Inside The Compound

Monterey Tea party Protest: We're BACK!!!

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:56:00 +0000

Monterey Tea Party Protest

I have a hunch you won’t be reading about this protest in local, Monterey County papers, but there was another Tea Party Protest at the Window-by-the-Bay in Monterey yesterday (16 January 2010).

My estimate is there were about 120-150 people attending. (Anyone who was there and has a more accurate count can correct me.)

The protest seemed to go rather smoothly for the most part. There was one brief confrontation between two of the attendees, one who was carrying a sign which said in part “Gays are afraid to debate me” and another who was apparently a sodomite and was offended by the sign. The argument was brief and I wasn’t close enough to hear much of the conversation. Eventually the apparent queer swished off back to where he came and the other gentleman disappeared to parts unknown. I never saw him for the rest of the protest. Even I would have to admit that a sign about queers is a bit out of place at a Tea Party protest which is generally meant to be a protest against big government and unconstitutional spending..

Many of the people passing by either waved or honked their horns in support of us. Of course if you were to believe Congressman Sam Farr(left) and his ilk, you would think there was little opposition to the attempted government take over of health “care”.

Speaking of Farr(left) and his ilk, I overheard one of his mindless minions at the Sand City Border's calling Republicans “know nothings” because they’re opposed to government health care (and rationing).

But then again it was Farr(left) who claimed people opposed to government health care “didn’t care” about those less fortunate. But what can one expect from the Prince of Pork and his followers.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Lunch with a Liberal (Don’t do it.)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:26:00 +0000

Being as I thoroughly despise liberals and barely consider most of them to be human beings, I would never knowingly date a liberal, but a mutual friend told me she was a Conservative. I don’t hold that against them, the woman (as are most liberals) was a bit deceitful.

I do have to admit, my “Spider sense” was going off a bit when we first met, as it sometimes does when I’m in the presence of liberals. I was a bit fooled by her during an earlier discussion with her when she said she was a gun owner and feared there were people (Her people I would have added had I known she was a liberal) who wanted to ban guns.

(Note: Many liberals, may nearly completely follow the liberal line, but still differ from the pack on one issue or another. That often fools some Conservatives into thinking that some liberals can be reasoned with and that we can work with them. Not so.)

Lunch began with her arriving 30-60 minutes late.

After a few pleasantries, she mentioned she was going to a local law college. I asked her if she knew one of the professors there, who I knew was a member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), an organization recognized by a Congressional Committee as a Communist Front group. This same individual is associated with several other far-Left causes and groups.

When I mentioned this professor was a Communist she asked me with a completely straight face, “What’s wrong with Communism?” The lunch date went downhill from there. I don’t remember what my response was, but generally government ownership and/or control of businesses that should remain private is a bad thing. Their habit of stifling speech and religion probably isn’t a good idea either.

She asked how I felt about certain issues like infanticide, AKA: abortion on demand, anytime, anyplace for any reason. I of course take the view that a baby shouldn’t be killed because the mother refuses to either keep her pants on or use protection.

Of course my liberal date feels that the baby is “Leeching” off of her body and that she has the “right” to murder it because carrying it to term would be an inconvenience to her.

Like most Black liberals, she is opposed to homosexual “marriage”, but on every other issue, she’s a typical liberal.

As liberals are wont to do and especially liberals who attend law schools that have professors who associate Communist front groups, she claims the “separation of Church and state” is in the Constitution. I pointed out that phrase does not appear in the Constitution. (I should have also added it isn’t even implied in the Constitution)

She insisted that it was and told me I could look it up. Unknown to her, I keep a copy of the Constitution in my vehicle. I retrieved my copy and showed her the First Amendment, which of course say nothing about the “separation of Church and state”. Still being in the state of denial (another liberal habit) she asked me where I got my copy and I told her it may have been from an NRA meeting.

The poor airhead told me I couldn’t believe anything coming from the NRA, as if they would put out their own edited version of the Constitution. Perhaps she thinks the NRA has some liberal habits.

She also commented on my bumper stickers. She told me it was dangerous for me to have them, stating some liberal may take a shot at me or attack me in some other violent way.

Her statement confirms another reason why liberals are dangerous, because many of them think it is ok to use violence to quiet any opposition to their agenda. I had another erstwhile friend who told me my vehicle should be vandalized because the bumper stickers were “Hate speech”.

Needless to say, me and this liberal won’t be dating anytime soon, but she still had no problem leting me pay for the meal.

Typical liberal.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Kwanzaa: Celebrating Racism

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:52:00 +0000

When I first heard about Kwanzaa, back when I was in my pre-teen years it sounded to me like an attempt by race-baiting Black activists to have a holiday similar to, but completely separate from the “White” Christmas holiday. In other words, a way to build a greater divide between Blacks and Whites, and I never took it seriously or even as a legitimate holiday.

It wasn’t until twenty years or more later that I found that what I thought instinctively was in fact, true.

Kwanzaa was the “brainchild” of professional race-baiting activist and criminal Ron Korenga. (Formerly Ronald Everett) Korenga formed a Black racist cult called the United Slaves, a group formed in opposition to the Black Panther party.

In 1970, Korenga and two of his followers were arrested for torturing two of his female followers. Korenga thought they were trying to poison him. But then again, Korenga did have some problems determining fact from fantasy.

A 1971 psychological profile of him described Korenga, “as a danger to society who is in need of prolonged custodial treatment in prison.” And that while he was legally sane, was not in complete touch with reality.

It’s amazing that any sane person would take a “holiday” created by this racist nut job as serious.

Kwanzaa, no thanks, I’ll stick with Christmas.

For those of you who’ve recently attended public schools or have liberals as parents, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, also known as the Son of God who came to reconcile fallen Man with God.

Granted, the actual day The Christ was born is debated even by Christians and while the Christmas as celebrated in December may have been taken from a pagan holiday, there’s no debate that today, Christmas celebrates the Lord’s birth.

