A Response to Samuel L. Jackson’s “Wake the F*** Up!” Video

Count me among the majority that enjoy a good movie, especially when times are tough and I’m trying to get my mind off the depressing news of the day. It helps me unwind and centers me, so I don’t get too focused and wrapped up in what’s going on in the world of current events, politics, and the other junk that tends to clutter my mind sometimes. On the other hand, I don’t particularly care for actors and actresses in those same movies who speak out on their political views. When I see a movie, listen to music, or read a book, I don’t want to associate a particular actor’s, musician’s, or author’s political views with their work. I want to enjoy it for what it is. Yes, they obviously have the right to do so but it seems like a lot of them also seem to believe they’re privileged to knowledge from on high that the rest of us don’t have access to. Case in point, Samuel L. Jackson. Consider the below video regarding his support of Obama for President and apparent disdain for Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

In the first scene, Jackson’s initial swipe at Romney is that he’s an “out-of-touch millionaire”. Hmmm…A little class warfare right off the bat there, Mr. Jackson? This little nugget seems a little disingenuous considering Jackson likely makes far in excess of what most Americans will make in their entire life. Of course, Mr. Jackson fails to mention Romney’s generosity and that he gives far more of his income away than does Obama or Biden. Romney’s charity also does not extend only as far as the spotlight reaches. Most of his charitable giving has been away from the camera lights of the press.

Jackson then goes on to claim that Romney has declared war on schools, the environment, and “fair pay”, without giving any details, of course. He then mentions that Romney’s “against safety nets and if you fall, tough luck!” All this is fine and dandy posturing but without any specifics, there’s not much to comment on here. But it certainly makes for good talking points straight out of the Democrat playbook to make the “out-of-touch millionaire” into an evil son of Satan. Demonization…Ah, yes, the tool of the ignorant.

The next scene may be the most unbelievable of all…The claim made by the little girl is that Mitt Romney is no fan of civil rights and that he’s OK with “voter suppression”. The underlying and unspoken accusation here is that Romney is a racist. Enter the proverbial throwing down of the race card, a move reserved for those incapable of stringing together more than two brain cells at a time. In typical fashion, the term “voter suppression” isn’t specifically defined but I’m certain they’re referring to voter ID laws. Unfortunately for Mr. Jackson, most polls show that a vast majority of the public, around 70%, support voter ID, a number that crosses political and racial boundaries. In at least Indiana (considered to be the most stringent voter ID law in the country) and Georgia, voter ID has actually led to an increase among minority voters, a segment of the population that alarmists claim are being suppressed by such laws.

Another claim the young girl makes in this scene is that Romney is not worried about the poor, something that Romney has just flat-out never said nor indicated. A straight up lie by Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Jackson then makes his appearance in the scene and says that Obama sent seals to Bin Laden’s place and that Romney “sent jobs overseas”. This has been thoroughly debunked already by organizations like FactCheck.org. Consider their article on “Obama’s Outsourcer Overreach“. This is coupled with the fact that, during Obama’s presidency, he’s responsible for the largest shift in wealth from America to overseas than any administration before him.

Two scenes later, Jackson claims that, if elected, Romney and Ryan will gut Medicare. Obviously, he fails to mention that the Obama administration has already proposed its own changes to Medicare, those that would be similar to what he claims Romney wants to enact, that result in approximately the same cuts. Both campaigns have pointed out that the other is wanting to cut about $700 billion from the program. Yet again, a hypocritical claim from the Obama camp.

There are a few other accusations floated here also but I think you get the point. Don’t get me wrong…I love many of Jackson’s movies but I’m not a big fan of his politics. I’d at least respect him a bit more if he put more thought into it than simply repeating the brain dead talking points from the DNC about Romney, the “out-of-touch” millionaire.

Mr. Jackson, until you get your facts straight, instead of telling us to “Wake the F*** Up!”, maybe you should just “SHUT the F*** Up!”.

Yours truly…


Failure Is an Option

Remember when Rush Limbaugh said the following?

I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”  Somebody’s gotta say it.

The mainstream media, always salivating for a chance to excoriate the king of conservative talk radio, jumped on this statement like a politician on a stack of lobbyist cash. For what seemed like weeks, you couldn’t listen to the news or late night talk shows without hearing some pointed jest at the expense of Limbaugh or those associated with his cause. Why, Limbaugh of course had now joined the ranks of the unpatriotic, hadn’t he? It was a chance for all those leftists, once again, to use a quote by a well-known conservative to show just how un-American those neocons really are. After all, we know they really don’t want the best for America anyway.

Of course, what was actually said didn’t seem to matter. Put in its proper context, here’s more of what Limbaugh said (the transcript of the entire segment on his show is available here).

Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun.  I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

Unsurprisingly, this part was mostly ignored. Limbaugh was not saying that he wanted our country to fail, suffer economic problems, experience setbacks in the war on terror, etc. What he was saying was that he hoped liberal policies, policies that he opposes and thinks are bad for the long term interests and welfare of America, to fail. This is something that all people who hold to certain political beliefs have in common. For instance, if I think drastically changing economic policy is going to be bad for us in the long run, I’m going to oppose that policy. It’s really not all that complicated a logical leap. Sure, there are some issues where there can be some middle ground and you can hope that those holding a slightly different view are correct but, on the bigger issues, there often isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room.

Now Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican-AK) has put on her trusty pair of hip waders and put herself in the middle of the anti-context folks…

I will tell you, I am not one of those who wants Obama to fail. If he does well, that means the country’s doing well. We don’t have time as a nation to spend all of what we do blocking. We have got to figure out how we get to a point where we can be sitting around the table and talking about these difficult problems and advancing some solutions.

While I agree that we definitely need to be working with those who believe differently from us as conservatives, that doesn’t mean those of us who want liberal policies to fail want them to do so to cause harm to the country. We want the policies to fail because we strongly believe, with every fiber of our beings, that they are bad for the long term health of our great nation. On those things, we’ll fight tooth and nail for what we believe is right.

As far as “blocking” goes, since the Republicans now hold a strong majority in the House of Representatives, if something comes down the pike from the Democrats that I think is bad for the country then, yes, I want it blocked. Gridlock, as it’s often called, isn’t always bad. Divided government sometimes works out for the best of the country. We, as a people, need to be united in purpose and direction, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to oppose an ideology that you think is wrong and harmful.

Lastly, I question where some of these folks who complained about Limbaugh’s comments were when then President Bush was being raked over the coals on nearly a daily basis during much of his eight years in office? I think we already know the answer to that one.

Selective Outrage

A billboard similar to the photo above that raised the hackles of some folks and was apparently paid for by an Iowa Tea Party group has now been torn down according to an Iowa television station.

Some anti-Tea Party folks were blasting the sign as racist. On its face, that accusation is ridiculous. There’s nothing racist about it. While I understand the point of the billboard, which is to compare Obama-style socialism with more well-known socialist dictators of the past. Unfortunately, the message got lost in the translation.

To co-opt an Obama-ism, let me be clear…Whoever had this idea, while not a racist, is a complete moron. I understand the comparison but the whole Nazi thing has been totally overdone. Not only that, but the immediate comparison that comes to the mind of most people who might otherwise agree with the intended point, is a violent one. Hitler is responsible for the death of millions of Jews and other minorities that were not considered part of his master race. Lenin’s style of communism is also responsible for mass suffering and death. That’s not the connection you want to make with Obama and still be taken seriously.

On the other hand, you have lots of leftists out there decrying this billboard who were pretty quiet while the same kinds of accusations were being floated on a near-daily basis about President Bush while he was still at the helm. The hypocrisy from that angle is undeniable. Selective outrage at its finest. Gotta love it.

Spill, Baby Spill!

I’m sure someone else has already used the title of this post, most likely a liberal who nearly has a coronary at the sight or sound of Sarah Palin. Then again, Palin’s voice really is sort of annoying but the thought of a progressive being that bent out of shape over a conservative woman really warms my heart. {wink, wink}

Now some random points on the spill…

  • The spill is BP’s fault. Period.
  • The lion’s share of the blame for the lack of a response to the spill is the federal government’s. That blame starts at the top. President Obama didn’t initially treat this with the importance that it deserved.
  • Environmentalists be damned…The spill needs to be cleaned up ASAP. Get some people down there and start cleaning this thing up. We don’t need to waste weeks or even days, for that matter, putting together and waiting for studies to see what is going to be the safest cleanup. I’ve seen several demos of processes that could work to clean up this thing. Pick one and do it. If that doesn’t work, pick another one.
  • The Bush administration had no part in this whatsoever. Obama has been just as or more cozy with “Big Oil” as Bush was. Get over it and assess blame where it’s due.
  • Let’s get this straight…Obama said he hadn’t yet talked to BP’s CEO because “he’s going to say all the right things to me”? Umm…What does that mean? This is the same guy who said the police “acted stupidly” before having any evidence to support his claim or even talking to the police, for that matter. Good call, Mr. President.
  • The only thing the Obama administration has done right during this whole fiasco is keeping a muzzle on The Gaffer.
  • The cap and trade legislation sucks. I’m just sayin’…
  • Not even two years into his Presidency, Obama already seems to have more acronyms used in reference to him than any other President: POTUS, SCOTUS, TOTUS, and now…AKOTUS.
  • Perhaps if Obama spent less time trying to sound tough and finding someone’s ass to kick, we might actually be getting somewhere.

By the way, all this “Boycott BP!” business is worthless. You’ll only succeed in hurting the “little” guy who owns the station and, in the end, BP won’t notice it any more than an elephant notices a tick in its hide.




In an unusual move, President Obama called out the Supreme Court for its January 21st decision to reverse the restrictions on the ability of corporations to participate in federal campaigns. The ruling also ends the ban on political contributions by unions and other organizations.

