The New Democrats Hate the Rich

The trend over the past four years has most distinctly been one of hatred and resentment toward the rich. This is not exactly a 100 percent "new attitude" for Americans but rather an escalated and unreasonable emotional burst that has been fueled by the democratic party ever since Mitt Romney began his campaign for the presidency.

Barack Obama is the richest president the United States has ever seen, and his money played a big issue in his being elected by the Democratic party. At the time that Obama was running against John McCain the democrats were praising wealth as a fine attribute and prima facie evidence of a man's intelligence. I recall seeing the liberal "news casters" on MSNBC stating that John McCain was a "loser" because he could not afford to campaign as aggressively as Obama could. Sure enough, the repetitive small talk by the liberal media led the general public into falling in love with extreme wealth. The headlines boasted of Obama's millions, and how savvy he was to have attained so much wealth that no Republican candidate could afford to campaign against him.

When suddenly Mitt Romney was making his way through the primaries the liberal media began doing its dirty work to arouse resentment in the minds of Americans. Romney, unlike Obama, attained his wealth through working in the private sector. It became evident that any entrepreneur, small business owner, or person in search of the American dream would find Romney a lot more appealing than Obama who made a fortune as a career politician, and seemed to have bought his way into the presidency. The media went to work trying to make Mitt Romney seem bad because he was rich. All the photos of the down to earth Romney's were hidden, while the very well dressed and groomed ones were blasted across every news stand. Even during one of the debates, Obama made his attempt to sway Americans into seeing him as the guy who has no money and Romney as the big money guy, by stating that he did not have as much in his 401K as Mitt does. That statement should have outraged Americans because Obama is an extremely rich man crying that Romney has more than he. At any rate, Obama's wealth was seriously down played during his second run, so that no one would associate Obama with "evil wealth."

The problem with hating the rich, besides it not being a productive attitude, is that everyone wants to achieve wealth. That is a fact of life for everyone. To hate the thing that we desperately want to become creates a psychotic, and self defeating mentality.

Some of the most gruesome slayings, and the most shameful acts in our culture have come from the jealousy and hate of "little people" wishing to even the score, or make their little lives better by tearing down those who either achieved success or were simply born lucky.

The murders of the Tsar of Russia in 1917, and the La Biana / Sharon Tate murders of 1968, had such motive in common.

The Russian "little people" were uprising during the teens, and the sight of the extremely wealthy Tsar and his family was enough to arouse violence and hatred to the same level that many liberal minded Americans felt towards Mitt Romney in 2012.  What ever one's political views, the murder of Nicholas II and his beautiful family is inexcusable. 

The Tsar and his family five years before they were murdered

Nicholas II (the Tsar) and his family were executed at point blank range by revolutionaries. Their goal was to eliminate all royal blood. The belief of the little people in Russia during that time was that if the royals are gone, then the wealth would be spread around and all the poor people would be better off. Of course, Russia became communist and as miserable a place to live as ever existed. The average people did not enjoy any wealth left over from the Tsar, but instead, lived in an equally non opportunistic country in which no one had any real chance to get ahead. The slayings of the wealthy royals did not solve the problems of the poor any more than taxing rich people will allow poor people to prosper today.

Sharon Tate, hours before her murder

Few people remember that Charles Manson hated the rich and specifically targeted the wealthy neighborhoods of La Biana and Sharon Tate to commit murders. Guaranteed, the news "forgets" to include this piece of information these days lest it turn people off of hating rich people and wanting to hurt them in effort to make the world a better place the way the Manson family did. 

With Sharon Tate's blood the word "Pig" was written on the walls of the beautiful estate. How many times did we hear the exact same message being pinned on the Romney family during Obama's second run for office? 

The angry mob mentality that the Democrats are fueling is not a healthy one. The general attitude these days is that average people are quite brainwashed by the liberal media and are eagerly awaiting what to become outraged about in regards to politics. There are too many news stations that are liberal biased, and only one, FOX News, that is not. In effort to find some balance and truly become independent minded, everyone should watch a little of Fox News just to keep some balance, and see what the other side is all about. 