Christmas is a Holiday all races can celebrate.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Whatever Happened to the Patriot Act?

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:19:00 +0000

When the Patriot Act was passed, something I was opposed to, the Left in This Country whined, bleated and moaned about how it would be used to end all Constitutional rights as we knew it and investigate anyone opposed to President Bush.

I honestly can’t tell you what is in it, but I have plenty of company. Most of Congress voted for it without ever reading the bill.

As a rule of thumb, I’m generally opposed to anything that will give the government more power to investigate citizens without a good reason. I did however know that President Bush would use it for its intended use, investigating and conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists. My concern was that a demoncrat president would use the Act to investigate anyone (read, Conservatives) who disagreed with him and his socialist agenda.

I predicted when it was passed that if the Reds took over congress that they would quiet their whining about the Act until the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election. While I’m no psychic, what I predicted came to pass. The Reds won the Congressional elections and complaints about the Patriot Act faded. When the Mocha Marxist won the Presidential election, all talk of the Patriot Act went oddly (not really) silent.

Shortly after B. Hussein Obama took office, the Left started bleating about fears of violence from the “extremists” on the Right. The fear of violence from Right-Wing “extremists” was being propagated by the DHS, and Left-Wing propaganda groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and MilitiaWatchDog.org and other assorted Left-Wing sites.

It appears to me that the Patriot Act, using “warnings” about Right-Wing “extremists” from the above mentioned groups will be used to target Conservatives groups and individuals.

But then again, I could just be one of those paranoid, Right-Wing “extremists”. Don’t be surprised if you hear about DHS, Jack Bauer-types storming my house.

Robot

BryanGrasper@live.com

831-869-9932

Prayer for B. Hussein Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:48:00 +0000

Psalms: 109:8; Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office (KJV)

The above Bible verse has been adopted by many patriots as a prayer for B. Hussein Obama, and has been made into a (now, hard to find) bumper sticker.

As could have been expected, the Left, who generally don’t believe in The Bible or God in the first place sniveled and whined about the use of the Verse. There have even been a few misguided Christians and Conservatives who voiced their complaints about using this verse as a prayer
They claim that verse 8 is a coded way of calling for B. Hussein’s assassination and that the following verses call for bad things to happen to his children.
Oddly enough (not really), there wasn’t one peep from the Left when an actual movie was produced about the assassination of President George Bush.
No one using that verse as a prayer for B. Hussein intends it for “trolling for assassins” as one Christian commentator calls it, nor do we want any harm to come to his children
The hope and prayers of the people using that verse is for the days of B. Hussein in office to be few, i.e. removal by way of impeachment, perhaps due to him not being a U.S. citizen or removal from office by some other non-violent means.
Again, I mention how the left didn’t make ONE PEEP about the movie about Bush’s assassination.
I’ve attempted to find one of the bumper stickers and as of yet, have been unable to find one.
CafePress.com apparently carried the stickers at one time but due to whining, and perhaps their political leanings have stopped carrying them.
While I buy most of my Conservative bumper stickers from CafePress.com and their RightWingStuff.com section, CafePress also has a LeftWingStuff section, which tells me they’re mercenary and are only out for a buck and are either left-wing or that they have no particular political leanings. I personally prefer to deal with True Believers, but alas I haven’t been able to find the Obama prayer stickers on their sites either.
I came close using a website that customizes bumper stickers, but several days after placing the order, I received an e-mail from the telling me they were much too cowardly (granted, I’m paraphrasing) to print the sticker.
What the Left needs to accept is there are some Patriots, who care about This Country and aren’t going to silently stand by and let this Mocha Marxist destroy The Country.

Robot
BryanGrasper@live.com
www.InsideTheCompound.com
831-869-9932

Has The GOP Moved too far to the Right? (Only if you’re a Marxist)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:22:00 +0000

We’ve all heard it before the Republican Party is moving too far to the Right and is being taken over by Christian Fundamentalists. The people who say this fall into one of either two categories, the uniformed fools who actually believe a particular commonly held GOP stand is “extremist” and the shameless Marxist degenerates who want to fool the afore-mentioned group into going along with them out of fear of being labeled an “extremist” if they use their common sense.

Lately, within the 20 years or so two of the views labeled as only being held by “extremist” is opposition to queer “marriage” and the use of infanticide (abortion) as a method of birth control. The past ten years have added opposition to illegal aliens (and providing them with government handouts) and questioning the reality of “global warming” as “extremist” views. Since the election of B. Hussein Obama, opposition to socialized health care is labeled as “extremist”.

Those of us in the real world and who have been around for longer than say, two weeks realize that opposition to the above-mentioned social issues didn’t just start with the election of George Bush. (Either Big Bush or the Shrub)

Some of you may not know it but killing a baby as a form of birth control wasn’t always legal or even morally accepted. To be honest, abortion isn’t one of my main issues, mainly because it is usually liberal females who abort their children. To paraphrase one of the dons from The Godfather (The original one), liberals are animals. Let them lose their souls. My attempts at being kinder and gentler since I first thought those words haven’t been fruitful. However, I do think abortion should never have been legalized and it should again be criminalized.

The abortion lobby claims that banning abortions will lead to (slutty) women dying in back alleys due to botched abortions. I tend to think that instead, young (and older) women will think twice before jumping in bed with someone they aren’t planning to marry.

While on the subject of marriage, the label “extremist” is also placed on people opposed to queer “marriage”.

Years ago, perhaps 20-30 years ago, two men, two women or even an adult of either gender could marry a sheep or any four-legged creature of their choice. During those years before the “extremists” took over I remember attending many a wedding where two men or two women would stand in front of a pastor to be joined in (un)Holy matrimony and then go skipping down the isle, hand in hand for a life of bliss and possibly some bizarre sexually-transmitted disease.

