Smokers in the UK may Soon Have to be Licensed
Under a proposal by the health advisory body in Britain smokers would need to buy a permit in order to buy cigarettes. You read that right, a person would need a permit to BUY cigarettes.
Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.
No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.
This takes the whole anti-smoking agenda to a whole new level. Smokers are perhaps the most taxed group in the free world. Whenever government needs more money they go after the most politically correct group to tax, smokers. And now on top of all the taxes being levied on smokers the British government wants to tax them again in the form of a smokers license. This is amazing.
It goes without saying that the government is claiming that they are doing it for the citizen’s own good.
“70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking.
“So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference.”
Smokers aren’t strong willed enough to quit, or maybe not smart enough to realize they should quit, according to the enlightened among us, so they will make it harder and harder to smoke until the unwashed masses realize that they don’t want to smoke anymore.
If you give an inch they will take a mile, so the saying goes, and these people just keep taking and taking and taking.
You may wonder why I would get so worked up over something that is happening in another country that will never affect me. I will tell you why. It is only a matter of time before that idea makes it to America and the nanny staters who think they are so much smarter than us will think this is a good idea. It is only a matter of time before Americans become affected by this ridiculous attempt at reigning in personal choices. And while as a non smoker I will never be affected even if this makes it over here, I am strongly opposed to the destruction of personal choices and rights and the destruction of personal freedoms and personal responsibility. We don’t need the government intruding on everyday lifestyles of any American citizen, even it it is politically acceptable to go after a certain group that has suddenly become outlawed by public perception.
Where will it stop? Smokers and non smokers need to stand together in opposition to the social tyranny that is being thrust upon us. I may not be affected by this, and you may not be affected by this, but what comes next? Where will it end? Will you and I be the next politically correct group to be in the sights of the personal freedom assassin’s rifle?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Hillary Clinton vs the DNC for Florida and Michigan Delegates
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Cross posted on Political Gravitas!
I haven’t written about this topic yet, but I certainly am enjoying it. This is going to be fun as Hillary Clinton has reached such desperate times that she is trying to have the Florida and Michigan delegates counted.
This is the type of person that Hillary is. She and all the other Democrats agreed not to campaign in these two states because the Democrat committee punished the states for breaking party rules. Hillary then goes on to campaign there anyway, giving a big “FUCK YOU” to the rest of the party. She is now using her political might to have those delegates counted because her campaign is in such disarray. TEE HEE.
Just think of the arrogance that this shows. Hillary will stop at nothing to gain the presidency, and now that her inevitability has worn off and her coronation is in doubt she is going to pull out all the stops. She knew full well that Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates wouldn’t be seated and she was fine with that until she started to lose. Now she wants the rules changed and the delegates to be seated. She now claims that the states were disenfranchised.
Hillary was the only major candidate on the Michigan ballot because all the other candidates did the right thing and pulled their names off the ballot. Hillary left her name on the ballot, evidently she always had this fall back plan in case her campaign started to falter, and it has. Hillary is willing to play by the rules as long as she is winning, but if she begins to lose, all bets are off.
What does this tell us about the character of this woman who wants to be president? Do we really want a president who when things don’t go her way is so willing to subvert the rules that would make her president? How will she react to adversity as president? Will she run off and pout if other world leaders don’t give her her way? Perhaps she will just cry, we’ve seen how easily she can be brought to tears. Perhaps she will lie to them to get what she wants and then turn around screw them over. That’s the way to get back America’s standing in the world that Democrats claim we have lost, huh?
This is just an example of how calculating the Clinton’s are. She knowingly promised not to campaign in these states that were being punished and all the other candidates took her at her word and also promised not to campaign there also. That was Obama’s mistake, he should know as the rest of America does, that the Clinton’s can never, never be taken at their word. When push comes to shove the Clinton’s always have a card up their sleeve and in this case it was to manipulate the Democrat candidates to stay away from two states that were punished so that she could win them and then try to get the states reinstated.
In the end this shows a lack of integrity, it shows her manipulating and calculating ways, it shows her lack of character, and above all it shows that she is not ready to be president of the United States.
Barack Obama may be even more to the left than Hillary, and he may not be ready to be president, but at least he has integrity and character. Two things that Hillary Clinton does not.
