FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss

Obama: Still a Community Organizer

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 31-07-2009


President Obama’s meeting with the Harvard professor, Gates, and the Cambridge cop, Crowley, last night was just one more example of Barack Obama’s life as a fish out of water. Like a carp washed up on shore still tries to gulp down the muddy river to sustain its life, so too, Mr. Obama continued with his community activism.

It is not the place of the president to mend fences between neighbors. As my wife said this morning, ‘[President] Obama must have missed orientation day when they handed out his jobs & responsibilities.”

Instead of acting presidential and saying, “I made a mistake. I mis-spoke and apologize to the police,” he couldn’t resist that photo op where he–being both black and white–could act as a bridge between a black man and a white man. I’m waiting for the left wing mainstream media to start talking about the similarities between this event and that great event roughly two thousand years ago, when Jesus Christ–both man and God–bridged the gap between God and men.

It may have been intended as a publicity stunt or a means of damage control for Obama’s acting “stupidly,” but it did nothing except further diminish the magnanimity of the office he holds. This bridging between a cop and a racist Harvard professor with a chip on his shoulder is a job for a community organizer, perhaps even the president of ACORN, but not the president of the United States. What’s next, a barbecue with the Klan and The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition? Next year, instead of children hunting for Easter eggs on the White House lawn, the Obamas plan to have a scavenger hunt where skinheads will hide and Louis Farrakhan and his men will find them. Afterward, they’ll sit at a large table with a black and white gingham table cloth, drinking that free bubble up and eating that rainbow stew as they laugh about how much fun they had.

Encounter with a national treasure (WW2 vet)

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 29-07-2009


A couple of days ago, I was in the grocery store and an elderly man passed me as I stopped to look at something. I noticed his ball cap as he walked by. As it happened, he had stopped in the middle of the aisle I went down next. So, I paused to talk to him because of what his hat said: WW II Veteran US Navy.

He didn’t look a day over 68, but promised me he was 84. He joined the USN in 1943 and served in the Pacific. His brother, eight years his senior, joined the army in ’41 and carried a flame thrower during the Okinawa invasion. Both made it back to the States in ’46.

As this member of the Greatest Generation (Mr. Tucker) and I stood and talked, our conversation changed from the War to today’s youthful generations–the under 40-crowd. The brilliance of his blue eyes dulled and a twinge of sadness dimmed his voice as he said, “This modern generation doesn’t deserve (he looked around so as not to offend) shit. They want everything handed to them.” Then he spoke of the Depression and how as an eight-year-old, he suffered along with his family. “These people today, when they want something, they just go and pick it up. They expect everyone to give them everything. No one wants to work for what they want or need.”

Our conversation shifted to the millions of Americans who do not deserve freedom because they are willing to trade liberty for comfort. And we spoke of America’s decline from Liberty and Patriotism into Socialism and a Globalist-mentality over the past 40 years.

In some respects, the twenty minutes I spent conversing with him, reminded me of those old commercials from the Seventies, where the Indian–with a tear in his eye–looked over the countryside at the pollution and trash. This country today is not the great nation he knew as a child.

We have given up so many of our essential liberties in order to feel secure. But what security can there be when a president can rewrite laws at will the way Obama did for GM & Chrysler? What security do we have when the government can accuse you of owing taxes and you are guilty until proved innocent? And what security does a taxpayer have when tax laws only apply to those who are not part of the elitist government?

We traded our only cow for some beans. These beans will not grow to some giant’s palace in the sky. Worse, they appear to be Mexican jumping beans, complete with lively worms inside.

Jodi Miller: WH applies for a bailout (NewsBusted)

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Humor, video | Posted on 27-07-2009


You gotta love Jodi Miller.

“Too big to fail” code for “I’m a socialist.”

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Economy | Posted on 27-07-2009


Ben Bernanke, the boss of the US central bank, has defended the US bail-out plan citing his fears of a second Great Depression, during a public talk.

“I was not going to be the Federal Reserve chairman who presided over the second Great Depression”, he said at an event in Kansas.

Helping finance firms as part of the $700bn (£424bn) stimulus plan had benefitted the wider economy, he said.

He added that more regulation was needed so no firm was too big to fail.

You can read the full article above at

Here’s the problem I have. No company is every too big to fail. This ridiculous term is anathema to capitalism and liberty. Think about it this way. In the 1850′s, there were companies making buggies. They are no longer around. And what of the largest manufacturer of horse whips, gas lamps, kerosene lamps, etc.

Move ahead to the Alena Steam Car or the Abbott-Detroit autos.