Actually, NO! There have never been queer “marriages” in This Country and 10-20 years ago nearly everyone recognized homosexuality for what it was, an amoral, unnatural act performed by people with serious sexual identity problems.

Basically, the point I’m making is the Republican Party isn’t “moving to the Right”, much to my disappointment. As can be seen by “Republican” candidates like John McCain, “Republican” governors like Arnold Schwarzen-Kennedy, the party is moving to the left.

The problem the degenerates have is that it isn’t moving to the left far enough and there are real Republicans (at least until they switch to Independent) who will fight the RINOs every step of the way.

Robot

831-869-9932

Crying Racism is the new McCarthyism

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:06:00 +0000

First off, the title of my piece isn’t meant to give any credence to the Left-Wing slanders against Senator Joe McCarthy (Who was right), it’s meant to point out how the Left uses the false accusation of “racism” to silence any opposition to B. Hussein Obama’s Socialist agenda, in the same way they cried “McCarthyism!”, whenever someone points out their attempts to move This Country toward Communism.

One would think anyone would feel like a total fools for believing opposition to Obama equals “racism”, especially considering that Conservatives and some Moderates (Moderate means you’re only wrong half the time) opposed the Socialist agendas of the Clinton administration and the Socialist agendas proposed by the presidential campaigns of Gore and Kerry.

No, while some of the people crying “racism” are indeed simple-minded morons, that’s only part of the picture.

When people like John Conyers claim the KKK will be doing their night-riding again and Jimmy Carter, the worst president in U,S. History (pending the end of Obama’s term) rants about “racism”, one knows they don’t really believe that, it’s just their way of trying to silence the opposition.

For some reason, many Whites will say, do or believe anything to avoid being labeled “racist”. Many would probably be afraid to admit some of their best friends may be black, Hispanic, Jewish whatever, because in the mind of a Leftist, noticing the race of a minority is itself “racist”.

You may remember the reports in the news of “racists” showing up outside of the buildings where Obama was giving speech with their legal firearms. Not much airtime was given to the black man (No, it wasn’t me) who was carrying his legal firearm outside of an Obama speech.

Due in large part to the Tea Party events and non-liberal controlled talk shows, Obama’s agenda may be hitting some speed bumps.

Screams of “Racism” is just a desperate attempt by the Socialists to silence opposition to their agenda.

Robot

831-869-9932

robot@mbay.net

B. Hussein Obama: Bringing the races Together???

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:06:00 +0000

You’ve heard it before and undoubtedly, you’ll hear it again that B. Hussein Obama “has brought the races together”. One hears that a lot from the mentally deficient, starry-eyed obama-worshippers.

I ask HOW???

Speaking for myself, I got along great with Whites before b.o. got into office. I get along great with them now. I dare to say, some of my best friends are White.

Are we to assume that Whites who didn’t like Blacks before b.o. got into office now love blacks and would be proud to have their daughters come to Thanksgiving dinner with their Black husbands? Are we to assume that the Blacks who blame Whites for all of their failures and disappointments in life now accept personnel responsibility for their accomplishments or lack thereof?

Has the KKK now thrown away their robes and the Nation of Islam traded in their bowties for neckties?

You’d have to be a simple-minded fool to think so.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Libertarians (for peace) Against B. Hussein Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:41:00 +0000

On 20 June 2008, I attended a talk sponsored by the Libertarians for “Peace” and put on at the “Peace” resources Center in Seaside, California.

The main speaker was Libertarian Anthony Gregory and was titled “Is the new boss the same as the old boss: has Obama kept his promises”

Such a talk would never be given by any of the other “Peace” Coalition (PC) members. Some of the PC people would oppose b.o, but would never have the stones to say so publicly for fear of being labeled “racist” or Heaven forbid, Republican.

I spoke briefly with Gregory before the talk after he told me he liked my hat (Which had “NRA” embroidered on it”).

Unlike any speech that would be given by anyone in the PC crowd, Gregory points out that some of the policies the left bashes Bush for were started under Clinton. One of which was the “renditions” program, where the CIA took captured terrorists to countries where actual torture (not water boarding) was allowed. Gregory pointed out this program started under Clinton and was expanded under Bush. Of course, there wasn’t a peep from the Left when Clinton was using the program. The program currently continues under b.o. also, without a peep from the left.

Gregory displayed a lack of honesty (i.e. lied) when he claimed the “Right” has only recently become concerned with big government and the Constitution. A more honest person would have said while some Bush-bots have recently been concerned about big government since b.o. has gotten into office, real Conservatives also opposed Bush’s Big Government spending programs..

Gregory claims he never voted for anyone who’s ever killed anyone, something I as see nothing to brag about.

Obviously, there are some people worth killing, or a better way of putting it would be there are some causes worth killing for.

Gregory pointed out that b.o. attempted to block lawsuits dealing with “illegal” wiretaps and keeps the log of visitors to the White House secret, broke his promise to post bills 5 days prior to him signing them, all of this after promising his administration would be one of “transparency”. Kind of reminds you of how Clinton claimed his administration would be the most ethical one.

(I predicted several years ago, shortly after the Demoncrats won a majority in Congress that you would hear very little about the Patriot Act unless a Republican (or McCain) won the 2008 election. I’m predicting now that the Demoncrats will use the Patriot Act against Conservative groups, especially if they can’t get their “hate” (thought) Crimes legislation passed.)

Gregory also mentioned that b.o.’s CIA Director Leon Panetta supported destruction of CIA interrogation videos. Given the dubious loyalty to This Country some of the Reds in Congress have, the CIA would be suicidal to give them all of their information.

I’ve heard one liberal describe Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope, so accordingly, Gregory whined about b.o. making fun of dopers who posted they wanted him to legalize dope on his website.

Gregory also mentioned that Cal Thomas and Bush were against the raids on “medical” marijuana clinics and gave the usual b.s. reasons to explain why dope should be legalized.