While working in an office that was largely liberal I discovered that everyone was up on the liberal point of view, and as MSNBC and CNN cleverly dissuaded people from opening up their minds to a point of view outside of the one they are pushing, everyone was convinced that Fox was biased, false, and "crazy right winged." When pressed as to what made them think that, I finally figured out that most of those who were touting this had never seen Fox News, and others only saw a few sound bites that John Stewart had picked out in effort to make it appear that the "other side" are all crazy and inaccurate. 

The only way to know is to clear out the cob webs and watch with an open mind. 

Fox essentially has hard news in the morning and then shows some market watch before going into the shows that most liberals hear about. O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Geraldo. 

O'Reilly, contrary to what liberals teach, is an independent. I have seen him support Obama on issues and even global warming, but the liberal media likes to paint everyone on Fox as a conservative. That way people will think its all unfair and unbalanced. Hannity is conservative, and Geraldo is a liberal. If one really wants to see a variety of view points Fox is the only place to see exactly what is out there. 

I am not saying that other stations are not worth watching, but if one does watch MSNBC and truly wants to be informed rather than partisan,  it would be best to watch just as much Fox to balance it out. If you do, you will find yourself not jumping on the "hate the rich" band wagon with everyone else and actually may come up with some clever ways to become a rich person. Now that would be a lot more productive!

The Fiscal Cliff... Republicans and Democrats

The rhetoric heated up on December 27th 2012, as the time on the fiscal cliff clock wound down for a fiscal crisis deal, with lawmakers trickling back into Washington and no plan of action in place for averting the tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to hit next week.

President Obama returned Thursday afternoon from vacation in Hawaii, as the Senate gaveled into session for unrelated business. House leaders announced that members will return late Sunday – but that leaves just one full day to act on any legislation before the deadline passes. Those die hard democrats who truly believed that Obama has genuine good intentions for the middle class should have been alert, interested, and defiant to the biased, and one sided media love affair with this man. He was re-elected and what does he do when the middle class need him most? He goes on an all expense trip to Hawaii.

Rumors were flying on December 27th, in the afternoon about last-ditch efforts to craft some sort of a scaled-back package that can shield most Americans from the more than $500 billion in tax hikes scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. 

Congressional leaders are expected to meet with Obama on Friday.
But with hope fading, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor that “it looks like” the nation is going to miss the deadline. Reid as well as Obama are prepared to send the middle class over the cliff with the excuse that "its the Republicans fault." Those of us who have the ability to actually think realize that these men could have come to an agreement, but rather than give in, they decided to trample the middle class and point the finger. "If you are suffering its because they did it."


Reid also put all the blame on House Speaker John Boehner, likening him to a dictator and claiming he was putting his speakership before the good of the country. Who is really the dictator?

"John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing," Reid said. "He's waiting until Jan. 3 to get re-elected as speaker before he gets serious with negotiations because he has so many people ... that won't follow what he wants."

Boehner's office quickly shot back: "Senator Reid should talk less and legislate more. The House has already passed legislation to avoid the entire fiscal cliff. Senate Democrats have not," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor that his party has "bent over backwards."
"We stepped way, way out of our comfort zone," he said. We wanted an agreement, but we had no takers. The phone never rang. So here we are five days from the new year and we might finally start talking."
But he also warned, "Republicans aren't about to write a blank check for anything the Senate Democrats put forward just because we find ourselves on the edge of the cliff."
Separately, Vice President Biden said he was neither optimistic nor pessimistic about a deal. “You tell me what will attract Republican votes and I will tell you” what sort of plan might work, he said.

Its time for Republicans to stand up for your children and grandchildren! Someone needs to be responsible and stop the Democrats from destroying America, and further pummeling the country into debt.

Each side continues to call on the other to act.
Reid, on the floor, urged the House to pass a Senate bill that would extend current tax rates for most families but let them rise on top earners. Reid, who wants Boehner to let the bill pass with mostly Democratic votes, claimed the chamber was "being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker."


