Bill Maher Shows 'Welfare Queen' Video HBO Refused To

Last week, HBO ran a controversial video showing white Mississippians who essentially fit the Leftist stereotype of 'toothless,racist rednecks' saying inflammatory things about President Obama. The video was made by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

She then made another video showing multiple welfare recipients in New York City proclaiming they were at the welfare office to get their "Obama bucks" and that they supported Obama because he "gives me stuff."

According to Ms. Pelosi, HBO balked at showing the second video. Nevertheless, to her credit and Bill Maher's, they pushed back and showed the video anyway, and Ms. Pelosi had a number of intelligent things to say about the entitlement culture that goes with it.

As expected, the majority of the recipients were black, and made the predictable remarks about it being reparations for slavery, and also as expected, Maher recognized that as 'more authentic' than the white Mississippian's 'chip on their shoulders' he put it. He obviously needs a few history lessons, but he's certainly entitled.

But again, they did show both videos. And the reaction of Maher's audience, largely Lefties was interesting, catcalls and laughter during the clips of the white Mississippians and dead silence after the welfare recipients video underlines what both Pelosi and Maher said.

We've gotten to the point where the extremes, manipulated by cynical politicians, are driving the narrative to the detriment of the majority.

It's a pity that neither Pelosi nor Maher were willing to look at a lot of the divisive and even racist rhetoric the Obama Administration and its surrogates are using as one of the prime culprits, but let's take the small victories where we can.

(h/t,Breitbart.com)

Bill Maher Shows 'Welfare Queen' Video HBO Refused To

Last week, HBO ran a controversial video showing white Mississippians who essentially fit the Leftist stereotype of 'toothless,racist rednecks' saying inflammatory things about President Obama. The video was made by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

She then made another video showing multiple welfare recipients in New York City proclaiming they were at the welfare office to get their "Obama bucks" and that they supported Obama because he "gives me stuff."

According to Ms. Pelosi, HBO balked at showing the second video. Nevertheless, to her credit and Bill Maher's, they pushed back and showed the video anyway, and Ms. Pelosi had a number of intelligent things to say about the entitlement culture that goes with it.

As expected, the majority of the recipients were black, and made the predictable remarks about it being reparations for slavery, and also as expected, Maher recognized that as 'more authentic' than the white Mississippian's 'chip on their shoulders' he put it. He obviously needs a few history lessons, but he's certainly entitled.

But again, they did show both videos. And the reaction of Maher's audience, largely Lefties was interesting, catcalls and laughter during the clips of the white Mississippians and dead silence after the welfare recipients video underlines what both Pelosi and Maher said.

We've gotten to the point where the extremes, manipulated by cynical politicians, are driving the narrative to the detriment of the majority.

It's a pity that neither Pelosi nor Maher were willing to look at a lot of the divisive and even racist rhetoric the Obama Administration and its surrogates are using as one of the prime culprits, but let's take the small victories where we can.

(h/t,Breitbart.com)

The Latest Proof Rick Santorum Is No Conservative

His latest crusade? In a statement on his website, he promises "vigorous enforcement" of laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

“The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”

Regardless of how you feel about pornography, keep in mind that this is exactly how the Left behaves..stretching laws and engaging in selective prosecution in order to impose its morality on the general public.

What Santorum would have to do to put this into place is quite interesting.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the private possession of most kinds of porn is not illegal, there's no particular protection for distribution.

What a President Santorum would have to do, first of all, is shut down a $14 billion plus industry completely. To put this in perspective, that's bigger than the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball combined.

That would include blocking domestic websites, shutting down rental channels, studios and outlets that retail DVDs. Aside from the dislocation taking a $14 billion industry down and putting thousands of people out of work would cause in an already shaky economy, it's a fact that a number of very large corporations have a significant amount of money invested in these companies, and they're not going to let these valuable assets be destroyed without a long, bitter and expensive court fight.

And that also doesn't account for the fact that Rick Santorum's standards on what's obscene likely differ quite a bit from the mainstream. That's another recipe for court fights galore, especially when the selective prosecutions start.

To add to the irony, foreign websites and marketers would be unaffected...unless President Santorum either goes to congress to get legislation for blanket filters for foreign sites or simply decides to impose by executive order if the votes aren't there. Sounds like another president we're familiar with, doesn't it? And just where does the line get drawn according to Mr. Santorum? Just porn, is it going to include sex toys as well? Is he planning on reviving the sodomy laws too? In his statement Santorm pledges to appoint an Attorney General that would carry out his wishes to the letter.

