Obama’s ISIL Speech And His Whole Foreign Policy: What A Giant Crock Of Crap

September 15, 2014

I can’t help but think back to the Jimmy Carter years and marvel at how history keeps repeating itself because we keep allowing the same sorts of fools to make the same sorts of idiotic mistakes.  So we go back to 1979, when the Soviet Union, realizing that Jimmy Carter as a liberal was a pathologically weak and cowardly disgrace, invaded Afghanistan.  And Carter’s “show of resolve” was to boycott their damn Olympic Games rather than actually DO anything.

It was as a direct result of the correctly perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter that the United States was forced to begin the process of intervening in Afghanistan.  It was Jimmy Carter who began to arm the Taliban, dumbasses.  It was Jimmy Carter who because of his failed presidency set up the crisis that has metastasized into the cancer that it is that still haunts the United States decades later.

And here we are, another liberal and another complete meltdown of foreign policy and national security that will have massive consequences on the United States until the day we collapse and miserably perish as a nation.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted to perish as a nation, pure and simple.

History is a terrible thing when you doom yourself with terrible leaders.

From the very beginning of Obama’s speech on September 10, it was obvious that the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race who has been seen by more people lying than any human being who ever lived was even more full of his special brand of fecal matter than usual.

Take when Obama said “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state,” for instance.  Obama’s “argument” that Islamic State wasn’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Muslim runs afoul of this very simple historic reality: by his “reasoning” there haven’t been any “Muslims” or any “Islam” since at least 656 AD – when the very first Shi’ites murdered the very first Sunnis.

I actually have in my possession the hard article from uberleftist Time Magazine dated March 5, 2007.  Check out the title: “Why They Hate Each Other.”

Well, according to Obama, they hate each other because they’re not Muslim.  Or else they wouldn’t be killing Muslims, would they?

Take, for example, the Iran-Iraq War.  One-and-a-half million Muslims were killed – by other Muslims.

I mean, by Obama’s argument, the Sunnis aren’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Shi’ites and the Shi’ites aren’t Muslim because most of their victims have been Sunnis.  So there ARE no “Muslims” and there’s no such thing as “Islamic.”

But there you have it: Barry Hussein, in his demonic wisdom, has just solved the problem of Islam the same way he solved the problem of the war on terror that we are reeling from now: he just defined it away.  Because he is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue and without integrity and because he is a true fool.

Obama says Islamic State isn’t a “state.”  Well, THAT’S convenient, given the fact that they BECAME a “state” under YOUR failed watch due to YOUR failed policies.

I remember as an example going against Republicans when George H.W. Bush said, “There’s no recession.”  Well, shoot, I had got out of the Army and graduated from college just in time to run full facial into that “no recession.”  But yes, there was TOO a recession.  And all denying facts does is make those who share your ideology look like FOOLS.  Which is precisely what everyone who share’s Obama’s ideology is right now.

Islamic State has seized territory the freaking size of the United Kingdom. It has trained, expert fighters who were part of Saddam Hussein’s officer corps.  And to make it even worse, it has FAR more and better funding available than Osama bin Laden’s pre-9/11 attackers ever dreamed of having to finance their operations.

We just learned that Obama’s dismantled “intelligence” service has underestimated the number of ISIL/ISIS fighters by a factor of three.  They are mustering THREE TIMES the number of fighters that we thought just a short time ago.

The problem with Obama is that reality refutes him:

ISIS can muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, triple previous estimates: CIA
A new CIA assessment reportedly shows that the Islamic State can gather many more fighters than was previously thought. A spokesman for the intelligence agency told CNN that their recruitment has been stronger since June, ‘following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate.’
BY  Michael Walsh / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Published: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM/ Updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

The CIA estimates that ISIS has more than three times the number of fighters it previously thought.

The Islamic State can call upon between 20,000 and 31,500 terrorists throughout Iraq and Syria, according to a spokesman for the intelligence agency.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman told CNN.

Experts used to think the number of fighters for the jihadist group, whose savagery has been widely condemned, topped out at 10,000.

The CIA assessment’s new figure was revealed on the 13th anniversary of 9/11 — a day after President Obama outlined his plan to “dismantle and ultimately destroy” ISIS in an address to the nation.