 Boehner earlier put the onus on the Senate, referring to two Republican-passed bills in his chamber -- one extending current tax rates for everyone; the other rearranging the $110 billion in spending cuts set to hit next year.

“The Senate first must act,” he and other GOP leaders said late Wednesday.
McConnell’s aides, meanwhile, claimed they expected some sort of plan to emerge from the Democratic side.

After Obama spoke separately with all four congressional leaders Wednesday before leaving Hawaii, McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said: “The leader is happy to review what the president has in mind, but to date, the Senate Democrat majority has not put forward a plan. When they do, members on both sides of the aisle will review the legislation and make decisions on how best to proceed.” 

Is this just a set up for the democrats to tank the economy and blame Republicans as they did four years before?

With each side refusing to make the first move, it may be incumbent upon Obama to give a negotiated bill one last try, presuming he can get all the stakeholders in the same room. Also unclear is what role McConnell, who has stayed largely quiet throughout this debate, may play in pushing for an 11th-hour deal.

A new Gallup poll, though, showed Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the chances for an agreement over the next few days. Considering the time it takes to write and pass a bill of this magnitude, the best route for averting tax hikes may be to pass a short-term extension of current rates with the goal of approving a larger package early next year.

Lawmakers have not even agreed to that, though. Without a deal, more than $500 billion in tax hikes are scheduled to go into effect. This includes increases in income tax rates, investment tax rates, the estate tax, the payroll tax and other provisions. Budget cuts to the Pentagon and other federal agencies threaten to hit government contractors. All together, a prolonged failure to avert these policies could cause another recession, economists warn.

President Obama is the most partisan president the United States has ever seen. He can not negotiate with anyone, and when it all turns to hell, he stomps his feet and says, "don't blame me, blame the other guy." 

How did anyone actually find this man to be presidential material?

Connecticut Shooting and Obama's Speech

Just hours after a gunman forced his way into an elementary school in Connecticut elementary school killing 20 children and six adults before turning the gun on himself President Obama spoke before the press.

Obama wiped the outside of his eyes.

For those who were not fond of Obama in the past, you have reason to actually despise him now. For those who honestly liked him before, there is reason to regret re-electing this politician after he put on a rather decent, but nevertheless phoney, performance.  Considering acting is not his main profession, he managed to look realistic enough to his die hard supporters.

As an actress who is also very emotional and have cried while trying to give a speech, I knew instantly that his performance was all phoney emotion. I watched and wondered why he felt that he had to pretend that he was so emotional about the shooting. The American people were not going to hate him if he does not cry. He could have just given his speech with a serious expression and called it good, but he made his voice crack and wiped invisible tears from the outside of his eyes. Tears form and begin spilling out of the inner corner of eyes. If you are not a crier, ask any girl who becomes emotional at weddings, funerals, and political speeches. We lightly dab the inner corner of our eyes to stop our mascara and eyeliner from melting away. Inner corner- NEVER outer corner!

Also, the way he cracked his voice was not in line with reality either. Did anyone think for a moment that he would break down and actually cry? No, because that would not have looked good, or presidential.  Every time I have started cracking my voice in emotion- in leads to the dam breaking. That is what happens when real emotions are tugging at your heart. We actually cry, and real tears, the wet kind, roll down our cheeks.

Obama did everything on cue. Just a little voice quiver, and patting the outside of the eyes so as not to look to messy. The voice cracking did not interrupt his speech, it just added the hint of emotion that he wanted the speech to deliver. Then came the reason for his fake emotions.

He said that we need to do something about gun control!

Yes, the liberal agenda has long been to disarm America. This is an issue that many disagree with, due to the fact that guns protect the innocent, while the criminals always find a way to kill.

Obama could not just go on television and say this is a tragedy, and we are going to disarm America. That would lead to so many people saying that he is politicizing this tragedy. So, he pretended it was coming from heart felt emotion. Has there ever been a more manipulative president? 

Guess what? It worked... Liberals all across the country began tweeting and facebooking that we need to ban guns. Kool Aid anyone!

Do they think that this shooter would have stayed home and played the harp all day if guns were banned?