Gregory whined about Cheney and b.o. agreeing that the U.S. has the right to defend itself. Gregory mentioned that most of the people freed from Gitmo (so far) were released under Bush. (Some of whom ended up back on the battlefield, fighting against coalition forces with Al Qaeda)

In following the usual left-wing talking point, Gregory calls the war in Iraq a “deluded act, mainly influenced by “Neocons””

Gregory whined on about how b.o. supports drone strikes on terrorist bases in Pakistan (which Pakistan apparently allows) and sniveled about b.o. supporting an anti-missile defense system (which if he said he supports, I doubt he actually means it.)

Gregory lost even more of his credibility when he said he wanted the U.S. to abolish its nuclear weapons, but he did gain a little bit of it back when, during the question and answer period he said the United nations was started by Stalinists (Which is probably why so many on the left support the UN)

I think this was in response to a question about the U.S. going through the UN to “solve” world problems.

One worthless, Marxist puke “Frank” told the crowd that the Soviets should threaten to nuke the U.S. and Israel if either one of them attacks Iran’s nuke sites.

I muttered under my breath “Jew-hating Communist” and the woman sitting next to me apparently agreed. She also seemed to scoff at some of the more outlandish statements uttered by some of the leftists.

One goofy nut (by goofy, I mean he obviously had mental issues beyond the usual liberal mental illness) said bush should face a firing squad.

Gregory responded that he was against the death penalty, which of course took away any credibility he gained by bashing the UN.

One Red said b.o. was a “centrist” and that “activists” (read: hard corps communists) needed to move him (more) to the left.

Gregory said that voters didn’t really want “change” or else they would have voted for Ron Paul. Ron Paul would have been “change”, but I don’t support all of the changes he would have tried to bring. However, he would have been a much, much better choice than McCain.

Gregory mentioned that 9-11 was the result of Clinton policies and that Americans really didn’t care about foreign deaths.

A woman mentioned that people gave b.o. a tremendous amount of slack and asked how that can be changed.

The goofy nut called for an armed revolution in the Country, something I’m starting to agree with, but obviously from a different perspective. My ideal end goal of armed revolt would be a total and physical separation of the left and Right in this Country.

One silly airhead said that b.o. has "brought the races together". (She didn't give any examples how) Gregory asked what has b.o. done since then.

I would add he hasn't even done that.

While b.o. has given the Reds and Libertarians For Peace a few things to snivel about, I'm sure the reds will be pleased at what he does to This Country. By that I mean, destroy It.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Abortionist Reaps What he has Sown

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:50:00 +0000

An Abortionist Reaps What He Has Sown

The killing of “Killer” Tiller is no cause for celebration. His killing (I refuse to call it a “murder”) only gives the savages more ammunition to bash the anti-abortion movement.

I personally prefer the term “anti-abortion’ to “pro-life”. As any pro-abortion person will tell you is that many of the people who call themselves pro-life support the death penalty. Now to any thinking person (which of course rules out most liberals) that isn’t the contradiction of beliefs that the pro-abortion mob would have you believe. A thinking person would instead see the major contradiction on the pro-abortion side, most of whom oppose the death penalty, but more about that in a later post.

Upon hearing about the killing of George (killer) Tiller (I refuse to call him “doctor”. Doctors save lives) a friend of mine expressed his pleasure over the killing. He feels the killing of this mass murderer was a fitting punishment and hopes no jury will convict the shooter. We both found it ironic and more than a little disgusting that a mass abortionist (Killer Tiller claims he’s done nearly 60,000 abortions) would for one, feel comfortable in a church and two, that a church would make him feel comfortable. One would think that the pastor, a deacon or even an average, pew-sitting member would mention to Tiller that “thou shalt not murder” is one of the Ten Commandments.

I don’t think that Tiller’s death is any big loss and have no doubt that he’s now convinced of the evil of his ways, but in the long run Tiller’s killing will hurt, not only the anti-abortion effort, but the Conservative Movement in general.

This short-sighted act allows the left to more easily claim (falsely, of course) that any Conservative activist is plotting and waiting to kill an abortionist, queer or illegal alien. Already left-wing activists, namely so-called extremist/militia-watchdog, left-wing media (read: “mainstream” media) groups and B. Hussein Obama’s DHS are calling for the “Right-Wing” to be scrutinized more.

See: http://tinyurl.com/mjpq6w

Because of the Tiller’s killing, things will be much harder on legitimate Conservative activists.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

The True Definition of Marriage Upheld in California (for now)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:35:00 +0000

There’s an old adage that proclaims, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day”. Today that applies to the California Supreme Court in it’s ruling on Proposition 8.

For anyone who lives out of state and could care less what goes on in California, Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that confirms the common sense and natural definition of marriage that marriage is between one MAN and one Woman).

As is usual in California, whenever a vote of the people doesn’t go their way the Left, the alleged lovers of democracy filed a lawsuit to oppose the will of the public.

While the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Proposition 8, they also ruled that the sexual degenerates who were allowed to “marry” during the court battles were allowed to remain “married”.

The battle is over for now, but the degenerates will return with another scheme to thwart the will of the voters.

Robot

831-869-9932

Arlen Spectre Returns Home

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:03:00 +0000

Arlen Spectre crossing over to the dark side isn’t a matter of him “defecting” it’s the case of an enemy operative finally returning home.

I think the only reason the RINO puke switched from the DNC 40 years ago is because he could do more damage to the Republican Party from the inside. As a “Republican” he’s often sided with the enemy in his senate votes.

Ironically, probably the only reason he’s still in office is because Bush Jr. supported him in the Pennsylvania primary. There was a real Republican running in the primary, but Bush Jr. instead backed the RINO.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Spectre went against Bush Jr. on his war policy.

I suspect Bush Jr. may not be as incompetent as he lets on and may be in fact, one of “them”.

