that they are just not willing to resist a suicide-bombing enemy.

The same people who argue that jihadists are freedom fighters (or that the United States should not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11) would also be appeasing Hitler and Nazi Germany, and this incredible footage proves it.

When you watch the video it becomes clear one thing hasn’t changed at all. Liberal pacifists are selfish and short on logic as well as human compassion for other human beings suffering from evil doers of the time.

Those morons were the Code Pink and MoveOn.org of their time.

Our sworn enemies are hoping and praying that a Democrat wins the election. Can you blame them?

If Hillary or Bernie becomes president, start digging your survival shelter.

View original post

More Evidence against Big-Spending Keynesian Economics

International Liberty

Keynesian economics is a perpetual-motion machine for statists. The way to boost growth, they argue, is to have governments borrow lots of money from the economy’s productive sector and then spend it on anything and everything.

Even if the money is squandered on global defense against a make-believe alien attack, according to Keynesians like Paul Krugman!

Krugman also has argued that a real war is good would be good for growth since the goal is simply more spending.

Heck, Krugman even asserted the 9-11 attacks were good for the economy because governments then spent more money.

And Nancy Pelosi actually argued that paying people not to work was a great way of creating jobs. I’m not joking.

Amazing. It’s almost as if these people are secret libertarians and they’re saying crazy things to discredit Keynesianism.

But they’re actually serious. This makes it difficult to tell the difference between satire…

View original post 787 more words

Another “Oops” Moment for Paul Krugman

“Spend your way to prosperity”, didn’t work then, doesn’t work now!

International Liberty

I’m tempted to feel a certain degree of sympathy for Paul Krugman.

As a leading proponent of the notion that bigger government stimulates growth (a.k.a., Keynesian economics), he’s in the rather difficult position of rationalizing why the economy was stagnant when Obama first took office and the burden of government spending was rising.

And he also has to somehow explain why the economy is now doing better at a time when the fiscal burden of government is declining.

But you have to give him credit for creativity. Writing in the New York Times, he attempts to square the circle.

Let’s start with his explanation for results in the United States.

…in America we haven’t had an official, declared policy of fiscal austerity — but we’ve nonetheless had plenty of austerity in practice, thanks to the federal sequester and sharp cuts by state and local governments.

If you define…

View original post 943 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,590 other followers