As can be read here, New Hampshire Democrats are having a hell of a time trying to divide up the delegates between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. The problem isn’t about how many delegates each candidate should receive, but who should be chosen as delegates.
New Hampshire Democrats have imposed racial preferences and given certain ethnic groups priority when it comes to being members of the delegation.
Complicating the puzzle for the elections of occupants for the open delegation seats are the national Democratic requirement that the delegation be evenly split between men and women and the state New Hampshire Democratic Party’s self-imposed affirmative action goal.
That goal, according to the party’s convention delegate selection plan, is that 12, or 35 percent, of the 34 delegates and alternates represent one or more of what the party calls “HUGs,” historically under-represented groups. These groups are African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian-Pacific American, multi-racial, seniors 65 and over, young people 18 to 24, disabled and gay/lesbian/transgender.
HUGS? Historically under-represented groups? Here we go again with Democrat looking at people and seeing race and sexually orientation instead of just seeing people. This is just further proof that Democrats are dividing people into separate groups, and this is aimed at bringing us together? Can anyone out there explain this twisted logic to me?
Later on in this story we see the truth behind why the Democrats are so concerned with these HUGS.
“We definitely look better if New Hampshire rolls into Denver with a diverse delegation,”
Because they will look better. Isn’t that nice? It is all about appearance with these people, no substance. By looking better Democrats feel better about themselves. They look like they care so much about others when they really only care about how others see them. They don’t give a dman about these groups. they just want people to think they give a damn about these groups. Perception becomes reality.
So now a state that is about 95% white has to find delegates from all these other groups, groups the politically correct liberals created in the first place and they can’t determine how to hand out their delegates.
I have used this line before, but I am going to use it again. America used to be called the melting pot but Democrats have turned it into the crock pot. All of the different ingredients are added, but instead of becoming one culture, as in the melting pot, the cultures remain distinct and different effectively ending America’s culture.
We are all Americans (well, except for the illegals, but if Obama, Clinton or McCain have their way they will also be Americans), it is time to stop separating people into groups for some politically correct agenda. It is time to stop this quota system where some races are put above other races. That is not American. That is not America. Democrats have put themselves in this position by playing up the differences between races, and how unfair America is and now their own politically correct game has them tied up in knots. Instead of believing America is the land of opportunity they have taught different ethnic groups that America sucks, they have gone out of their way to try and show them how much they care, and now they can’t even decide who to send to the Democrat national convention because they want to make sure that they look good to everyone else.
Maybe Democrats should stop being concerned with how they look and start being concerned with how they act.
Cindy Sheehan is in Egypt Protesting on Behalf of Terrorists
Just when you thought you heard it all when it came to Cindy Sheehan comes this story. Cindy Sheehan is in Egypt protesting in favor of suspected terrorists.
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood will be going on trial in Eqypt for terrorism and Sheehan doesn’t think it is fair.
Here is the Brotherhood’s motto, according to Wikipedia:
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope
Here is how the Brotherhood feels about women, again from Wikipedia:
On the issue of women and gender the Muslim Brotherhood interprets Islam quite strictly. Its founder called for “a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior,” “segregation of male and female students,” a separate curriculum for girls, and “the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes
Here are some of the activities that the Brotherhood are alleged to be involved with:
- The Brotherhood is widely believed to have had a `secret apparatus` responsible for terrorist attacks in Egypt including the assassination of Egypt’s prime minister in 1948.
- The Brotherhood currently advocates suicide bombing attacks on civilians to fight Zionism, and its Palestinian wing Hamas targets both civilians and the military in Israel.
- Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff report connections between al-Qaeda and Brotherhood figures Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada.