Obama’s denial that “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state” is an even MORE profoundly stupid misjudgment and dismissal than his infamous “JayVee” remark that the lying fool now denies making.  But again, as evidenced so many damn times it’s beyond unreal, Obama is a fool who believes that denying simple factual reality is the secret to success.

If you like your health care plan and your doctor you can keep your health care plan and your doctor; if you don’t like Islamic State let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist and maybe it will somehow go away.

And it doesn’t matter how much of a lie that is.

And yet that factual denial of reality is the quintessence of Obama’s “strategy” and his “speech.”

Here’s the Los Angeles Times – note, NOT Fox News because they don’t like Obama because they’re racists – assessment of Obama’s “plan”:

Analysis Obama strategy in Iraq, Syria hinges on long shots
By Patrick J. McDonnell
SHARELINES
▼Sunni-Shiite divisions in Iraq too profound for quick fix
▼U.S. envisions unity and an effective army in Iraq, and a reenergized ‘moderate’ rebel front in Syria
▼Iraq, not Syria, seen as key concern for U.S.
September 11, 2014, 7:10 PM|Reporting from Beirut

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama’s strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed “moderate” rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Well that’s just GREAT.

If you like your Islamic State, you can keep your Islamic State.  If you DON’T like Your Islamic State, you can get your head slowly and agonizingly cut off with a deliberately small and most likely intentionally dull knife.

Obama says he’s going to destroy ISIL in one breath and he denies the possibility of American boots on the ground in the next.  Those two statements are mutually exclusive and fundamentally incoherent: if your goal is actually to destroy ISIL, YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE DESTROYED.  That very much includes relying on the full panoply of US military force (at least the force that’s left after Obama dismantled it in the name of his fool’s “peace dividend” that was irrational and based on a demonic Obama lie to begin with).  Obama’s promise that he will not send troops is tantamount to a promise that he will not destroy ISIL.  As is painfully obvious to anybody who realizes that if the US doesn’t send troops, there won’t be anybody to fight ISIL with any backbone whatsoever:

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday Arab states would play a critical role in a coalition against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but no country in the alliance was talking about sending ground troops to participate.

You know, versus the 37 countries that sent 26,000 troops into harm’s way that Barack Obama and his demonic Democrat Party slandered as “cowboy diplomacy.”

Allow me to pour something called “reality” on Obama’s “strategy”: SOMEBODY HAS TO SEND TROOPS OR PLEASE JUST SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS AND SUBMIT BY BARING YOUR THROAT TO THEIR KNIVES.

The ONLY ground force that is capable of defeating ISIL is US – US as in “U.S.”

I remember just a year ago when Obama and Kerry argued that their aitrstrikes would be “unbelievably small.”  And the attitude was, “Well, hell, don’t even bother, then.”  And here we are.

If all of the above isn’t frankly insanely idiotic enough, take John Kerry the day after Obama’s speech denying that the U.S. was at war with the Islamic State that Obama denies is Islamic and denies is a state:

“If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [ISIS], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Kerry said Thursday on CNN. “I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan.

Okay, nothing to see here, folks.  Don’t get all worked up just because this ISLAMIC STATE CALIPHATE my boss created just sawed two Americans’ heads off in a declaration of war against America.  Now please go back to sleep.

Fine.  If we’re not at war with these people, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THEM???

Don’t worry.  It will be “unbelievably small.”  Pinpricks, really.

Let’s just let history keep repeating itself until we’re all just shocked and appalled that we’re suddenly in ARMAGEDDON and there’s no way out because every path leading away from the end of the human species was long since eroded away by cowardly, dithering liberals.

There comes that point where you either show yourself to be serious or you show yourself to be a joke.  And Barack Obama is a joke and he is not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything other than his fascist domestic ideological agenda.

Obama’s “strategy” rests on refusing to ever send US troops back to the region that he himself acknowledged George W. Bush left safe and secure and stable and instead relying on fighters that he openly MOCKED just a short time ago.

I love this headline because it has the virtue of being so completely true:

Obama has a plan for ISIS in Syria. It’s the opposite of his old plan.

The article points out:

The administration’s longstanding position has been that ISIS’s Syria presence is a problem, but not one that the US can solve through military force. As recently as August 8, Obama downplayed the idea that arming supposedly moderate Syrian rebels — most notably those under the banner of the Free Syrian Army — would help to build a strong fighting force.

