Login with Facebook




Forgot?

Follow Us:

Posts by Archive


Regardless of skin color, I think it’s safe to say that most people agree that looting businesses and burning them to the ground is a pretty poor way to make a point.

In fact, it often has the opposite effect intended, causing the very racism and unfairness being complained about to become more deeply ingrained in society.

Fortunately, there are still tons of decent people left in the world who put color aside and focus on doing what’s right, such as these black residents in Ferguson who came to the rescue of white business owners in the area, helping to protect their property.

From Opposing Views:

The white-owned Conoco gas station has remained open, though, because a group of male black Ferguson residents are keeping guard.

Derrick Johnson, a 6-foot-8 man, held an AR-15 assault rifle as he stood in a pickup truck near the station’s convenience store entrance. Three other men joined Johnson, each armed with pistols.

The men said they are protecting the store out of respect for the white owner, Doug Merello, who employed them over the course of several years, reports Inquisitr.

According to R.J., the men have chased away several groups of teenagers that were rampaging through the area.

This is an awesome display of the kind of unity that this country needs much more of.

What these citizens are doing transcends color and focus on right and wrong. It’s wrong to destroy the property of others and to take what doesn’t belong to you, regardless of whether or not the reason for your anger is justified.

We can only hope there are more folks like Johnson out there who are willing to look beyond superficial things like race and focus on doing good things for others.

Read more

What’s The Difference?

Sunday, November 30, 2014

In Mobile, Alabama on October 6, 2012, Officer Trevis Austin shot and killed an unarmed 18 year old male named Gilbert Collar. Despite public pressure for an idictment, a Mobile County Grand Jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

No riots, no looting, no protests, no lawlessness.

On August 9th, Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an 18 year old male named Michael Brown. Despite public pressure for an idictment, again a Grand Jury refused to bring charges against the Officer, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

Rioting, looting, protesting, lawlessness ensues.

If you want to understand the difference in the two situations, you should look at a picture of Officer Trevis Austin and the 18 year old he shot, Gilbert Collar. You should then look at a picture of Officer Darren Wilson and the 18 year old he shot, Michael Brown. You’ll see a stark contrast.

Tell me again who is responsible for the racial divide?

WhatsTheDifference

Conservative Calling liked this post

This guy absolutely NAILS it!

Conservative Calling liked this post

President Obama was casual on Sunday about the role Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber had played in the creation of Obamacare, saying Gruber was “some adviser who never worked on our staff.”

Gruber has been under fire in recent days after several videos emerged of him discussing the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. In one clip, Gruber called the American people “stupid.”

Democrats have tried to distance themselves from Gruber, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi going so far as to say, “I don’t know who he is,” although a clip of her from 2009 shows the Democratic leader talking about Gruber by name.

In this newly surfaced clip from April 5, 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks warmly about Gruber, saying at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Read more

Conservative Calling liked this post

“They, in my view, skipped over it, passed it up, kept it secret throughout the whole time when it would have been relevant to the news,” she said.

“And I think that was because they were trying to defend the president and they thought that would be harmful to him.”

That’s the shocking conclusion drawn by award-winning investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson about the actions of her former bosses at CBS News — people she claims were actively involved in an effort to protect Barack Obama going into the 2012 election.

Attkisson spent 20 years as a network reporter covering Obama scandals such as the Fast & Furious gun-running and the attack on the Benghazi compound that left four Americans dead.

She quit her prestigious CBS job after clashes with management and what Attkisson described as efforts to suppress or kill stories she was working on — stories that could have been highly critical of President Obama and top officials in the administration.

Read more

Conservative Calling liked this post

Though Democrats (and in particular, our Divider-in-Chief) love to talk about the need for the rich to “pay their fair share,” they never seem to address one of the most-unfair institutions facing Americans today: the income tax.

Though the rich and poor alike enjoy the benefits of taxpayer funds, they encounter this burden differently. The rich and poor alike enjoy the benefits of a strong military force, they both have the possibility of sending their children to “free” public schools and government accommodates both the rich and poor alike. In some instances, in fact, the poor have a better experience with taxpayer-funded goodies as the rich are forced to pay for housing, food and medical care for the poor and pay for such things for themselves.

Rather than focus on a flat-tax based on consumption (a national sales tax, for example), the only solutions to emerge from the mouths of liberals is “more taxes, more spending.”

The below video offers a simplified allegory that highlights the inherent lack of fairness to be found in our current, “progressive” income tax system.

Watch and wonder, at the end, how any logical person could defend such a system as “fair.”

Read more

Conservative Calling liked this post

New video shows ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, who made remarks about the “stupidity of the American voter,” insulting the intelligence of the electorate yet again in reference to the passage of the health care law.

As gun sales soared in 2013–with the number of background checks for gun sales breaking records–the FBI reports that violent crime fell sharply below 2012 figures, and property crime rates fell sharply too.

On January 6, Breitbart News reported there were 21,093,273 background checks for firearm purchasers conducted in America in 2013. And while this number of background checks represented a record, we explained then that the number of guns sold could be many times higher. That is because background checks are done on gun purchasers, not on the number of guns being purchased.

For instance, if everyone who went through a background check then purchased three guns, the number of guns sold in the retail market alone would have been 63,279,819. That’s not even counting the number sold privately.

And what happened as all these guns came into private hands? Violent crime and property crime fell.

According to an FBI report released on November 10: “violent crimes in 2013 decreased 4.4 percent when compared with 2012 figures, and the estimated number of property crimes decreased 4.1 percent [as well].”

These record gun sales and the subsequent reduction in crime square perfectly with a Congressional Research Service report covered by Breitbart News on December 4, 2013. That study showed that the number of privately owned firearms in America increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. At the same time, “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” fell from 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000.

The bottom line: more guns equals less crime.

Read more

Conservative Calling liked this post

Just when you think the man can’t get any more intrusive or idiotic, he goes and outdoes himself…

President Obama threw down the gauntlet Monday with cable companies and Internet providers by declaring they shouldn’t be allowed to cut deals with online services like YouTube to move their content faster.

It was his most definitive statement to date on so-called “net neutrality,” and escalates a battle that has been simmering for years between industry groups and Internet activists who warn against the creation of Internet “fast lanes.” The president’s statement swiftly drew an aggressive response from trade groups, which are fighting against additional regulation.

“We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme” regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry.

Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

“For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business,” Obama said in his statement. “That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.”

Obama’s statement puts him in the middle of a debate between industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission, which is under public pressure – now from Obama as well — to prevent broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes.”

Read more

One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.

In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.

“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Read more