- A similar article in the Financial Times reported financial links between 74-year-old Swiss Muslim convert, businessman and neo-Nazi Ahmed Huber, and MB members, notably Youssef Nada, Ali Himmat and who founded the Al Taqwa Bank. According to the U.S. government, Al Taqwa “has long acted as financial advisers to al-Qaeda.” Huber himself is noted in Europe for his links with alleged neo-Nazi and other far right elements. He is reported to have “confirmed” having “had contact with associates of Osama bin Laden at an Islamic conference in Beirut,” whom he called `very discreet, well-educated, very intelligent people.`
- Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, an “expert in the art of deception” was an influential lobbyist and founder and head of the Brotherhood-linked American Muslim Council before being convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for conspiracy to murder Saudi Prince Abdullah at the behest of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Cindy Sheehan has this to say about the suspected terrorist who are to go on trial:
“I am here to protest the trial of civilians in front of a military tribunal as this is a violation to international law,”
I am not sure why I let the actions of this one obviously deranged woman bother me, but I do. Just think about this scenario for a second. Cindy Sheehan is no longer just protesting the war. While I may disagree with her war protest, that was her right. Cindy Sheehan is now protesting on behalf of terrorists, this is different and much worse that protesting a war.
Cindy Sheehan has gone from war protester to terrorist sympathiser, she is embarrassing her son’s name, and demeaning what he fought for. She has now gone well beyond what I find reasonable, responsible, and acceptable. She has now entered Jane Fonda territory.
Barack Obama’s Campaign Headquarters Displays a Communist Flag
Barack Obama recently opened up a new campaign headquarters in Houston, Texas. At this new campaign office something rather interesting is noticable, just watch the video below to see what it is:
Right next to the picture of Barack Obama is a Cuban flag with Che Guevara’s portrait. this just shows us the type of person who is supporting Barack Obama. I am not going to say that Barack Obama even knows about this, but it does make you wonder about his supporters, doesn’t it? People who are so enthralled with the communist, terrorist Che Guevara that they would publically display a flag with his image on it in a campaign office for a candidate running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ia alarming.
This is not the first flag controversy that Obama has been involved in, we all remember the lapel flag pin flap, where Obama stopped wearing the lapel pin so he wouldn’t seem too pro America to the terrorists.
And, just in case you forgot:
Obama looking disinterested while the national anthem was playing, and refusing to put his hand over his heart. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? We have two incidents where Obama shows contempt and disdain for America’s symbols and one incident where his supporters proudly display a communists image superimposed on a communist flag.
It makes you wonder who his policies are more in line with, communists or free market ideals, when you see that Obama’s supporters are also fans of Che Guevara.
Wake Up America Joins Political Gravitas!
Political Gravitas is a new conservative blog that is looking for authors. I found out about it while I was surfing the Grizzly Groundswell the other day. I asked to become an author and my request was accepted. I will be cross posting some of my articles there as well. Political Gravitas! also has a forum set up where readers can go to discuss the issues.
This is a critical time for the future of our country and I believe that we as conservative have to stand up and let our voices be heard. I believe that Political Gravitas! gives us another forum to be heard.
I recommend that readers here will also check out Political Gravitas! now and watch it grow. It is in it’s infancy now, but together we can watch it grow up in front of our eyes.
Mayor Bloomberg Compares Global Warming to Terrorism
In this article New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, compared global warming to terrorism.
“Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people,” Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but “global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody.”
Actually, I interpret this comment as meaning that global warming is more dangerous than terrorism. After all terrorist have only been able to kill three thousand Americans in one day, global warming has the potential to wipe us all out. We are doomed. Talk about the politics of fear. Republicans have been accused of running on the politics of fear since 9/11, yet Democrats have not been held accountable for the same fear tactics.
For the sake of argument I will agree that some Republicans have run on fear tactics. But so have many Democrats. Democrats have for decades told seniors that Republicans were going to take away their social security. Democrats have told the poor for decades that Republicans were going to take away their kiss in the mail known as welfare. If this isn’t campaigning on fear tactics, I don’t know what is.
Now we have the latest fear tactic being exploited by the left, global warming. Bloomberg has said that global warming poses the risk of killing everybody in the world. A much greater risk than terrorism if this were true. However, he also admits that scientists might not know what the hell they are talking about.
No scientist knows for sure what’s going to happen, but you don’t want to wait to find out.”
Actually, I DO want to find out. Until global warming can be proved to be linked to human activity, if there even is global warming, people like Mayor Bloomberg can kiss my non-green ass.
This is the politics of fear at it finest, but at it’s core is not the goal of winning elections, although that is desirous, the goal is control over the people. When I talk control over the people I am talking about control through regulations. And by regulations it can naturally be deduced that fees, otherwise known as taxes, will be implemented. Through fear comes regulations, through regulation come taxes, and that is the bottom line of this whole asinine global warming debate.