He told the New York Times that “there’s not as much capacity as you would hope” for molding an effective group out of “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” The administration actually did propose spending $500 million in late June to arm and train the rebels as a counterweight to ISIS, but very few people believed that would be enough help to make the rebels competent to destroy ISIS.

And as for airstrikes in Syria, he said in August that “we can run [ISIS] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they’re coming right back in” without an effective local partner…

Obama mocked arming these very same people his “strategy” now completely depends on as a FANTASY just ONE MONTH AGO:

Obama Admits Arming Moderate Syrian Rebels Has ‘Always Been A Fantasy’
By: DSWright Monday August 11, 2014 10:01 am

Though many have critiqued President Barack Obama’s strategy of bypassing a terrorism law to give weapons to so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, few have touched the level of comprehensive disdain the president himself has with his own policy.

The weapons the Obama Administration sent to Syria famously ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Some of those weapons are likely being used now in Iraq against government forces and to commit the kind of massacres President Obama ordered American air power in to try and stop.

In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama not only declined to defend his policy of giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but offered a withering critique of his policy and the reasoning behind it.

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. It was President Obama who, despite warnings and protests from numerous groups, bypassed a law against arming terrorists to give weapons to the Syrian rebels. Now it was all a “fantasy” and had no hope of working?

Well, Mr. Wright, I suppose you can put either reset your jaw or just start stomping on it while it’s on the floor.  Because Obama just went back on the policy he had just went back on.

Barack Obama is demon-possessed, and that’s the moral equivalent of being completely INSANE.

You want more pretzel-twisted Obama “logic”???  Obama is now demanding that he can do what he wants based on a resolution that he demonized and later tried to repeal:

WASHINGTON (AP) – On the cusp of intensified airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is using the legal grounding of the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush relied on more than a decade ago to go to war. But Obama has made no effort to ask Congress to explicitly authorize his own conflict. [...]

As a U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2007, Obama tried to prevent Bush’s administration from taking any military action against Iran unless it was explicitly authorized by Congress. A Senate resolution Obama sponsored died in committee. [...]

The White House has cited the 2001 military authorization Congress gave Bush to attack any countries, groups or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Earnest on Thursday described the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, generally known as the AUMF, as one that Obama “believes continues to apply to this terrorist organization that is operating in Iraq and Syria.” [...]

The White House also finds authorization under the 2002 resolution that approved the invasion of Iraq to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction

Obama is using both authorizations as authority to act even though he publicly sought their repeal last year. In a key national security address at the National Defense University in May 2013, Obama said he wanted to scrap the 2001 order because “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.” Two months later, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to consider repealing the 2002 Iraq resolution, calling the document “outdated.”

This is the God-cursed, demon-possessed, dishonest, ignorant FOOL that you trusted your lives and the lives of your children with, America.

By the way, those two resolutions used the word “war” a total of nine different times.  Since Obama has refused to use the word “war,” they clearly don’t apply.

I don’t know about you, but I think about this dishonest, depraved fool who by his own rhetoric is the very worst kind of hypocrite, and I feel like vomiting until every piece of intestine I’ve got is lying on the floor in a bloody pile.

What Obama should ask for is for Congress to pass an “Irresolution to Surrender” rather than a resolution to fight a damn war.  Because he HAS no resolve and under his “leadership” America never will have any “resolution” to do anything other than bow down before his Muslim masters.

And ALL liberals are demon-possessed; it is as quintessential to being a progressive liberal as being a total hypocrite is to being a progressive liberal.  Thus Jay Carney helps CNN prove that they are a network of propagandists that make Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda look honest by comparison and claims that no one could have possible known that terrorism would be so resurgent if we abandoned Iraq.

Except for that reality thing again:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

Everything Bush said would happen if we abandoned Iraq has happened.  Every single damn thing.  Anyone at this point who says Obama was right on Iraq is worse than a fool; he or she is demon-possessed.

Let me start with Syria and work my way back to Iran.  In Syria we had a unique situation as described by the UK Telegraph:

There’s a remarkable piece in the New Yorker about how President Obama is grappling with his wrenching dilemma over what to do about Syria. It’s one of those examples of American journalism that gives you a genuine feel for the atmosphere behind the scenes – and of how, in the words of one former US official, “all the options are horrible”.

