Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Scott Brown (R-MA) Won and Is Also Super Hot Too

Our fellow tea-bagger and all around super hot guy Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts seat in the Senate. Mr. Brown is a tried and true Independent who wants to change politics as usual and doesn't vote along party lines at all, despite using the (R) beside his name. He is our Palin - independently conservative and beautiful!

Mr. Brown - may I call him Scotty? - I mean, Scotty, is just so seamless and consistent when it comes to politics. He campaigned opposing the current Obama-care policy because it will raise taxes. Duh! This is no way reflects his support for the 2006 Massachusetts law mandating everyone get health insurance because that was the private market dictating coverage - unlike what appears in today's Senate bill. It's just an established fact that insurance companies have had no say in the debate over health care reform now that Socialism is controlling the White House. I mean, even Scotty's quote is very clear:

In Massachusetts, 98 percent of residents are covered by insurance through our own state reforms. The plan is not perfect, and we need to get costs down, but we have already achieved near-universal coverage. There is nothing for us in a national plan except higher taxes and more spending to finance coverage expansions in other states. It’s a raw deal for Massachusetts,” he said.
Massachusetts plan good, national plan bad. So I can see Scotty's consistent point on that one.

Additionally, my Scotty is not just an Independent, but fiscally conservative. Back in 2001 he justifiably denied financial aid to Red Cross to rescue workers on the 9/11 recovery efforts because at that same time, he had a budget and that budget required unavoidable cuts, not tax-subsidies. Priorities people!

In summation, Scotty's win is a big win for independent thinkers like us here at the CLF. We've achieved in dismantling the one-party rule in Washington, thus eliminating a filibuster proof Congress, and paving the way for a huge comeback in 2012. It also doesn't hurt to be totally hot in a completely tea-bagging kind of way.


Tuesday, January 19, 2010

In Defense of Ann Coulter

Our friend Pat Robertson isn't the only defender of the right under attack by the liberal media. Ann Coulter has been blasted from the left for turning the issue of aid to Haiti into a political one, decrying President Clinton as "the horny hick" and referring to his involvement in an attempt to help the millions suffering in Haiti as a "shame and embarrassment." Just as the liberals have decried Mr. Robertson, they have gone after Ms. Coulter without fully understanding her. I will attempt to explain.
In her new best seller Guilty, she says "Liberals always have to be the victims, particularly when they are oppressing others. Modern victims aren’t victims because of what they have suffered; they are victims of convenience for the Left." In other words, the liberals think the victims in Haiti are conveniently suffering to promote the liberal agenda. Swiftly, we are propelled from point A to point B. Point A: earthquake running full tilt to point B: political opportunity for liberals. She continues, "There’s no way to determine if an action is offensive by looking at the action. One must know who did it to whom, and whose side the most powerful people in America will take." She means that sending the "horny hick" to Haiti is offensive because powerful liberals sent him, and he will probably do something gross to embarrass the Godly.

Friday, January 15, 2010

In Defense of Pat Robertson

The other day, one of the greatest men in broadcasting, uttered something that many took as being insensitive or even crazy. That man, Pat Robertson, is a good hearted Christian who has done much good in the world. Even Morning Joe, a liberal on that liberal MSNBC, stated as such. From providing gainful employment in Third World countries, to starting up world-class learning institutions (whose former students improve the world for the better), to his deep commitment to ethics and accuracy, Pat has done more good for this world than many realize. I know for a fact that this is why my aunt Mackie has spent large sums funding his (and God's) good causes.

But I find it appalling that people who never watch the 700 Club are all of a sudden up in arms about his comment. You know they got that audio from the gutter snipes at Media Matters or other Soros-funded organizations. They don't understand the context and complexity of what Mr. Robertson said.
ROBERTSON: Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the prince.” True story. And so the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.

They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.
People are focusing on the wrong thing. He wasn't blaming the Haitians in their time of great tragedy. He was blaming the devil for tricking a few Haitians back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Clearly, we can go from Point A to Point B on this one. Point A: Haitian slaves revolt against cruel French slaveholders in 1791, defeat the French, accept French demands for reparations, Napolean III and whatever etc. Point B: Great earthquake hits Haiti in 2010. I don't know how much more I can explain the direct connection between the two. If you need more elaboration, you are either Godless or a liberal, which is quite redundant.

So please liberals, do not try to bash good ole Pat on this site, I will not stand for it. Pat was calling for us to pray for the Haitians, which has proven to be quite successful, such as when he encouraged prayers which stopped the nuclear bomb from falling on us in 2007. Pat was blaming the devil, not the Haitians, and his historical account is quite accurate. Pat knows his stuff, and I challenge any one of you to prove otherwise. He proved himself remarkably prescient in a 1992 fundraising letter when he said...
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
I mean, that is an established fact. Anyone smart enough to utter the above comment should be forgiven for his clumsily worded (but completely accurate) Haiti comments. But I doubt good ole Pat needs my defense. He seems quite strong enough to handle himself :)


‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›