Pennsylvania Governor says Whites Aren’t Ready to Vote for Obama
Cross posted at Political Gravitas!
This is what Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, had to say about his constituents:
“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.
Before I even get to my rant I just wanted to point out that Ed Rendell is considered one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters. This begs me to ask the question, is he hoping that his constituents are too racist to vote for Obama? After all, he doesn’t care how she wins, as long as she wins, right? Once again the left has to play the race card to try to help Hillary get the nomination. I am thoroughly enjoying the way race has been pitted against gender in this election by the party that is supposed to be color and gender blind. You can’t read an article by the mainstream media about Obama which doesn’t remind everyone that he is trying to become the first black president. As if we needed reminding. And I thought conservatives were supposed to be the racists. WRONG!
Now on to my rant.
The first part of Ed Rendell’s statement is what draws my attention. He says, “you’ve got conservative whites here”. Why does this draw my attention? Because he follows up the “conservative whites” part of that statement with his proclamation that these whites may not be able to vote for a black man, meaning Obama. I say meaning Obama for a reason, and I will explain this next.
The key words in his description of his constituents are “conservative” and “whites”. He is right to assume that conservative whites won’t vote for Obama, but he implies it is because conservative whites are racists. Conservative whites are, I know this is hard to believe, CONSERVATIVES. Obama is NOT A CONSERVATIVE, that is why conservative whites won’t vote for him. It has nothing to do with the “whites” part of his statement and has everything to do with the “conservative” part of the statement. Conservative whites would have no problem voting for a conservative black man if they felt he was the best candidate.
Why is it that white, conservative men are the only group of people in America about whom it is still okay to stereotype? I am getting so sick and tired of this I can’t even express my outrage.
Throughout this election process it has been the liberal Democrats who have constantly brought race into the picture. This is yet another example of liberal Democrats bringing up race and reminding everyone that Obama can’t be elected because he is black. Who are the racists here? I think Obama can win, in fact I think he has a better chance of winning a general election than Hillary. That scares me not because he is a black man, that scares me because he is even more liberal than Hillary.
That is the real difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives look at the issues and vote with their heads, they vote for the candidate that best holds their ideals. Liberals look at the candidates and vote with their emotions, they vote for which candidate makes them feel better.
Here we have a Clinton supporter again injecting race into the race by saying conservatives won’t vote for Obama, conveniently forgetting that conservatives won’t be voting in the Democrat primaries. Why? Because he is trying to play the race card for the general election, he wants to persuade people to vote for Hillary because she is white, and as a white person stands a better chance of being elected. What is more racist than that?
Nancy Pelosi Claims the Surge is a Failure, al Qaeda Disagrees
While most people, including John Murtha, have admitted that the surge is working, Nancy Pelosi is still holding firm to the idea that it has been a failure. She ignores the fact that Anbar province, which was the worst section of Iraq, has been handed over to Iraqi forces. She also must be unaware of the report that all of Iraq could be in handed over to the Iraqi’s this year.
“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”
And
“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.
The political change mantra is a sly little shift in the verbiage when talking about the Iraq war. Pelosi and her minions have stopped saying that we can’t win militarily, they are now talking about the United States not being able to win politically. The political change and reconciliation she refers to, while necessary, have nothing to do with the surge. The surge was meant to go in and secure the worst areas of Iraq militarily. And the United States has done that.
This political reconciliation talk of hers comes from the benchmarks that the Democrats tried to tie into the war funding. The same benchmarks which failed and were never agreed upon. Now she is trying to change the goals of the surge. She is trying to say Iraq isn’t meeting the goals that the Democrats tried and failed to force upon the United States military.
If you can stand to read any more about this woman you can here.
So Nancy Pelosi says that the surge has failed, yet al Qaeda says this in a letter that was seized by United States soldiers:
“There were almost 600 fighters in our sector before the tribes changed course 360 degrees . . . Many of our fighters quit and some of them joined the deserters . . . As a result of that the number of fighters dropped down to 20 or less.”
“We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers who used to be part of the Jihadi movement, therefore we must not have mercy on those traitors until they come back to the right side or get eliminated completely.”