That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

“There may be another time in history when a President’s entire national security team recommended a course of action and he overruled them, but if there is I’m not aware of it,” says Senator John McCain in the New Yorker.

If things had become better in Syria, then it could be said that Obama was right and everybody else was wrong.  But, you see, things are so much worse in Syria due to Obama’s dithering inaction it is beyond UNREAL.  And Obama’s foolishness will haunt us for years to come; we had a real opportunity to knock out Assad because there is no question his regime was teetering when literally even ALL his OWN advisors and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the conservative Republicans were urging him to arm the pro-democracy rebels.  We had a real chance – even Obama’s own top experts agreed on that – to have a pro-democracy government rise in Syria.  But because Obama refused to act decisively, the “pro-democracy rebels” – having no weapons and no support and no means to fight – were killed off by both Assad’s regime and by the better organized and better funded and better equipped terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL.  And our opportunity vanished.

And now if we bomb Syria, but refuse to put boots on the ground as Obama is insisting upon, who is going to benefit most from bombing ISIL in Syria?  Bashar al-Assad and his thug regime, that’s who.  Because rest assured HIS boots on the ground will be there to mop up and occupy what we refused to enter.

So now – thanks to Obama – we get to choose between a vicious terrorist army and a vicious dictator thug who has always supported terrorism.  Because when evil rules, there ARE no good choices.

And we’re also in the same sort of  horrible position in Iraq.  Because thanks to Obama’s total abject failure there, helping Iraq means helping Iran.  It didn’t have to be that way.

Obama LIES when he claims that it wasn’t his fault he pulled out of Iraq and that he tried but could not reach a status of forces agreement that we needed to keep our troops safe in Iraq.  Bullcrap: Obama was crystal clear from day one that he was abandoning Iraq.

As Obama abandoned Iraq, he took credit for the “victory” that Bush had won by fighting even as he claimed credit for getting us out.  Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama claimed that Iraq was and would remain “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But the FACT is that General Petraeus was begging Obama NOT to abandon Iraq even in 2009 as Obama took office, but Obama was already overruling his key general back then.  And as Obama was actually announcing his pullout in 2011 that he’d already said he was going to follow through with in 2009, key generals who been the architects of the successful surge strategy were stating at that time that Obama’s fool strategy would end in DISASTER.

We would have had an Iraq that was free of ISIS/ISIL on the one hand, and significantly free of Iranian influence on the other.  But now, thanks again to Obama, we are cursed with both dominating Iraq.  And we have literally become the ally of the most dangerous and most poisonous regime on the face of the earth as we help IRAN drive out the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory they now dominate.

There are no good choices now.  Obama has made any good choice impossible.  There are only bad choices or even worse choices guaranteed down the road if we fear the death toll that will be caused by the bad choices.

You need to understand something: what is happening now is the result of a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party believes we have to confront evil and declare war on it and fight it and kill it.  The Democrat Party denies the existence of evil.  They simply do.  They view themselves a ubersophisticated, and able to see all the many nuances and shades of gray that they mock black-and-white- and right-and-wrong-seeing Republicans for not understanding.  And professing themselves to be wise, Democrats become fools and complete moral idiots.

And now we’re going to start paying in spades for our “No, no, NO!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” president.

John Kerry: Scriptures Compel Us To Confront Climate Change (Good Thing Bible Never Says ANYTHING About Homosexuality Or Abortion)

September 10, 2014

Yes, the sheer hypocrisy of Democrats is beyond amazing.

The question is how can liberal progressives keep their heads from exploding due to all the mutually exclusive contradictions?  And the answer is because they’ve been practicing the art of blatant moral hypocrisy all their lives.

So one of the top Democrats, proponents of secular humanism and the separation of church and state – which has resulted in the planned separation of God and America – gives us this self-righteous presentation on global warming:

KERRY: Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in the Scriptures clearly beginning in Genesis. And Muslim majority countries are among the most vulnerable.

KERRY: Our response to this challenge ought to be rooted in a sense of stewardship of earth, and for me and for many of us here today, that responsibility comes from God.