Human Events Magazine placed Spectre as #3 in a list of Top Ten RINOs (Republican In Name Only), the top two on the list being Lincoln Chaffee (R.I.) and Olympia Snow (Ma). (I don’t see how McCain failed to make the list)

Spectre claims his reason for leaving the Party is because the GOP is “moving too far to the Right”, a claim which sounds demented or drug induced considering the Republican Party chose notorious RINO John McCain as its presidential candidate.

Spectre’s true reason for “defecting” is because the Republican voters in Pennsylvania are (finally) starting to figure out he isn’t, nor ever was one of them. A recent Pennsylvania poll shows that 66% of Republican voters want to dump him in the next election in favor of a real Republican.

Spectre was one of the three “Republicans” to support B. Hussein Obama’s trillion dollar bailout plan.

The GOP shouldn’t be upset over Spectre’s “defection” and instead should welcome his departure. Not only should his departure be welcomed, it should have been encouraged….no, DEMANDED years ago.

Hopefully Snowe, Chaffee and McCain and all the other RINOs will follow him.

Robot
831-869-9932

P.S.

Less than a week after Spectre "defected" The Democrats sold him out by stripping him of his seniority. Apparently, there's no honor among Reds.

Is anyone else as laughing their butts of over Spectre being sold out by the same people he's been selling out to for over 30 years

A Real Republican Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:28:00 +0000

The last election is evidence that there needs to be a serious purge of the RINOs who infest the Republican Party. I mean a Stalin-like purge, not with the violence but with the same intensity of Stalin’s purges.

The RINOs have been an influence in the Republican Party since the 50’s, though they seem to have fully taken control in the past 20-30 years.

RINOs can also be called Country Club Republicans and they look down on those who hold to true Conservative principles and pretty much consider us the unwashed masses.

My hatred of these pukes has been brewing for years and has started to boil over after seeing the way some of the RINOs have treated true Conservative (so far) Sarah Palin. Some of them have the nerve to blame her for arch-RINO McCain loosing the election.

Many Republicans (such as me, for which I’ve sincerely repented) ONLY voted for McCain because Palin was on the ticket.

What needs to be done is to purge any “Republican” politician who doesn’t adhere to the main planks of the Republican Party Platform.

Obviously any “Republican” who supports a Demoncratic candidate, except for the most extreme circumstances should be purged.

I think most true Republicans would see the main points as being; a strong national defense, smaller government, pro-gun rights, anti-abortion, traditional families (i.e., no homosexual “marriage”), and rejecting the global “warming” nonsense.

By “purge” I mean, any “Republican” who goes against any two and definitely any three of the above positions would receive no support or endorsement from the official Republican Party and no official Republican Party representative will refer to the individual as a “Republican”.

Perhaps the Platform can be updated to clearly state the above positions, or if the RINOs manage to remove some of those main issues, true Conservatives can break away from the Party and form another party.

Whatever we do, this has to change. Otherwise we’ll either get more Obamas, or RINOs who would be no different from an Obama or a Clinton or Kennedy.

Just a thought.

Robot

WiRogue@aim.com

831-869-9932

The Attempted Queering of Black America

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:42:00 +0000

Proposition 8, which confirmed that true marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN passed with nearly 70 percent of the black vote. The sodomite lobby (which doesn’t just include the perverts who engage in the practice) have expressed surprise and outrage that most blacks voted against them. For some reason, the degenerates think that because blacks were once a persecuted minority (yes, I did say ONCE, i.e. in the PAST a persecuted minority) we should also support their unnatural practices.

True, there are some blacks who’ve been hanging around white liberals too long and have been brainwashed into feeling that sodomites are just another minority. One of my former best friends is one of them (I don’t mean as in queer (but I wonder sometimes), I mean he’s been brainwashed into accepting buggery as normal) others however, will nod in agreement to their liberal friends but are thinking to themselves “of course homosexuality is unnatural”. It was these blacks who while voting for the most pro-homosexual presidential candidate in history, also voted to uphold the ban homosexual “marriage”.

All of the pro-homosexual propaganda, including Hollywood putting a homosexual into nearly ever TV sitcom still hasn’t convinced the majority of Blacks that homosexuality is “normal”.

Unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP (Negroes Are Actually Colored People) I don’t pretend to speak for all Black Americans, however few things infuriate me more than to have the degenerates of the Queer lobby try to justify their perverted activity by comparing themselves to blacks.

A basic knowledge anatomy shows that homosexuality isn’t normal, therefore there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”.

No ifs, ands, or butts about it

I do have a prediction for the next years. The sodomite lobby and Hollywood will direct more pro-homosexual propaganda toward Blacks. There will be an increase of black homosexual characters on television and in movies and it won’t be the usual hairdressers and fashion store owners. It will be tough black guys who just happen to bugger other men when they aren’t out kicking butt.

Homosexuality is also a hard sell in the Asian and Latino community, so there will also be more of them playing butt-rangers.

If This Country ever fully accepts homosexuality as “normal” that will be the end of it.

Robot
wirogue@aim.com
831-869-9932

Fight Crime, Shoot Back (Better Yet, Shoot First)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:40:00 +0000

I know this will never happen in our politically correct (i.e. cowardly) society, but what if crime-ridden cities and counties offered a bounty for any convicted criminal killed or captured DURING THE COMMISION OF A CRIME.

In other words, if a homeowner shoots a criminal during a burglary or home invasion or if a business owner or one of his employees shoots a criminal while they are attempting a robbery, either the city or county would pay the individual a few thousand dollars. I think if the convicted thug is killed, the individual should be paid roughly ten percent of what it would have cost to run the thug through the legal system.

Along with offering a bounty for the thugs, either law enforcement or better yet, private instructors could provide firearms training for law-abiding business owners and other private citizens (After a background check).