If he could not have gotten his hands on a gun, he would have made a bomb. That is what people who are determined to commit a crime do.

The root of our problem is something that no one wants to address. Guns have always been available and we did not have violence like this in the past. So what has changed? In the 1950s, guns were easier to get than they are today, but this kind of thing was not happening on a regular basis like it is these days.

People have changed.  Why have they changed? If we truly want to "fix" what is wrong with America, we need to take a real look at what has happened to people and have an open mind about how to change it.

Spoons don't make you fat, the person holding the spoon and loading it with ice cream is the culprit. To solve that issue, we have to ask the person why they are loading up the spoon.

My personal opinion is not a welcome one. Violence and sex is readily available, and Christianity, or church going and God believing is out of fashion.

The reason these things that I have pointed out are not popular as an issue is because my observation that violence is all over television, and in the movies suggests that we need to censor things, and change the way we do things. For some reason, people see putting a lot of sex and violence in just about every movie is "freedom".  The same people don't value their "freedom" so much when it comes to being laden with heavy taxes that put small businesses out of business. They guard their "right" to have sex and violence attached to their viewing pleasure even to the death of innocent children. But the movie makers have a loud voice on talk shows and other media to tell the pubic that they should be able to put whatever they want in their films, and the people have a right to see it uncensored. Viewers hear this and support the "freedom" of film makers to put what they want on film, and our youngsters will take it in. I don't know about you, but in my job there are rules. There are rules for everything except movie makers because they have a team of "little people" (us) rallying for they to have no rules.

The argument here is that so many people watch R rated movies and they don't go out and hurt people, but the other side of this is, its not just one movie. We are bombarded by violence in video games, movies and our reading, constantly.  Even television shows have degenerated into humiliating people as a way of entertainment. I have noticed that my generation as opposed to my children's generation was less violent in general. When kids get together for spring break, we always hear and see footage of masses of crowd violence, where it used to be kids having fun in the sun. The roots of violence are deep and it has to do with the way we live and develop our lives.

Before I talk about religion, I know that liberal minded people are going to say, "Oh, here we go, a Chrisian right wing nut."  Let me say this. I am not a Christian, and I was raised agnostic.

I respect Christians and have noticed that those who were raised either Mormon,Catholic or Christian, raise less troubled children in general. And the more attached to the church they are, the less violent and the less corrupt their families are about everything in general. That faith, whether you have it in yourself or not, does wonders for people as far as leading a clean life, and being a good neighbor.

I ultimately blame Hollywood for our problems because it does all it can through movies, celebrities, and reality television, to glorify violence and lack of integrity. There are more and more movies being made that show women and men fighting against each other. Currently there are more young boys hitting girls in school. It used to be that men, even boys, knew that girls were not an "equal" fight. Before feminists get riled up, I am not saying girls are not as good as boys, and I am not saying that they are not as smart. I am stating a fact!

Men have more muscle mass and are a lot stronger and more powerful than women. A boy or man hitting a girl or woman can be devastating. Glorifying women as warriors who are able to beat several men at the same time, is simply fantasy, and impossible, and if men were not fed this nonsense that women are an equal fight for them physically through video games, movies and game shows for years and years, day after day, they might understand that swinging at a woman is not the same thing as swinging at a man.

Whenever a religious person is portrayed in a Hollywood movie or TV show, they are portrayed as crazy, and trying to do something evil, or take someones money. The reality is nothing like that. Sure there are people using religion to steal from other people, but the mass majority of believers are not doing anything bad and are in fact, donating to charities, and providing a cheerful and respectable outlook for their families and friends.

The only way we can live in a less violent world is to address the real issue. To blame the gun is to run away from the truth.

Monique Vargas

Fox News Reports the Facts on Michigan Union Violence

Union thug hits reporter for no reason

Congratulations to Fox News for being the only news channel that reported the facts about the Michigan union violence.

Innocent people were bullied, attacked and intimidated by an angry liberal union mob, and MSNBC and CNN refused to report it. Instead, they filmed only the most peaceful looking people in the mob standing in groups as opposed to the fist throwing, body slamming thugs.