Actually, God gives man dominion over the earth.  God tells man to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (i.e. don’t be socialists and kill your own growth as a society and don’t be homosexual and pervert marriage and stop having babies and hey while you’re at it don’t murder sixty million of your children).

John Kerry’s take is analogous to the servant who was given talents (money, but in this case representing the earth) from his master.  And instead of investing them (laissez-faire free market capitalism) he buries it in a hole (socialism).

I mean, if you’re going to argue with that last, here’s a quote to prove what I’m saying from THE most influential economist of the left:

“The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up.” — John Maynard Keynes

Et voilà.  The lazy and wicked servant who buried his talent in a hole was simply an ardent socialist.  And thus he kept burying and then digging up the same talent over and over and over again.  And of course produced NOTHING.  Which is ultimately all socialism EVER produces aside from shockingly high real unemployment and a labor participation rate that keeps getting closer and closer to zero.

In Jesus’ parable, the free market capitalist gets praised by God; the socialist is denounced.  But John Kerry has nothing whatsoever to do with God or the heart of Christ, so he perverts the parable and perverts the Bible to speak of the evils of an industrial society.

Strangely, I don’t recall the Bible ever once condemning the sin of carbon – a gas necessary for life on earth to exist.  And unlike Democrats I actually READ the Bible and believe what it tells me.

I’m not at ALL like this worthless turd who has tragically become our president:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

Which I refute and explode here.  In short, the New Testament clearly tells us that the dietary laws are one of the things that Jesus came to fulfill and which He in fact DID fulfill PAST TENSE.  All you have to do to understand that Obama has a bogus, frankly ignorant and idiotic argument is read Acts chapter 10.  Also read Jesus’ description that He came to inaugurate a New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) and understand that the Old Testament that Obama so openly mocks also prophesied a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31).  But those Old Testament concepts which are picked up anew in the New Testament – such as condemnation of homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and the condemnation of murdering one’s own baby – remain.

Oh, btw, Democrats have a pathological inability to separate the role of the individual from the role of government.  When Barack Obama ascribes the Sermon on the Mount to government, rather than to individuals, he makes himself a FOOL.  And he makes himself a fool HYPOCRITE to boot: otherwise, maybe Obama would take the praise of being POOR to the government and thus refuse to tax people and seize their wealth; maybe Obama would view the praise of being hungry as a call to reject the massive public welfare dole he has created.  And omigosh, maybe Obama would have paid attention to the part of the Sermon on the Mount that said -

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-19

- And NOT uttered the stupid and according to Jesus blasphemous remark that I quote above.

But let’s just all agree with Obama and John Kerry that what Jesus really meant on the Sermon on the Mount is “Blessed are those who seize control of government to banish God, redistribute wealth, and destroy economies so they can heal the planet.  Oh, and impose homosexual sodomy and the perversion of marriage onto culture and to murder so many tens of millions of babies that even Satan is shaking his head in amazement.”

Or this one who ran for president until it was revealed that he was a raving psychotic – which interestingly was not enough to keep him from serving as the Democratic National Committee Chairman:

Dr. Dean recently told an audience in Iowa that he prayed daily. On the plane he declined to detail his prayer ritual but described how a 2002 trip to Israel deepened his understanding of the connections between Judaism and Christianity. He named Job as his favorite New Testament book, then later corrected himself, noting that it is in the Old Testament.

For the factual record, not only is the Book of Job NOT in the New Testament, but most scholars believe that  this book is in fact the OLDEST Book of the Bible, and quite possibly even the OLDEST Book preserved in all of human history.  You don’t read the Bible and not know something like that.  At least, you don’t read the Bible and have the intellect to be a janitor, let alone run for president of the United States.

It is always a fascinating thing to watch a liberal who thinks he has the least freaking clue about what the Bible teaches or about what Jesus believed.  Because it always ends up like this.  Jesus NEVER condemned homosexuality, liberals swear.  Well, given the fact that homosexuality was nearly nonexistent in Jewish culture in Jesus’ day, making any specific condemnation irrelevant, the fact that Jesus declared that Jesus came not to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill it and that the Old Testament was entirely in force during Jesus’ entire ministry on earth, the fact that Jesus in Matthew 19 declared that marriage was the union between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, and add the fact that Jesus in Matthew 15 categorically states that ALL sexual activity outside of marriage – which categorically rules out all homosexual activity – is sinful.