Liberals love to talk about and believe in evolution: eveolution of the species, evolution of society, even an evolutionary Constitution. But when it comes to companies, there is no evolution? Come on. Survival of the fittest says some companies need to die out. They won’t go completely extinct. They will be parceled and sold most likely. This trimming is the best and only way to turn a worthless, unprofitable company like GM–with its greedy union mobsters–into a worthwhile investment.

We can also apply the old maxim, necessity is the mother of invention. Were we to allow these titans to fall beneath the weight of their own lard, someone else would no doubt come along and fill the void. Perhaps 3 or 4 or 12 someone elses. A hundred years ago, there were no televisions or stereos. Now, we have DVDs, wide screen plasma sets, CDs, and satellite radios. Curiously, we are still using the same internal combustion technology for autos.

As long as our pathetic government mollycoddles morons in Detroit (or lsewhere), telling them they are too big to fail, there will be no real invention.

But none of this is about being “too big to fail.” It’s about the government believing the American public is too small and too stupid to stop them from taking away more rights and liberties. Like stare decisis is code for “I support Roe v Wade,” too big to fail is code for “I support socialism and government control of everyone else’s life.”

New anti-liberal & anti-Obama gear available

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner, Generic Shopping | Posted on 23-07-2009


We have added more anti-Obama and anti-Liberal gear at our cafepress store.

We still have more to upload and ideas for further products, so make sure you bookmark our store and check back often. If you go through our store, the prices should be less than just going through the main cafepress site.

Here’s a couple of the new designs:






Eruption over Obama’s Citizenship (video)

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 20-07-2009


This is a nice little video. Perhaps the way to solve this once and for all is to create a $1 million (or more) reward for the person who can produce the real official birth records and school admittance records for Barry Obama. During the election of 2004, we knew everything about GW, including his GPA. So why does Obama hide everything from the people? More importantly, why do those who cared so much about knowing all the details of GW’s life now stand silent when the false prophet Obama lectures from the pulpit?

Stare Decisis: Code for “I’m a Moron!”

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 20-07-2009


Stare decisis is code for “I support Roe v Wade.” For some reason, we look at it as laudible when we are interviewing potenential judges. Why?

The idea of stare decisis means “Maintain the decision.” In other words, it means uphold whatever has already been decided. But let’s take a minute to look at the folly of this.

In 1857, the Supreme Court decided the Constitution did not apply to slaves or ex-slaves.
In 1896, with Plessey v Feruson, the Supreme Court decided segregation was legally protected by the Constitution (Separate but equal was A-OK!).
In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled racial profiling was a good and acceptable  thing in its decision of Korematsu v United States.

Should these things not have been overturned simply because they were “settled law?” Should we go back and overturn all overturnings simply because the law was already decided? Of course not. There is only one litmus test for SCOTUS cases, have they been decided by the light of the Constitution or did the justices use contemporary mores to render a decision? There are countless Supreme Court cases that need to be overturned, including Wickard v Filburn (1942), Marbury v Madison (1803), and Kelo v the City of New London, CT.

As a public, we should stop allowing contestants for the SCOTUS to hide behind the stare decisis boulder. Tell us what you think about the Civil Rights cases of 1883 and the mid-20th Century. Tell us what you think about the application (and possibly abuse) of the Commerce Clause. And yes, tell us what you think about Roe v Wade.

Making a Mockery of the Supreme Court

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 20-07-2009


Obama, the media, and Congress make a mockery of the Supreme Court. And so does every person who chimes in on the importance of Sonia Sotomayor being the first Hispanic woman nominated for that position.

Yes, I understand everyone is paying homage at the altar of election ballots, trying to hype this so they can possibly pick up a few Hispanics in their tallies come next election cycle. But that doesn’t make it any less disgusting. If a survey came out saying one-in-four Americans have molested a dog at some point in their life, would the next candidate be a puppy-rapist? Would we see and hear all the rhetoric about how great it is we have someone who sexually abuses dogs on the Supreme Court?

What does gene pool have to do with the law? Nothing!

When one segment of people is constantly bowing down to another, begging favor and asking for table scraps because of that group’s ethnicity, we are not a colorblind society. When politicians pander to ethnic or sexual groups, extolling the virtues of that DNA or lifestyle, there is neither equality nor freedom.

Sixty years ago, blacks entered houses through the back doors. They said, “Yaasuh” and “No ma’am,” because they were trying to coddle up to the white folks, looking for crumbs from the table of their unofficial masters. Today, we do exactly the same thing in reverse. Where blacks were once second-class citizens, now whites and heterosexuals of every ethnicity are second class citizens in the eyes of politicians. The first class citizens are the ethnic and sexually different voting blocks.

