Mayor in Washington Makes Disgusting Racist Remarks About the Obama’s

Mayor in Washington makes disgusting racist remarks about the Obama’s, refuses to resign.

Re-posted from Daily Kos, by Jay Hayden

Washington Mayor Rushing


The Mayor of Airway Heights, Washington—a suburb of Spokane—is refusing calls to resign despite immediate backlash regarding comments he made on Facebook:

The comment in full that was found on Patrick Rushing’s Facebook page read:

“Gorilla face Michelle, can’t disagree with that.  The woman is not attractive except to monkey man Barack.  Check out them ears. LOL.”

I showed Rushing the statement, and he confirmed he had posted it, so I asked him why he would write something like that.

It’s just playful back and forth banter that my friends and I do, said Rushing.
The Airway Heights City Council was unanimous in their desire to see him resign, but he’s not budging: I will not step down. But I will do everything I can to turn the tide around.”

This is so disgustingly offensive and loathsome in so many ways. This is an elected public official that willingly posted such distasteful racist comments on his Facebook page for all to see. He obviously does not grasp the fact that Facebook is a SOCIAL MEDIA that is very open to the public…

Like all politicians that get caught doing stupid things, they say they are sorry and then try to show repentance, but they won’t resign… They’re just sorry they got caught.

Only a bigoted, racist pig could look at this beautiful family and make such a distasteful comment…

President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and their daughters, Sasha and Malia, sit for a family portrait in the Oval Office, Dec. 11, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.Ê

Indiana – Home of the Puritan Bigots

So Governor Pence of Indiana signed the bill into law that permits prejudice against gays. Of course this law overrides other local ordinances that prohibit discrimination against customers based on their sexual orientation. But I’m sure Big Daddy Pence knows what’s best for all those good folks in Indiana. He will protect them from all those LGBT’s that are just waiting to pounce on Indiana’s puritanical  husbands, wives, and children.

However, he did miss a very important step in the new pro-prejudice law – how do we identify them as LGBT?  So, he will obviously need to amend the law and add that all LGBT’s living in Indiana will have to get a “666” tattoo on their forehead for identification purposes. Those LGBT’s just visiting or traveling through Indiana can go to the nearest Police station and get a temporary “666 stamp” on their forehead. Oh, and then he would need to ban any type of hats or scarves that might hide the tattoo. Oh, and then there would have to be an amendment defining the punishment for not identifying themselves as LGBT.  You get the point.

Thank you Governor Pence for moving Indiana back to the 1950’s, or possibly the 1300’s with this disgusting new law of yours. I lived in Indiana for a few years and I know this is not the voice of the people speaking. This is voice of a few powerful bigots that deserve a big red tattoo on their forehead stating “BIGOT.”


Alter Egos: George Zimmerman & Darren Wilson

George Zimmerman ALter EgoThere are way too many similarities here:

  • Victims are young black men in a hoodie
  • Victims are unnecessarily detained by the antagonist
  • Victims show uncharacteristic aggressiveness
  • Victims are unarmed, yet violently attack their antagonist
  • Antagonist fears for his life
  • Antagonist shoots and kills the victim
  • Antagonist is not charged with any crime

This has got to change…

Old West Had Stricter Gun Control Laws Than We Do Today

Tombstone Gun LawsSince the extreme proponents of the “Open Carry” gun laws want to openly carry and flaunt their guns anytime and anywhere they go, I’m sure a lot of them are fantasizing about the good Old Wild-West days when every man carried a gun, without any gun control or rules. Once again a little research into history will burst their ignorant bubble.

Even in the Old West the citizens didn’t want everyone walking the streets of their towns packing a gun. They had first-hand experience with what this causes – violence and death. Even then there were reasonable people who were smart enough to know that gun control was the only answer to the problem. Many of the large Old West cities passed laws restricting, and in some cases outright banning, carrying guns. In many frontier cities, the law required those entering town to turn their guns over to the sheriff. In the Dodge City of 1879, a large billboard announced to residents and visitors alike “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

Tombstone’s infamous “Gunfight at the empty lot near Fremont Street” — later dubbed the “Gunfight at the OK Corral,” which was nearby, for marketing reasons — developed precisely because the Earp brothers were trying to enforce the law against carrying firearms in town, which the Clantons were flouting.

As history shows, gun control laws were actually put in place prior to the Old West. A brief history of gun control laws:

  • In 1813, Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States.
  • In 1837, Georgia completely banned the sale of pistols
  • In the early to mid-1800’s Indiana, Alabama and Arkansas all had concealed carry laws
  • In 1911 New York City passed the Sullivan Act
  • The 1920’s and 1930’s saw many states imposing “A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms,” which prohibited unlicensed carrying and possession
  • The National Firearms Act was imposed in 1934
  • The assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and the Reverend Martin Luther King were the prime motivations behind the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968
  • And more…

So how did we get to this point where we have regressed to be worse than it was even prior to the Old West? I guess America’s love for our guns and our right to openly carry them anywhere, anytime, apparently trumps everyone else’s rights to not be exposed to this nonsense.