Don't misunderstand me. I can empathize with the feelings people have about what talk show host Laura Ingraham calls 'the pornification of the culture'. But frankly if people wish to watch what I'll call mainstream porn (the naked bodies of consenting adults assuming various poses or engaging in various kinds of sexual activities) they have a perfect right to, and the cure someone like Rick Santorum proposes is far worse than the disease. People, at some point, need to take a certain responsibility for what they read, see, or allow into their homes.

This is simply Big Nanny Government from the Right side of the spectrum, and it tastes just as foul as it does coming from the other side.

I can only imagine what the Obama Campaign would do with this if Santorum actually got the nomination. If you absolutely hate Mitt Romney and are firmly in Santorum's camp for whatever reason, I'm sure nothing I say would convince you, but it would be an absolute disaster for him to be the GOP candidate.

If he's the nominee and runs against Obama, I'll vote for him, holding my nose while I do it. I'd vote for Daffy Duck instead of the current occupant of the White House. But mark my words....a Santorum - Obama match up is going to look a lot like the map after election day in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater.

The Latest Proof Rick Santorum Is No Conservative

His latest crusade? In a statement on his website, he promises "vigorous enforcement" of laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

“The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”

Regardless of how you feel about pornography, keep in mind that this is exactly how the Left behaves..stretching laws and engaging in selective prosecution in order to impose its morality on the general public.

What Santorum would have to do to put this into place is quite interesting.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the private possession of most kinds of porn is not illegal, there's no particular protection for distribution.

What a President Santorum would have to do, first of all, is shut down a $14 billion plus industry completely. To put this in perspective, that's bigger than the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball combined.

That would include blocking domestic websites, shutting down rental channels, studios and outlets that retail DVDs. Aside from the dislocation taking a $14 billion industry down and putting thousands of people out of work would cause in an already shaky economy, it's a fact that a number of very large corporations have a significant amount of money invested in these companies, and they're not going to let these valuable assets be destroyed without a long, bitter and expensive court fight.

And that also doesn't account for the fact that Rick Santorum's standards on what's obscene likely differ quite a bit from the mainstream. That's another recipe for court fights galore, especially when the selective prosecutions start.

To add to the irony, foreign websites and marketers would be unaffected...unless President Santorum either goes to congress to get legislation for blanket filters for foreign sites or simply decides to impose by executive order if the votes aren't there. Sounds like another president we're familiar with, doesn't it? And just where does the line get drawn according to Mr. Santorum? Just porn, is it going to include sex toys as well? Is he planning on reviving the sodomy laws too? In his statement Santorm pledges to appoint an Attorney General that would carry out his wishes to the letter.

Don't misunderstand me. I can empathize with the feelings people have about what talk show host Laura Ingraham calls 'the pornification of the culture'. But frankly if people wish to watch what I'll call mainstream porn (the naked bodies of consenting adults assuming various poses or engaging in various kinds of sexual activities) they have a perfect right to, and the cure someone like Rick Santorum proposes is far worse than the disease. People, at some point, need to take a certain responsibility for what they read, see, or allow into their homes.

This is simply Big Nanny Government from the Right side of the spectrum, and it tastes just as foul as it does coming from the other side.

I can only imagine what the Obama Campaign would do with this if Santorum actually got the nomination. If you absolutely hate Mitt Romney and are firmly in Santorum's camp for whatever reason, I'm sure nothing I say would convince you, but it would be an absolute disaster for him to be the GOP candidate.

If he's the nominee and runs against Obama, I'll vote for him, holding my nose while I do it. I'd vote for Daffy Duck instead of the current occupant of the White House. But mark my words....a Santorum - Obama match up is going to look a lot like the map after election day in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater.

Big Government Run Amuck - Louisiana Bans Cash Sales On Used Items

This is such a comical example of the mindset of most of those who presume to govern us that it actually makes me giggle, even though the joke's actually on us.

The State Legislature of Louisiana in its wisdom just passed House Bill 195, which bans cash transaction for second hand or used items,unless the seller is a licensed pawnshop - they're exempted.

State representative Rickey Hardy ( a Democrat,of course), who co-authored the bill explained it this way, saying, "they give a check or a cashiers money order, or electronic one of those three mechanisms is used."




According to Hardy, the bill is targeted at thieves stealing anything from copper to televisions who then sell them for cash. Hardy thinks that somebody who just broke into a Garden District apartment in New Orleans and got away with an IMAC, some jewellery and maybe a TV set is going to ask the fence he deals with for a cashier's check or a money order, especially if he's going to rush from the fence to go hit up his connection for a fix or some crack.

