Friday, September 23, 2016

I Agree With Louis Farrakhan. Wait... What???

I never thought there would come a day when I agreed with Louis Farrakhan. But that day has come.

Farrakhan recently blasted President Obama because, as he put it, Obama "failed your own people."


"Farrakhan blasted Obama and his "legacy" in recent remarks saying he "failed to do what should have been done" as his "people are suffering and dying in the streets!" Farrakhan also questioned why Democrats have been so loyal to a party that has given them nothing in return.

So you Democrats, you been in their party a long time. Answer me, what did you get? You got a president. He is worried about his legacy. You want Hillary to get in to protect your legacy because Trump said the minute he gets in, he is going to reverse the Affordable Care Act. Because that is your signature achievement.

"In the epic rant, Farrakhan also seemed to mock Obama for insisting that his "legacy" is "bound up in an Affordable Care Act that only affects a few million people."

"If your legacy is bound up in an Affordable Care Act that only affects a few million people and they are trying to make it really difficult for those of us who signed up, that’s not your legacy."

Farrakhan also blasts Obama for fighting for the rights of "gay people" while his "people are suffering and dying in the streets!"

But I just want to tell you, Mr. President, you’re from Chicago, and so am I. I go out in the streets with the people. I visited the worst neighborhoods. I talked to the gangs. And while I was out there talking to them, they said ‘You know, Farrakhan, the president ain’t never come. Could you get him to come and look after us?’ There’s your legacy, Mr. President. It’s in the streets with your suffering people, Mr. President. And If you can’t go and see about them, then don’t worry about your legacy ’cause the white people that you served so well, they’ll preserve your legacy. The hell they will. But you didn’t earn your legacy with us. We put you there. You fought for the rights of gay people. You fought for the rights of this people and that people. You fight for Israel. Your people are suffering and dying in the streets! That’s where your legacy is. Now you failed to do what should have been done.”

Meanwhile, on Saturday night, President Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation that it will be an insult to him if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

“I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send-off, go vote.”

And while one could argue he didn't mention Clinton by name, it was evident from his next statement he wasn't talking about voting for Trump. He referenced Trump's recent appeals to black voters and talked about Trump's lack of knowledge of history.

“I mean, he missed that whole civics lesson about slavery and Jim Crow, but we’ve got a museum for him to visit. We will educate him.”

Perhaps, Mr. President, someone should refresh your memory of history. Jim Crow laws were created and passed by Democrats and slave owners in the South were Democrats. Have you checked your party affiliation recently? And Trump is the problem?

Obama certainly has failed the black community. All one need do is look toward Chicago, Charlotte, Detroit, etc., to see that. Black unemployment, particularly among young people, is still exceptionally high. And Obama has yet to address the violence in the streets of the inner cities. He worries about black inmates in prisons but not about the unbelievable numbers of black on black murders on the streets.

It's shameful, really. And Farrakhan is right to address it.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

What Are The Charlotte Protests Really About?

I've been watching the events in Charlotte, North Carolina, over the last few days and I'm scratching my head in wonder at the stupidity of some people.

The night of the shooting, police and witnesses stated that Keith Lamont Scott, an African-American man matching the description of a suspect police were looking for, exited a car with a gun in his hand and, after repeated commands to drop the weapon, was shot by Officer Brentley Vinson, who is also African-American. Scott died from his wound(s).

Scott's family, none of whom were present at the time, said that Scott didn't have a gun but a book when he exited the vehicle and that the shooting was simple murder. According to police, no book was found at the scene but a gun was found next to Scott when he fell.

Two days later opposition to the police version of what actually happened has turned ridiculous. The brother of Mr. Scott yesterday condemned white cops and white people in general for what happened to his brother.

“I just know that all white people are f***ing devils.” Then he adds, “All white cops are f***ing devils, and white people.”

So the protests aren't about the shooting or right and wrong anymore but about white people in general. It makes perfect sense... since the man was shot by another black man. Right?

Some protesters are now chanting “black lives matter” and “hands up, don't shoot.” I find it frighteningly fascinating that an incident can transform from a seemingly justified (from police and witness accounts) shooting by a black police officer into “Hands up, don't shoot” and “All white cops and white people are devils.”

Why not add “And just for good measure, let's go steal stuff from Walmart.”

Have people lost all connection to common sense?

Police have shown great restraint in this situation considering over a dozen of them have been injured by protesters. That could be just conservative policing or it could be political, as was the case in Baltimore last summer.

"The events that we saw last night are not the Charlotte I know and love," Democrat Mayor Jennifer Roberts said. "They are not reflective of our community, of the deep seated traditions we have of collaboration and peace."

But is she allowing the police to act accordingly? That's not public knowledge at this time. At least, if she is tying the hands of the police, she's smart enough not to make it public knowledge.

Police in shooting situations today, regardless of how necessary or justified, are in a no-win situation. The disturbances in Charlotte and fabricated reasons for them are proof. These people don't care about the truth. They care only about destruction, their hatred of white Americans and their hatred for the police in general.

Sadly, they are their own worst enemies. Sadder still is that they don't understand that.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

A Letter To The Editor That Should Have Been Published

I didn't write this (although I wish I had) and I can't even verify that it's a real letter. But if it's not it should be. The writer makes outstanding points about immigration as it should be. Our government is failing us when it comes to the borders and letting people into the country.

And for those Obama supporters who say "Obama has deported more people than any other President" I'll say this. Check your facts and his numbers and you'll find that just like his unemployment numbers, the deportation numbers are fabricated. Turning someone around at the border is not deportation - except in the Obama administration.

And before you mention the Japanese internment camps - yes, it was done and it was wrong. It was an overreaction by the government to the attack on Pearl Harbor. We can't change that.

The letter is long but worth reading.

Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which do not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but it wasn't.

From: "David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.

They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.

They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country.

Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one Red, White and Blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.

I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.


Rosemary LaBonte

Thursday, September 1, 2016

DHS To Take Control Of November Election. What Could Possibly Be Wrong With That?

The Obama administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, is about to make an all out effort to control the upcoming Presidential election and its outcome.

A recent post on the DHS webpage reads: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

According to the Washington Examiner, the DHS is now talking about declaring the November election a “critical infrastructure,” thereby taking control of the entire election for “security purposes.”

From the Washington Examiner:

Even before the FBI identified new cyber attacks on two separate state election boards, the Department of Homeland Security began considering declaring the election a “critical infrastructure,” giving it the same control over security it has over Wall Street and and the electric power grid.

The latest admissions of attacks could speed up that effort possibly including the upcoming presidential election, according to officials.

We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

The Obama administration also has an directive that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is no doubt using as his guideline:

“The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”

Voting and the election process is a state to state affair, controlled by state governments. There are 9,000 voting jurisdictions in this country. None are under federal control... yet.

Left-wing billionaire George Soros has stated publicly that while Donald Trump will win the popular vote in the November election, Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. Know who owns the company that counts the votes for the November election? George Soros.

But why would we worry about that?

Have no fear. We all know that a Presidential administration taking control of the national election system would have no effect(s) on the outcome of the election, right? After all, why would Obama's - “the most transparent administration in history” - do anything dishonest or crooked?