I’m just waiting for the “Gunfight at McDonalds” to erupt…




A Large Group of Armed Men Walk Into the Restaurant – What Would You Do?

It was just a matter of time. America’s love for our guns and our right to openly carry them anywhere, anytime, apparently trumps everyone else’s rights to not be exposed to this nonsense. Please read this article and think about what you would do if this happened while you and your family were eating dinner together in a restaurant…

Texas gun group’s protest sends restaurant employees fleeing for freezer as cops respond (via Raw Story )

A demonstration by a pro-gun group in Ft. Worth, TX sent restaurant employees at a Jack in the Box location fleeing into the freezer as police responded to the scene thinking a robbery was in progress. According to Dallas-Ft. Worth’s NBC Channel 5…

Continue reading

An Updated Second Amendment

Constitution Heading*Re-posted from News and Views by Daniel Defoe | An Updated Second Amendment

It is time to stop treating the Constitution like it is the Bible or written in stone like the Ten Commandments. It needs to be updated and clarified and the best place to start is with the 2nd amendment. The way it is written now is like reading a Nostradamus prophesy.

“Sitting alone at night in secret study;
it is placed on the brass tripod.
A slight flame comes out of the emptiness and
makes successful that which should not be believed in vain.”—NostradamusCentury I, Quatrain 1: 1555 Lyon Bonhomme edition. Just what exactly was he babbling about? Well…it’s kind of up to interpretation. 

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”—The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Just what is meant by “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” or “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the 2nd is in conflict and like NostradamusCentury I, Quatrain 1, it is up to the interpreter to decide just what its core meaning is. 

In United States versus Cruikshank. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment only restricts the power of the national government in taking away rights and that the right to keep and bear arms exists apart from the Constitution, not because of it, stating “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence”. 

In United States versus Miller. The Supreme Court decided if a firearm does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear said firearm.

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled, The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Handgun bans and the trigger-lock requirements as applied to self-defense violate the Second Amendment. 

In McDonald versus Chicago. The Supreme Court ruled, The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one’s home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. What the WHAT?! 

Interpretation should not be in the least part involved in such a critical part of our lives. It appears to be each interpretation changes with the beliefs of the person making said interpretation.

Change the 2nd Amendment to the following:

“The citizens of the United States of America have the right keep to arms in their homes. With the exception of those prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.”

There should be only four ways private citizens may lawfully purchase, register, own and keep firearms in the home:

1: For hunting  
2: For target practice  
3: For shooting sport competition  
4: For collection  

Private citizens wishing to acquire a firearm and ammunition should be required by law to do the following:

Apply for a firearm acquisition permit in person by submitting the following: 
a: Certified birth certificate.
b: Proof of income by submitting original employment letter stating position, time of employment and salary. If self-employed or retired, proof of such status.
c: Criminal FBI background check showing no convictions, for every sale of and gifting of firearms.
d: Copy of proof of address 
e: Copy of government-issued photo identification
f: If firearms are requested for shooting or hunting. The purchaser must submit copy of hunting and or shooting club membership card, indicating day, month and year of the beginning and end of validation.
g: Written justification for the type of firearm the applicant wants to own
h: Proof of firearm safety class participation and passing.
i:  Citizens should only be allowed to keep a total of 10 registered firearms nine long guns, one handgun per household.

Anticipation of killing another person a.k.a. self defense as a reason for owning a gun is an antiquated thought process. To qualify for a handgun license, you must either be a licensed collector or belong to and regularly attend a target shooting club. If you live in an area without clubs? Create one. Anything in life worth possessing never comes easy and possessing a lethal tool should not come easy either.

When giving written notice as to what type of firearm you plan purchase, if you say you plan to use it to hunt squirrels, your license doesn’t allow you to a high-powered rifle. If you already have firearms suitable for hunting squirrels, it becomes increasingly difficult to give a reasonable justification to own more. Sensible gun purchasing would help prevent the acquisition of private arsenals. 

I am not advocating for the banning of guns. Hunting and shooting can still exist. By adopting laws that give priority to public safety, we can save tens of thousands of lives. Sure you can try to throw Chicago in my face. The facts are with greater restrictions on a persons ability to straw purchase firearms the less likely a “legally” purchased firearm will end up in the hands of those who have no right to own a firearm. 

If the United States were to enact the plan I have laid out here and enforce laws that are currently on the books. Death by gun would drop drastically in this country.