In other words, the only problem with liberalism is that it is a) completely wrong and ignorant and b) immoral and evil.

Just ponder for a moment the Democrat like Barack Obama or John Kerry hypocritically citing the Bible while they clearly urinate on God’s Word in every other respect.  Just reflect for a moment on the pathological dishonesty of a man who would do that.

Now, when it comes to taking care of the environment – biblical stewardship – I as a Christian have practiced environmentalism for YEARS.  I have been conserving water for YEARS, doing things that other people have never even considered such as putting a bucket under the shower to catch the water until it heats up enough.  I am an avid recycler and my “blue” trash container for recycling is always FULL while my trash container is always nearly empty.  I love the outdoors and have more than once reported people who dump or who vandalize to the police.

But I also understand that “global warming” is a complete and utter joke when it becomes a rhetorical tool for socialist redistribution of wealth as it has been exploited, and that we have had – as a book is titled – “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” throughout the entire history of planet earth.  That book simply blows the doors off the man-caused global warming junk science.  I summarized that book in an article.

 

 

Why Do Big-Government Liberals And No-Government Anarchists Riot At the Same Riots? They Want The SAME Thing

September 9, 2014

I had a realization of why big-government liberals and no-government anarchists would be in the same camp (as they clearly are).

Liberals have been calling Republicans “anarchists.”  It doesn’t matter that we very clearly AREN’T.  I mean, which party supports a federal government going to war???  Is it the damn DEMOCRAT Party?  Nope.  Which party represents law and order and which one has been sending rioters to Ferguson, Missouri to protest a cop having the right to shoot a thug strong arm robber?  Yep, it sure aint Republicans.

The “Republican anarchists” crap is a myth from the Party of LIARS.

Republicans are all for government.  They just want that government to be limited to the proper role as described in the Constitution.  We’re the ones who favor a strong military because a strong military is one of the relative FEW things that the Constitution approves of federal government doing in “providing for a common defense.”  We know that a strong military serves as a deterrent to foreign aggression such as we are beginning to experience now at the hands of Russia, China, North Korea and Islamic State.  We know that maintaining a strong military generates allies – the kind we are losing by the SCORES right now under Obama’s immoral policies.  We also support a strong police to deter crime.  And as our ability to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate and put to death criminals deteriorates, guess what happens every time: a skyrocketing surge in crime.  We also as Republican conservatives believe that government should be strong enough to maintain a level playing field but weak enough to not be able to tip the scale to favor one chosen side over the other.  The result of that policy would be lower taxes, less regulation, less bureaucracy and more JOBS.

We want government.  We just don’t want the State that replaces God and thinks it has the right to dominate everything.  Because our founding fathers actually fought a damn REVOLUTION to separate themselves from a British state that was NOWHERE NEAR as thuggish and dictatorial as the one we’re in now.

But here liberals are, labeling Republicans as “anarchists.”

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, one of THE most important Democrats in the nation, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Elizabeth Warren, the woman the left wants to run for president for 2016, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Let’s take a moment to examine the leftists own argument as they try to make a nonexistent connection between Republicans and anarchists:

In 2011, Timothy Egan wrote a blog post for the Opinionator, the New York Times’ regular online opinion mill. He described his experience at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle. He described the window-smashing, understood by anarchists as being purely symbolic and a venting of frustration against multinational corporations who exploit workers at home and abroad, as a manifestation of the nihilistic spirit of all anarchists everywhere. “[It] seems to have found a home: in the Republican Party,” he wrote.

Yeah, let’s go back to Ferguson, Missouri.  WHO is smashing windows and whining about the exploitation of workers???  I mean, seriously, you actually think it’s REPUBLICANS???

Let’s replay who was involved in those Seattle World Trade Organization riots:

Organizations and planning[edit]

Planning for the demonstrations began months in advance and included local, national, and international organizations. Among the most notable participants were national and international NGOs (especially those concerned with labor issues, the environment, and consumer protection), labor unions (including the AFL-CIO), student groups, religiously-based groups (Jubilee 2000), and anarchists (some of whom formed a black bloc).[2]

The coalition was loose, with some opponent groups focused on opposition to WTO policies (especially those related to free trade), with others motivated by pro-labor, anti-capitalist, or environmental agendas. Many of the NGOs represented at the protests came with credentials to participate in the official meetings, while also planning various educational and press events. The AFL-CIO, with cooperation from its member unions, organized a large permitted rally and march from Seattle Center to downtown.