There are several obvious speed bumps to this plan. One: the thug (if the defending person’s shooting ability isn’t what it should be) or his relatives may try to sue the defender, and Two: pro-crime and/or other “peace” groups will try to stop the program

There are two ways to deal these fools. The city or county (or better yet, private citizens) could host a website where the home and work address of the person(s) suing the defenders are listed. The law-abiding public could contact the people supporting the criminal and tell them why they are fed up with the mindless thugs who are practically running their city.

Left-wing pro-crime organizations could be countered by forming organizations of honest citizens and crime victims who could speak and protest in opposition to them.

Granted, as I wrote in the beginning, this will never happen. Obviously my plan wouldn’t completely stop violent crime, but it would make living in a crime-ridden city as dangerous for the criminals as it is for the good people.

Robot
Wirogue@aim.com
831-869-9932

Vote Yes on Propositions 4 and 8: It's Only Common Sense

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:11:00 +0000

There may be a few grey issues on the California ballot. Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 are two that definitely are not.

Proposition 4, would require parental notification before an UNDERAGE female can murder her unborn child. To any somewhat, moral thinking person, that would be a no-brainer, but of course we are talking about liberals, who generally have no actual moral issues and basically have a “if it feels good, do it and if you screw up, the government will bail you out” mentality .

The pro-infanticide crowd claims that abused girls would have a problem going to their parents if the abuser is a family member. Of course, that’s probably the lamest argument against the proposition they could come up with.

Were the abuser a father or stepfather, he would be more prone to rush the victimized girl to an abortion mill.

A “no” vote on Prop. 4 would be sort of an old pervert’s protection act. An adult pervert who knocks up a 15-year-old would be able to take her for an abortion with no questions asked.

Surely, a Planned Parenthood (infanticide) abortion clinic would ask no questions, nor would they report it to the police.

The real problem the Left and especially Planned (infanticide) Parenthood has with Prop. 4 are they fear that somewhere, someplace a young girl will actually keep her baby. After all, Planned Parenthood (Infanticide) really makes a killing out of doing abortions and if Prop. 4 passed, it would cut into their profits, and undermine their social agenda. Also, I think abortion is a form of pagan sacrifice for some of those on the Left.

Proposition 8 is even more of a no-brainer, again, unless you’re a liberal. Prop. 8 would define marriage in the California Constitution as between one Man and one FEMALE. Duh. A basic knowledge of anatomy will tell any thinking person that homosexuality and therefore, allowing them to “marry” is unnatural. Sodomites can already have domestic “partnerships”. Homosexuals know what they do is unnatural. They want to “marry” so that they can convince themselves that what they engage in is normal.

Proposition 8 is not “discrimination. If I read the proposition correctly, I didn’t see anyplace where it called for separate water facets and restrooms for homosexuals and normal people (though given some of the diseases many of them are prone to get, that may not be a bad idea), nor did I read anywhere in the proposition where homosexuals were to be denied the right to vote or own property.

A yes vote on Proposition 8 is just common sense.

Robot

www.InsideTheCompound.com

elishewitz@gmail.com

831-869-9932

McCain Bad, B. Hussein Obama Worse (but just barely)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:08:00 +0000

I don't have the words to describe how much I hate Mccain. He's arguably, one of the 5 biggest RINO's (Republican In Name Only) in the Republican Party. I've talked to some of the most Anti-American, Anti-Christian, degenerate liberal pukes, and they like McCain, and why shouldn't they? He's one of them. The idiot even said he would have Al Gore on his staff to deal with the (mythical) issue of “global warming” and he supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

However, not only do I hate B.O., I fear what he will do to This Country. I was seriously considering voting for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, but after seeing B.O. is worshiped by the mindless masses on the Left, I'm considering voting for McCain.

I know I'll regret it if he gets into office. Should he get in, he'll do what he always does, run across the aisle to work with the enemy. Yes, Democrats in general and Liberals in particular, ARE THE ENEMY. To save This Country, we (True Republicans and other Conservatives) should not be working or compromising with the left. We need to defeat them.

That won’t happen with a RINO, sellout like McCain, but for the time being it’s all we have.

Personally, I’d prefer we split up the Country between the Right and the Wrong (left).

Robot

www.InsideTheCompound.com

elishewitz@gmail.com

831-869-9932

The Left Finally admits it, they’re Racist

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:29:00 +0000

Of course, that isn’t news to any thinking person. The Left has always operated on the belief that Blacks and other minorities can’t succeed in life without their liberal, White massa’s to he’p them with government programs. Race-baiting poverty-pimps like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other assorted left-wing activists help them promote the myth.

Now after the failure of enviro-Marxist Al Gore and light-Marxist John Kerry to beat George (RINO) Bush Jr. in the last two presidential elections, the left is now running the Mocha-Marxist, B. Hussein Obama (B.O.) as presidential nominee.

Surprisingly, they even appear to be doing so with a straight face so far. B.O. is a one-term U.S. Senator who has no qualifications other than hating America , being close friends with a 60’s era terrorist, (Ayers) having had for twenty years a goofy, racist, anti-American head case as a pastor, and being a community “organizer”. By the way, the community group he “organized” with is a group called ACORN which is well known for voter fraud.

The Left claims people may not vote for B.O. because he’s *gasp* a Negro. (The horror, the horror.)

Even if B.O. was a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan-looking man or even a hot-looking blond woman with Ann Coulter’s looks, no Republican (with the possible exception of some RINOs (Republican In Name Only)) would vote for him.

So, the only logical conclusion one came come to is the Left fears their own racist, white comrades will refuse to vote for the black guy. Sure, they feel it’s acceptable to scare blacks and other minorities into voting for them and their policies, but to actually have one as PRESIDENT? Lenin forbid! (Perhaps they also fear there’ll be fried chicken and grape soda at the inaugural ball)

Why wouldn’t any liberal feel comfortable voting for McCain? After all, he’s practically one of them. Other their stand on the war in Iraq (which will probably be all but won by the time the next president takes office) there’s not much difference between them.