And:
He said of the loss of Anbar province: “This created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down . . . There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organisation.” The emir complained that the supply of foreign fighters had dwindled and that they found it increasingly hard to operate inside Iraq because they could not blend in. Foreign suicide bombers determined to kill “not less than 20 or 30 infidels” grew disillusioned because they were kept hanging about and only given small operations. Some gave up and went home.
Nancy Pelosi and al Qaeda don’t quite see the surge in the same light now do they? I find it interesting that someone halfway around the world, sitting on her throne with her gavel in her hand can have such a differing opinion than the people who are on the receiving end of America’s wrath.
Nancy Pelosi continues to push her far left anti-war propaganda, distorting the facts of what the surge was supposed to do by blurring it with the Democrat’s surrender to the enemy benchmark plan. Meanwhile al Qaeda paints a totally different picture.
Who would you believe? Nancy Pelosi knows that as long as she keeps distorting the true goals of the surge, her constituents, who are blinded by hatred for the president, will continue to fall in line. They won’t even question her blatant distortions of the facts because they want to believe it. She also knows that the more she repeats her bullshit the more normal people among us will eventually begin to think it must be fact. If a lie is repeated enough it becomes fact. That is her only goal here.
Read more about al Qaeda in panic mode here.
Nobel Prize Winner says Obama will be Assassinated if Elected President
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Nobel prize winner Dorris Lessing had the following to say about Barack Obama:
“would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him,”
I can’t believe that in this day and age people still think that way. If this were the case Obama would not have gotten this far in the election process. This woman is a joke. In a way she was using this to give a back-handed endorsement to Hillary Clinton:
Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama,” she said.
Now that is what I call the politics of fear. She is basically telling Democrat voters to not waste their vote on Obama because he will just be killed anyway, so vote for Hillary. It will be safer. Have you ever heard anything as ludicrous as that? If she wanted to endorse Hillary, fine. But to make a statement like that is inappropriate, and ill-advised. Do you think Hillary accepted this endorsement?
Again, I just can’t get past the fact that these liberals look at everything in such a negative light all the time. She looks at Barack Obama and immediately sees he is a black man running for president, she doesn’t see a man running for president. I’ve said this many times before, and I apologize for repeating myself, but I just can’t help it, this is a group of people who are supposed to be above race, yet they are the ones constantly reminding us that Obama is a black man.
Now I have to ask myself, who does she mean will assassinate Barack Obama just because he is black? We know it couldn’t be a Democrat, because they are color blind (except when they remind us Obama is black), and it couldn’t be a liberal. So can I reasonably jump to the conclusion that Lessing believes that if Obama is elected president some white, racist conservative will kill Barack Obama? I did jump to that conclusion, that is exactly what I believe she means.
I would also like to ask, would you put it past the Clinton’s to be the ones behind getting this idea out there? We all know how power hungry they are, they long to get back to the white house so they can pimp out the Lincoln bedroom again. (Can I say that, or will I be suspended?) I wouldn’t put it past them to try to use this as a means to gather votes. The Clinton’s injected race into this primary a long time ago, this just seems like the natural progression of the issue to me. After all, this isn’t the first time talk of a possible Barack Obama assassination has come up:
Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated.
She was introducing Hillary Clinton when she made that comment. I don’t find it unthinkable that the Clinton’s are behind this.
And lastly, where is the outrage? Does nobody else find this offensive? Why haven’t I heard the condemnation of this woman? Let’s just fast forward for a moment here. Let’s just pretend that John McCain and Barack Obama have become their party’s respective nominees. Now let’s pretend that in endorsing John McCain someone, it doesn’t even matter who, said that John McCain was a safer choice for president because Obama will probably be assassinated. What would the media say then? I think we know. The media would be calling for this person’s head on a silver platter. Yet now the story is ignored.
I can’t even begin to explain how offensive I find this woman’s remark. Not just because I believe she was talking about how a conservative Republican would just naturally have to kill Barack Obama if he was president, but because she would believe that any American period would murder Barack Obama.
America is the land of opportunity, the greatest country on earth, and is pisses me off that a person such as this just naturally has to see the worst in a country that offers so much to so many.
Read the source material here.