The point of this article isn’t to discuss the merits of the decision reached by the highest court in our land. It’s certainly an important case and there are good arguments on either side.

However, is it proper for the President to call out the members of the Supreme Court in the way that he did? In case you haven’t seen it, please view the following video.

According to veteran Washington reporter Jamie Dupree, it isn’t unprecedented but it is rather unusual.

None of my colleagues could remember any President using a State of the Union Address to call for action by the Supreme Court, or to denounce one of High Court’s ruling.

So, I reviewed every single State of the Union Address and Message that’s been sent to Congress or delivered in person by a President, and the answer is, such a shout out to the Supremes is rare, indeed.

In 1953, President Eisenhower urged Congress to act on powers for the Food and Drug Administration, after the Court found a law on food inspections to be unconstitutional.

In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the Justices indirectly, as he complained about recent rulings that limited some of his New Deal banking initiatives.

He goes on to say about the tone of the President’s remarks…

President Obama’s words were a bit more negative about a specific court ruling than almost any other President.

The rest of Dupree’s article can be read here.

The Supreme Court is certainly not beyond reproach. They’ve made mistakes from time to time and citizens as well as the President have the right to disagree and voice their opinions against the decision. However, it could be successfully argued that the State of the Union address, given in front of members of Congress and those justices of the Supreme Court attending the speech, is not the proper venue for such a verbal smackdown. First, it could be viewed as an act of intimidation towards a branch of the government whose lack of strength in numbers may make it more subject to unwarranted public pressure in making decisions of a similar nature. The members of the court are supposed to be free from that kind of meddling and Obama’s remarks certainly don’t help matters. Secondly, even though, as I mentioned, it is not unprecedented, it is certainly unusual by Presidential standards.

While Obama’s remarks were certainly not illegal, in my opinion, they were certainly unwarranted. I thought last year’s “You lie!” shout out by Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) was inappropriate and I believe Obama’s comments toward the Supreme Court were similarly so.

Lobbyist Schmobbyist!

When is a lobbyist not really a lobbyist? Apparently, the answer is you are not really a lobbyist if you’re selected for a job in the Obama administration.

In last night’s State of the Union speech, President Obama said the following

That’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making positions, jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

There was an audible groan from the Republican members of his immediate audience, as well there should have been. The reason being because Obama has appointed SEVERAL former lobbyists to jobs in his administration. Among them are the following (taken from Hot Air)…

  • Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
  • Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
  • William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
  • William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
  • David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
  • Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
  • Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
  • Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
  • Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
  • Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the
  • National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
  • Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
  • Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

This was also something Obama pledged going into the beginning of his presidency. If you were a lobbyist, you were not going to get a job in his administration. Yet before his term in office even began, he had already violated that pledge.

Look, I don’t have a problem with a former lobbyist having a job in any administration, Republican or Democrat. However, if you’re going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk as well.

The System Worked???

In response to a question about how the recent “underwear bomber” situation was handled, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said “What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.”

The system worked? Let’s see, the Obama administration has been critical of the infrastructure put in place by the Bush Administration and rightly so. That being said, what’s the difference between how this would’ve worked while Bush was still in office and now? The simple answer is…Nothing. The system didn’t work. The system in place allowed the terrorist to pass through security and board the plane with most likely nary a second thought. The system in place, that had his name on a terror watch list, did nothing to check or even double-check to even see why he might have been on said list. The system in place had nothing to do with private citizens and employees of a private airline taking the matter into their own hands and doing what good citizens have a habit of doing…That is, picking up where government leaves off and, in this case, where government left off is a royally screwed-up system. In my opinion, the security problems we saw in this incidence were rooted in the Bush and even previous administrations. However, that doesn’t absolve the Obama administration from blame as they have simply perpetuated the same issues.

The root of the problem, and this is getting away from the incident at hand, is that the Obama administration views the world and radical Islam, in particular, in a completely different and, in my opinion, extremely naive way. Why, if only we could just be nicer to the terrorists and cooperate and then they would most likely see the error of their ways and stop wanting to kill us. That’s certainly an over-simplification of the issue at hand but it’s not far off.

It’s my opinion that radical Muslims want nothing less than the complete annihilation of the West. They view delay and “peace” talks as nothing more than the ability to buy time to destroy us down the road when they see that we have sufficiently weakened to the point that their ends are more easily achieved. As we have seen over and over again, collateral damage is nothing to them. The killing of innocent women and children of any race and creed, including their own, is nothing to even blink an eye at. Such is the mentality of the enemy we face. This mentality is succinctly stated by Osama Bin-Laden himself…

We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Now, lest we be hasty, this isn’t the mentality of all Islam. Islam is a religion with which I do not agree. However, not all Muslims follow this thought process and I’ve become more and more aware of some within that religion that have forcefully and bravely spoken out against it. However, there is a large enough contingent of this persuasion within Islam to warrant significant attention and action.