However, others were more interested in taking direct action including both civil disobedience and acts of vandalism and property destruction to disrupt the meeting. Several groups were loosely organized together under the Direct Action Network (DAN), with a plan to disrupt the meetings by blocking streets and intersections downtown to prevent delegates from reaching the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, where the meeting was to be held. The black bloc was not affiliated with DAN, but was responding to the original call for autonomous resistance actions on November 30 issued by People’s Global Action.[3]

Of the different coalitions that aligned in protest were the “teamsters and turtles” – a blue-green alliance consisting of the teamsters (trade unions) and environmentalists.[4][5][6]

Corporations targeted[edit]

Certain activists, including locals and an additional group of anarchists from Eugene, Oregon[7] (where they had gathered that summer for a music festival),[8] advocated more confrontational tactics, and planned and conducted deliberate vandalism of corporate properties in downtown Seattle. In a subsequent communique, they listed the particular corporations targeted, which they considered to have committed corporate crime.

EVERY SINGLE THING mentioned in those paragraphs above – every single group and every single tactic – are leftist and come from the LEFT.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Republicans favor laissez-fair free trade and free markets.  We’re also told every damn day that WE’RE the pro-big corporation party.  REPUBLICANS WERE NOT RIOTING.  LIBERALS WERE.

But being liberals, they are pathologically dishonest lying hypocrites without shame, without honesty, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

So why would anarchists who hate government and liberals who love government be completely on the same side?

Because they both want the same damn thing, that’s why.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again on my blog.  Big government liberalism is crony capitalism, where liberals get to decide who wins and who loses, who gets taxed and who gets tax breaks, who gets their wealth seized and who receives the redistribution of wealth, who gets fat union contracts and benefits and who gets stuck with the bill for those fat union contracts and benefits.

Liberalism is nothing short of a massive plan to benefit the rich – THEIR rich, mind you – by stealing from everybody else.

Hollywood liberals are THE most likely people to say taxes ought to be higher on everybody while demanding and receiving from the massive Democrat majority in California special tax breaks.  It’s just who these hypocrites are, pure and simple.

In my own incredibly dysfunctional city, I have been crushed and saddened by the election of liberals to dominate the city council.  I wanted to cry the last election.

So I’m talking with the owner of my gym.  She points out that the city nailed her with a big fee to put rocks in the front of her gym.  She was able to document that the police department didn’t have those rocks in the same sort of area; the fire department didn’t have rocks in the same exact sort of area.  It didn’t matter, the liberals of the city council said; it was “the cost of doing business.”  We get to decide who wins and who loses, and guess what: we decided that you lose.

So a big developer comes in and wants to build a complex.  And anchoring the complex is a huge gym.  And guess what: the same damn city council that nickeled and dimed the small biz gym is all of a sudden waving huge development and impact costs for this developer.

And the small gym owner is pointing out to me, “Who is going to get stuck with those costs?  I am.  And meanwhile they wouldn’t cut me so much as ONE INCH of slack over even the most TRIVIAL costs.”

Ah, liberalism.  Where whites lose and minorities win.  Where men lose and women win.  Where Christians lose and homosexuals win.  Democrats pit races, classes, genders and ages and win a majority by 50 percent plus ONE.  And then it’s “and punish our enemies and reward our friends” time:

Well, what does that have in common wit h anarchists and no government at ALL?

Because the same people who choose who wins and who loses with big government and crush and oppress the rest of us are the same people who would hire thugs and crush the rest of us if there were no government at all, that’s what.  What does the law mean?  Well, we’ve seen that now under Obama and his lawthug Eric Holder.  We’ve SEEN it in the liberals on the Supreme Court: it means whatever the left SAYS it means.

You’ve got your Western movie plot: a bunch of small government conservatives are living in a small town running their little businesses and all of a sudden some rich and powerful slimebag comes in with all his hired guns and seizes control and runs everybody who doesn’t knuckle under to him out.  And to the extent that there’s any law, they BUY the law and its THEM wearing the damn badges.  That’s what these people do when there’s no government and that’s what these people do when government gets huge enough to pick all the winners and the losers.