"It's a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead," explains Hardy.

Of course, if most of N'awlin's Finest ever did track down the kind of burglar I mentioned above and the stuff was in good condition, it would likely just end up in their homes. But then combatting crime isn't reallywhat this is about. I could be wrong,but I doubt even State Rep. Hardy is that stupid.

No, the idea of banning cash payments is designed to accomplish a number of other ends. When there's a money order, a credit card purchase or a cashier's check, there's a paper trail not to a criminal but to the seller involved. That means that sales tax has to be collected and remitted to the state, whether you're selling something out of a shop or at a garage sale (frequently known as tag sales in that locale) or gran'pa's old vintage radio or the gee-tar you stopped playing six months ago via a classified ad in the local paper or something like Craig's List. Th ebill evens targets non-profit sellers of used items like Goodwill. Not only is it designed to collect more tax but to collect additional fees for reseller permits and allow Big Government to add a whole new layer of regulations and regulators and additional law enforcement.

It also makes it easier for Big Government to add special new and improved taxes and fees on any particular items it thinks it can - used cars or firearms, for instance. Or to ban legal sales of them entirely. Read between the lines on that one.

Another benefit for fans of Big Government is that it creates an entirely new criminal class out of generally law abiding people, who usually have enough money and property to be capable of paying hefty fines if they're caught.

The ones targeted will of course be generally law abiding, because the criminals the bill is supposed aimed at aren't going to give a damn about breaking a new law. They and those they deal with will keep right on doing business as usual.

By the way, I wouldn't want anyone to go away thinking this was anything less than a bi-partisan effort. Not only did this bill pass with majorities from both parties, but it was signed into law by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, someone some folks still cite as a 'conservative' icon.

Yes, there are Republicans who enable Big Government too...when it's doing something they like.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Big Government Run Amuck - Louisiana Bans Cash Sales On Used Items

This is such a comical example of the mindset of most of those who presume to govern us that it actually makes me giggle, even though the joke's actually on us.

The State Legislature of Louisiana in its wisdom just passed House Bill 195, which bans cash transaction for second hand or used items,unless the seller is a licensed pawnshop - they're exempted.

State representative Rickey Hardy ( a Democrat,of course), who co-authored the bill explained it this way, saying, "they give a check or a cashiers money order, or electronic one of those three mechanisms is used."




According to Hardy, the bill is targeted at thieves stealing anything from copper to televisions who then sell them for cash. Hardy thinks that somebody who just broke into a Garden District apartment in New Orleans and got away with an IMAC, some jewellery and maybe a TV set is going to ask the fence he deals with for a cashier's check or a money order, especially if he's going to rush from the fence to go hit up his connection for a fix or some crack.

"It's a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead," explains Hardy.

Of course, if most of N'awlin's Finest ever did track down the kind of burglar I mentioned above and the stuff was in good condition, it would likely just end up in their homes. But then combatting crime isn't reallywhat this is about. I could be wrong,but I doubt even State Rep. Hardy is that stupid.

No, the idea of banning cash payments is designed to accomplish a number of other ends. When there's a money order, a credit card purchase or a cashier's check, there's a paper trail not to a criminal but to the seller involved. That means that sales tax has to be collected and remitted to the state, whether you're selling something out of a shop or at a garage sale (frequently known as tag sales in that locale) or gran'pa's old vintage radio or the gee-tar you stopped playing six months ago via a classified ad in the local paper or something like Craig's List. Th ebill evens targets non-profit sellers of used items like Goodwill. Not only is it designed to collect more tax but to collect additional fees for reseller permits and allow Big Government to add a whole new layer of regulations and regulators and additional law enforcement.

It also makes it easier for Big Government to add special new and improved taxes and fees on any particular items it thinks it can - used cars or firearms, for instance. Or to ban legal sales of them entirely. Read between the lines on that one.

Another benefit for fans of Big Government is that it creates an entirely new criminal class out of generally law abiding people, who usually have enough money and property to be capable of paying hefty fines if they're caught.

The ones targeted will of course be generally law abiding, because the criminals the bill is supposed aimed at aren't going to give a damn about breaking a new law. They and those they deal with will keep right on doing business as usual.

By the way, I wouldn't want anyone to go away thinking this was anything less than a bi-partisan effort. Not only did this bill pass with majorities from both parties, but it was signed into law by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, someone some folks still cite as a 'conservative' icon.

Yes, there are Republicans who enable Big Government too...when it's doing something they like.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!