Of course now that McCain needs the support of the Conservatives he’s trashed his whole time in office, he’s now posing as a real Republican. He even chose Sarah Palin (Who’s more qualified than either McCain or B.O.) as his running mate and Conservative “beard” to fool some Conservatives into voting for him.

Of course Palin will only be VICE-president and her main job after waking will be to check to see if McCain has died overnight.

The left knows this (even if many Conservatives don’t) and some will have no problem voting for McCain rather than the unknown black guy.

So basically, the Left fears the racists among their own comrades.

The race card has been played, and it’s a Spade.

Robot

robot@mbay.net

www.InsideTheCompound.com

831-869-9932

The Common Sense Definition of the Second Amendment Reigns Supreme (Finally)

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:12:00 +0000

The recent decision by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices only emphasizes the obvious, that the 2^nd Amendment refers to an INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The fact that four of the justices refuses to see that only goes to show that just because a person wears a black robe and has a law degree does not necessarily mean they’re intelligent or even have much common sense. Perhaps they, like many elected officials and public “servants” fear that if they go too far they may find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s firearm. A more foreboding thought is that they INTEND to eventually go too far, and impose laws and regulations that no free person would tolerate.

One has to be simple-minded and cowardly to deny that the Founders recognized the God-given right for INDIVIDUALS to be armed and that the right did not refer to a standing army. Standing armies, either military or civilian (as in civilian police agencies) are organizations that would be used to enforce the directives of a tyrannical government, and the type of organizations an armed citizenry would have to defend against.

In all the other places in the Bill of Rights where rights of the “people” are mentioned, it refers to an individual right. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. was not referring to a collective right, nor was the right to free speech referring to the right of the government to put out their propaganda unopposed.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial shortly after the ruling, claiming the Supreme Court “…opted for the interpretation less suited to a 20^th century America bedeviled by “gun” crime”. Apparently in some crime-ridden areas of this Country firearms are victimizing people without the need of a criminal hand to guide them.

The editorial also claims the court went against the “majority” and “traditional” (i.e. the wrong) interpretation of the amendment. The interpretation they’re referring to is only held by anti-gun, anti-self defense extremists.

Of course, the anti-gun eunuchs are claiming that because the law-abiding people of Washington D.C. (all two dozen of them) will now be allowed to arm and defend themselves gun violence will increase. Perhaps, but the only increase will be the violence done to criminals by their intended victims, which most people, other than liberals will see as a good thing.

It’s interesting to note that while the anti-gun zealots want to disarm law-abiding citizens, they always snivel and whine to no end when someone suggests we should actually punish criminals more severely.

But as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Robot

831-869-9932

California: The Sodomite State

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:08:00 +0000

In a move that shows their utter contempt for the people of California, Common sense and nature (God) Itself, the California Supreme Court ruled that not allowing same sex couples to “marry” was “unconstitutional.

I’ve said it before and will doubtlessly say it again, a basic knowledge of anatomy will show the average person, queer or not that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted. Nope, as far as human sexual relations go tab “A” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) go into slot “A”.

I’ve often said that if homos are allowed to “marry” there will be no reason to keep people from engaging in polygamy or “marrying” animals. Of course the queer lobby scoffs at the obvious conclusion. That is, MOST of the sodomite lobby scoffs at that. There is one notable exception. Frank Kameny, a hero of the queer community wrote to a pro-family group that a person should be able to knock boots (hooves, paws whatever) with an animal if that’s what gets them off. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060

Kameny was instrumental in getting the American Psychiatric Association into reclassifying homosexuality as “normal”.

In spite of the victory given to the degenerates by the California Supreme Court, there is a glimmer of hope for the State. Yesterday the California Marriage Protection Act qualified for the November ballot. The initiative needed just under 700,000 signatures and it received over a million. This is a proposed California Constitution Amendment that will state the obvious, that MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Robot

831-869-9932

The Democratic Party’s True Color is Red

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:40:00 +0000

I mean Red as in Communism, Marxism and Leninism. I’ve always said there’s little to no difference between most liberals and Communists. The only difference being what they will admit to believing in public.

A Liberal for example, wants all the same things that a communist would want, but they will deny to the death that they are in fact, Communist. A communist on the other hand will freely admit what he is and will tell you he wants the government to collect and manage your private property.

Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California showed her true colors during a House panel “investigating” the high cost of gasoline.

Waters told the panel and several oil company executives that if gas prices aren’t lowered the government should take over and run the companies. One of the executives pointed out that Venezuela, under Dictator Hugo Chavez (Who, along with Fidel Castro is a hero of the left) did the same thing. I’m sure Waters had Chavez and Fidel Castro in mind when she dusted off this old, faded idea.

While that is the feeling of most democrats and liberals, it’s surprising to actually hear one admit that in public. However, Waters is not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It should also be remembered that Waters is a member of the House Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus consists of the most Marxist-minded of the House Democrats.

(See the New American article on the Progressive Caucus: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/905)

For years I’ve been listening to Liberals praising all things Communist. Their plans for society consist of having the government not only providing every needs of U.S. citizens, were they to have they way, we would also be providing handouts to the rest of the world. That is, more than we already are.

As I mentioned before one of the Left’s primary heroes is Fidel Castro. About a year ago or so I attended a discussion about Castro’s Cuba put on by the Pastors For “Peace’ and the local “peace” activist. During the lecture (rant) one of the speakers said there are no rich in Cuba. He ecstatically proclaimed “In Cuba you’re not allowed to be rich”

At a more recent event put on by the same Reds, the praise of Castro continued. Among the group was a businessman who has legal and illegal dealings with Cuba. He had the audacity to tell this group that most of the recent (presumably positive) reforms in Cuba would not have happened had Castro still been in power rather than his brother Raul.