This kneeling at the feet of Hispanics, praying a rosary of a hundred “Hail Sonias,” is disgusting, because it demonstrates the fact that politicians and the media still cannot look past the color of one’s skin to see the content of their character. Instead, they highlight and extol the virtues of one’s “blackness” or “Hispanicness.” We’ve come to expect this sort of racism from the democrats, but now republicans are playing the racism game, too.

If the Law is The Law, then gender, sexual preference, and ethnicity of a justice will not change the outcome of a decision one Iota. A white man will not render better decisions than a black man based upon his whiteness (we can contrast Justices Warren and Thomas as evidence).

Who cares if Sotomayor is Hispanic? Only a few things should truly matter. Does she revere the Constitution and the Law? Can she look past her Hispanicness and socio-economic status to apply the law equally to everyone, regardless of race or class? (The Ricci case says she cannot). Will she seek to legislate from the bench? (We already have too many justices doing this).

To bring up race or any other voting-block item for a potential justice is to make a mockery of the Supreme Court. It implies neither reason nor law are important, but that justice comes only with representation of special interest groups. If that’s the case, why don’t we figure out how many special interest groups are out there and create a Supreme Court with one person from each? Who cares about the Constitution? It isn’t as if we’re using it these days anyways!

The Death of Congress

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 17-07-2009


If it weren’t so downright scary, it would be humorous to watch the death of Congress. That once great body of respectable Americans is now little more than a terminal patient exhaling its tidal breath. Other than the charade of “Liberty,” there is no cause to have a Congress any more. Comrade Obama has appointed at least 32 czars already. These mini dictators follow lock step with our fearless dictator Obama. Best of all (if you are an authoritarian), they answer to no one except dear leader Obama.

It’s amazing that we lasted 233 years with a system of check and balances. Sure, some presidents took extra-constitutional liberties, like Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, but we always managed to maintain a modicum of republican governance. What lasted those 233 years, however, has been destroyed in just a few months with the election of the most divisive president ever. Using his original 52% of the vote as a means of enslaving the other 48%, Mr. Obama has set himself up as the king of the empire–the dictator of the United socialist States of America.

And Congress, Congress sits back as he circumvents them. Congress smiles and nods as our modern tyrant makes a mockery of them and the Constitution. Congress applauds its own death, knowing once Obama has finished killing them, he will have them stuffed, mounted, and preserved like puppets to do his bidding until the end of his dictatorship.

Oh well, Congress won’t be missed that much. It wasn’t as if they were actually doing their job for the past 40 years. They’ve been too busy campaigning and giving themselves raises.

The stupidest phrase in english: REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 13-07-2009


The current hearings on la Sra. Sotomayor has made me stop and think about one of the dumbest phrases in American english: reverse discrimination. Let’s consider this for a moment. Discrimination is a noun: defines it as:



 treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

The definition for the verb is almost identical:

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:

So, the question becomes, how does one discriminate in reverse? Some verbs cannot be done in reverse. For example, what would be the definitions of reverse-eating or reverse-birth? One is either eating or not. If the cow killed a human and ate it, would we say it reverse ate or would we say it simply “ate” a person?

Our ridiculous, politically correct government and society has created a euphamism to keep the horrible face of discrimination from shining upon non-whites. It’s as if discrimination is something only racist white folks can do.

We can look at this in another light: vigilanteism. Think of someone like Charlie Bronson. A man’s wife is raped and killed by some thugs, so that man goes out and starts shooting and killing gangbangers & hoodlums. Would we say he is a reverse muderer or a reverse criminal? Of course not. Something is either criminal or not.

The same holds true with discrimination. Someone either sides with a particular group based upon affinity for that group or its cause–or they do not. There is no “reversing” that verb, just as there is no reversing the act of eating (vomiting is a completely different act). A person is either a racist or not a racist. A person either believes one group is superior to another or they believe all groups are equal. There are no middle grounds in these instances. There are no reverse pregnancies or half-pregnant women in the real world.

So, can we please stop using these ridiculous, made-up phrases which are meant solely to soften crimes when perpetrated by a particular group of people? Not hiring someone because he is black is discriminatory. Not hiring someone because he is Jewish is discriminatory. And not hiring someone because he is white is discriminatory. The sooner we stop using euphamisms designed to shelter particular groups, the sooner we can move into a truly equal, post-racial society.

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.