This is further evidence that the main stream media is biased, shill laden and conniving. 

When the Tea Party movement was going strong, CNN refused to film the black people who were part of the Tea Party in effort to portray the group as a bunch of white racists. They used a close up lens to film the most European looking speakers so that the black people who stood directly behind would be undetectable. The lies by these two "news" stations was successful because anyone who has never been to a Tea Party thinks it is a racist group. 



I read an article several months ago what was written by a black man and his experience with a Tea Party. His light skinned friend was attending and he began scolding him for joining what he believed to be a racist group. The friend informed him that it had nothing to do with racism and that race stuff was a bunch of BS from the media. Finally, the black man agreed to go with him to the Tea Party, and although he felt scared at first, due to the bombardment of lies he had taken in from the media, he soon realized that he was in a very diverse group of intelligent minded people who had things in common such as the desire to live the American dream, and that is basically it. The black writer said that he had such a great time and never in his life had he felt so welcome and that race was a non issue. There is nothing like having an open mind and experiencing truth. I congratulate the black writer for having the honesty and courage to admit that the main stream media has been spoon feeding the American public a bunch of lies in effort to generate fear.

We independent thinkers must look at this current issue and sharply question why the main stream media has not mentioned that the union mob had put innocent people in the hospital with their violent physical attacks.

Fox News has so far been the only honest news station that has reported the violence and invited guests from both sides of the argument to talk about what is going on. One democrat defended the violence by stating that the crowd was "scared".  A frighteningly lame excuse for violence. Many non union workers are scared too but no one seems to care about that side of the fence. Also, no intense violence is coming from the non union crowd. Imagine what the news would be saying if a Tea Party had erupted into this!  Imagine if a conservative Tea partier had beaten a liberal news reporter.  This news reporting would be a different issue. This is NOT acceptable in America. I don't care if you are a union worker, a liberal or conservative. There is NO excuse for allowing this violence, and for the media covering up the facts that Americans have the right to see, without any spin!

The Democratic Party Platform and Union Workers

Left wing Union thugs attack innocent man

 The mainstream media ignores the latest in Democrat Union Workers and violence. Sadly, due to the fact that the mainstream media is liberal biased, they have neglected to report the intense violent protest in Michigan by Union Workers. The disgusting display of mindless violence consisted of a group of heavy set, middle aged men attacking a group of women and elderly people because it was believed that they were conservatives who did not vote for Obama. 


CNN briefly reported that the violence was "justified" because there was a FOX News contributor present and therefore the democrats have a right to throw punches when they see someone of a news media that is not entirely liberal biased.



Indeed- Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian and Fox News contributor, had spent the day politely, and respectfully asking demonstrators questions, and as video that can be seen on YouTube shows many of them became verbally aggressive instantly, with one telling him, "get the f--- out of my face!" With absolutely no provocation.

Another protester can be seen later in the video punching Crowder in the face before being restrained by another man. Crowder remained calm and tried to keep the angry and violent liberal mob away from the helpless women and children as they began swinging and hurling insults at anyone in sight.

The vicious liberals attacked a tent that consisted of a group of conservatives who were sitting inside. The group is called Americans for Prosperity and it consisted largely of women, and young adults who were minding their own business and keeping to themselves. While they organized their charitable organization as to what they were going to do next, they were bulldozed violently by the cursing, and fist throwing liberal men who did not care who they hurt.

Tent that contained innocent people before being attacked by the liberal Union mob

I was not going to write any articles today but I went to my facebook page and saw that someone posted a photo of this violence and a few of the replies were towards how nasty and violent the unions were, but others who had seen the CNN commentary made excuses for the mob and said, "Its understandable that they became violent because that reporter was from FOX, and there are some republicans from that network." Congrats to that kool aid drinker. The biggest problem we have in this country today is that people do not think with their own minds. They let CNN tell them what is okay and what isn't without realizing that CNN is being controlled by democrats who have their hand in the pot. Yes, you can't believe anything any of those talking heads say. They have their list of issues that they are trying to push through so that their "Fat Cat" can make a mint on. Yes, Mitt Romney is the the "vulture capitalist", CNN is. And its people who take in their lopsided reporting that make it all possible.