This of course enraged some of the attendees of this Castro worship service. (Ironically, this meeting was held in a Church fellowship room.) There were outbursts from several of the worshippers who opposed hearing their god so “slighted”.

One woman claimed Cuba is the example the U.S. should follow in order for us to deal with global “warming” and water “shortages’, etc.

Were these Marxist fools simply confined to Carmel, Santa Cruz and Berkeley, the situation wouldn’t be so grave. Unfortunately, we have at least two of the same ilk running for president, and a third while though he calls himself a Republican, will not be much different.

We’re screwed.

Robot

831-869-9932

'Rather a Bullet in the Brain, than a Vote for McCain

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:31:00 +0000

We Are So, So Screwed

This upcoming presidential election, barring some miracle is a battle of the liberals. On the Red side, the choice will either be an evil Marxist broom jockey AKA: HilLIARy (Shriek) Clinton or Obama Hussein, the Mocha Marxist. On the Republican side the choice is RINO, Pink Elephant John McCain and whichever liberal chosen to run with him.

No one with a brain and who doesn’t use drugs, or is dependent on government handouts needs to be told what a disaster for this Country Shriek and the Mocha Marxist will be, but some people who don’t follow the political scene may be fooled into voting for the Pink Elephant.

Other than his support for the continuing Iraq War, nothing much separates him from The Shriek or the Mocha Marxist.

As pointed out by Ann Coulter and others, mccain: supports illegal aliens, opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning queer “marriage”, called U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito “too conservative” wants to shut down Guantanamo supports taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell use, believes in the myth of “global warming” and not only opposed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but considered being a running mate to COMRADE JOHN KERRY!

If that weren’t enough, he opposes overturning Roe v. Wade (frankly, while I’m generally opposed to abortion, it isn’t one of my major social issues because the vast majority of the people who have them are liberals, and anything that keeps them from overpopulating can have its uses) he bashed Pat Robertson and the Reverend Jerry Falwell and “agents of intolerance” and part of the “forces of evil”.

Lastly, mccain has been endorsed by California RINO Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger-Kennedy. That alone should be enough for anyone true Republican to not support him.

In general, the Country Club, Pink Elephant RINOs, have nothing but contempt for Conservative Republicans and their push to do away with them began in the 50’s with groups like the Ripon Society and continued (successfully) in the 90’s with the “Mainstream’ (liberal) Republican group, which took over many of California’s County Republican central Committees.

You may notice how some of their ilk are joining online forums and attempting to herd the people who aren’t fooled by mccain into voting for him using insults, claiming refusing to support the clown “aren’t true Republicans” and attempting to use the specter of a HilLIARy presidency to scare us into voting for into voting for the RINO, Steve Martin look-alike.

While I would never even jokingly consider voting for Shriek or the Mocha Marxist, I sure as HELL won’t be voting for mccain.

The worse thing about a mccain presidency is that if he wins, the principles of the Republican Party will be forever abandoned and anyone even slightly more Conservative than mccain will be labeled as an “extremist”.

Unfortunately, this Country appears to be finished and sadly, there’s no other country to run to.

Robot

831-869-9932

Gun Checkpoints: Trading Liberty For Security

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:31:00 +0000

There was a letter published in a local Monterey County California Newspaper where a simple-minded (liberal) writer suggested using “gun checkpoints” to solve the problem of gang violence in Salinas.

I’m always amazed at how anti-gun cowards want to rely on someone else to protect them, and thus allow the protector to put themselves at risk because of the anti-gunner’s cowardice.

Salinas California is a city with a population of about 148,350 people with a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people. Compared to Richmond (population 103,470, with 38 murders per 100,000 people), it’s practically Mayberry, but for Monterey County, it’s a dangerous city.

Never mind the fact that guns aren’t the problem in any high crime area (criminals, are) there is another slight problem with the airhead’s idea of gun checkpoints, namely, the Fourth Amendment. For those who don’t remember that’s the one against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Perhaps the writer thinks only gang members should be stopped. But of course, that would involve “profiling” and liberals hate that.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

A better use for “gun checkpoints” would be to ensure people entering a high crime area of Salinas (or especially Richmond) were carrying a gun.

Robot

831-869-9932

Another Second Amendment Victory

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:31:00 +0000

Today, by a unanimous 3-0 decision, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of a lower court dismissing a lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia and nine families of gun crime victims against 25 gun manufacturers.

The court ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (and common sense), signed into law by President Bush (So he is good for something) required that the lawsuit be dismissed.

One would hope (at least I do) that the news over these past two days would have members of the Brady Center, Handgun Control (confiscation) Inc. etc. jumping out of windows.

Given the good Second Amendment news yesterday and today, one wonders if we'll get a third victory tomorrow.

Perhaps Michael Moore and or Rosie O'Donnell will choke to death on a Big Mac

A Rare Win for the Second Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (ROBOT) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:38:00 +0000

Today I received somewhat of a birthday present. While I don’t live in the West Coast’s Sin City (San Francisco), I was born there. (Before all of the hippies, sodomites and other various freaks moved there) The California State Court of Appeals struck down a law in the City of Sodomy that would have banned the sale and ownership of handguns and all ammunition.

The NRA successfully sought an injunction against the law’s enforcement in 2005. But regardless, the Sodomite City’s Board of Supervisors lead by Mayor Gavin (Gruesome) Newsom approved penalties consisting of a $1000 fine or 90 days to six months in jail.

This is a big win for the Second Amendment. But, as one person posted to the Ca-Firearms Yahoo group,“Socialists NEVER give up trying to control every aspect of life in the proletariat.” and that Gruesome Newsom and crowd can still appeal the ruling to the California State Supreme Court.

For now, I just accept this birthday present and the rare win against the anti-gun cowards.

Robot

831-869-9932