Its about time that Americans hold the mainstream media responsible for their biased and shameless lack of reporting and throw away their partisan views long enough to admit that violence is wrong. Its not okay because its happening to a white person, or because its happening to someone who did not vote for Obama, or because the victim is a Christian. If we want to live in a country that is free and honest, and where justice is served, we must stop being mindless liberals long enough to take in the REAL picture.

Do Americans Want Rush Limbaugh off the Air?

Do Americans Really Want Rush Limbaugh Forced Off the Air Because He is Partisan?

Rush Limbaugh

 

A Movement of Angry Democrats are now Trying to Get Rush Limbaugh Off the Air Because He is "Partisan and Demeaning to Our President".

 I never thought I would see the day when so many Americans would aggressively throw away their freedom of speech. 

 

It seems blatantly obvious that if Rush Limbaugh can be silenced for offending people who love Obama, then maybe all the people on CNBC,CNN, MSNBC,NBC, ect. can also be silenced for offending people who are not offended by George Bush.

If Limbaugh were to be silenced, the next step is to silence the left for all the unfair things that they have spread about Romney, Palin, Santorum, and the Republican party in general. This would absolutely devastate the Democratic party because we all know that the majority of negative propaganda comes from the liberal media. The only partisan entertainment the conservatives have is talk radio and Fox News, although Fox employs an equal amount of democrats.

 If we are being one sided about who is to be silenced, then we are no doubt veering away from freedom of speech and the right to think independently.

Doing away with all things partisan would in fact give the Republican party, which this whole attack is out to destroy,  more power because they would not be losing as much of their steam that is always bound to be lost on the democrats side, due to more than 90% of propaganda coming from the democratic party in effort to paint a negative view of Republicans.

The liberal media has said that Limbaugh is abusive and demeaning to our president and therefore should be taken off the air.

 Amazing! MSNBC and the mainstream media are saying offensive and often untrue things about Republican candidates by the minute. A number of activists have now come forward with tapes and inside information from MSNBC that prove Mitt Romney's speeches were altered when played on the air, in an effort to sway the public into believing Romney is mean spirited, stupid and out of touch. Also, and when George Bush was president somehow saying  demeaning things was perfectly okay.

It has to be a two way street. 

It does not matter who's side you are on, but there needs to be at least two sides. Bill Mahar's idea of doing away all parties other than the democratic party is not very "democratic" when you really think about it. It backs up the embarrassing scene that the democrats faced at the DNC convention of 2012, when Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, took a "democratic poll" to "vote" on whether or not to put God back in their platform. When the crowd unanimously said "NO" Villaraigosa smiled and said, "lets do that again", and when the "NO" was shouted out again, Villaraigosa took the poll a third time, and finally just read the teleprompter that told him to say that God is back in their platform by "unanimous" decision. The party was truly exposed that night.

Is it okay to say negative things about the president or not? It can't be okay only if it's a Republican, if you really want to be democratic about it.

I think we need to learn to accept that we do not all think the same way.

 President Obama has done things that have affected people in a very negative way. Those people are never going to love him and they will say negative things based on their experience, and its perfectly healthy for they to be able to listen to someone, such as Limbaugh, who helps them vent their feelings, and represents what they personally are experiencing.

Silencing, or censoring those who do not think a certain way is the road to doom without question.

Just as people who hate Republicans watch Rachel Maddow,  Republicans should also have a place to go. That is One of the traits that Americans appreciate.

 It would be unbearable to say the least, to live in a country that says you must like whatever the president does no matter what that may be! Our freedom is to have an opinion and vent it based on what we see, and how it affects our business ventures.

Communist countries will have their citizens suffer in silence. I have personally experienced communism and It scares me to see Americans thinking like this. Sadly, it is a fact that many Americans just do not appreciate their precious freedom since they are now fighting and petitioning to eliminate it.

Oh yes, they don't want to eliminate their own freedom, just those people who think differently than they do. Isn't that historically how societies have always fallen?

M V