Big-government liberals or no-government anarchists: either way, it’s just a different means toward the same end, it’s just a different way to give total power to the SAME people, is all.

Exploding The Deceitful Myth That Homosexuality And Pedophilia Are Somehow Two Different Things

September 8, 2014

 

An article from the Los Angeles Times talks about a former USC “professor of gender and sexuality studies” – AKA a professor of perversion – having sex with boys.  Which of course is supposed to identify the pervert as a pedophile.

Oh, he’s a child molester, all right, but let’s take a look at this and you tell me if the description “homosexual” is equally descriptive:

Ex-USC professor pleads guilty to sexually assaulting boys overseas
By Richard Winton,  Kate Mather
SHARELINES
▼Ex-USC prof on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list pleaded guilty to having sex with minors overseas
▼Former USC professor admits to having sex with boys on overseas trips to Southeast Asia
▼Former USC professor of gender studies guilty of having sex with boys overseas; gave child porn to archives
September 5, 2014, 5:53 PM

A former USC professor once on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted fugitives list pleaded guilty Friday to flying to the Philippines and sexually assaulting underage boys he groomed online.

Walter Lee Williams, 65, admitted engaging in illegal sexual contact with minors in foreign places, entering the plea during a brief appearance before U.S. District Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez.

As part of a plea, federal prosecutors agreed to recommend that the onetime eminent professor of gender and sexuality studies serve no more than five years in a federal prison. He also would be subject to 10 years supervision upon release and must pay $25,000 in restitution to his seven victims. Williams will be sentenced Dec. 15.

He was apprehended within a day of making the FBI’s Most Wanted List in June 2013 after he was indicted on sex crimes involving two 14-year-old boys in the Philippines. He was captured in the Mexican coastal town of Playa del Carmen after a resident recognized his photo from a newspaper.

Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michel Moore said Williams’ conduct came to light three years ago when a person concerned about the safety of children contacted authorities.

Williams taught anthropology, gender studies and history at USC for about two decades until he quit in 2011. Under the guise of academic research on sexuality in the Southeast Asia/Pacific region, he repeatedly traveled to the area.

Federal prosecutors alleged that the author and Fulbright Award winner used those trips to sexually assault underage boys. Investigators believe he has at least 10 victims across Southeast Asia, aged 9 to 17.

Williams engaged in webcam sex sessions with two boys, aged 13 and 14, in the Philippines in 2010. The next year, he traveled to the country and sexually assaulted both boys and a 15-year-old boy, according to the plea agreement. He was 62 at the time.

While there, he also had sexual contact with three other 16-year-old boys, records show.

When he returned to Los Angeles International Airport on Feb. 11, 2011, he was “intercepted,” and child pornography was found on him. The professor fled Los Angeles a week after being interviewed by the FBI.

An attorney for USC last year provided the FBI with materials the professor donated to the ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives that contained “lascivious visual depictions of minors,” according to the plea agreement. FBI agents also obtained similar images from Williams’ former home.

Recognition for Williams’ work included the USC General Education Outstanding Teacher Award in 2006.

I don’t know what YOU were doing when you were 17 years old, but I was serving in the United States Army.  In the infantry.  I’d already completed basic training, advanced infantry training, and airborne training before turning 18, in fact.  My parents signed off on a form stating that I was an adult capable of making a very adult decision.  And I made that decision to serve.

And again, I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t a “boy”; I was a MAN, serving his nation, physically trained and morally prepared to fight and die for it.

Throughout most of human history, people have married at FAR YOUNGER AGES than what we are doing today.  It was not at ALL uncommon for fifteen year old girls to already be wives and mothers.  For example:

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. Roman law required brides to be at least 12 years old.

And you can just go to any damn high school and look at the “girls” and at the “boys” and see with your own stupid sheople eyes that these are young ADULTS.  With all their sexual natures already on all-too graphic display.

I mean come on, it may very well be beyond “inappropriate” for a man to have sex with one of these young adults who are young enough to be his GRAND KIDS – especially in today’s age where you’re still deemed a “child” by Obama when you’re twenty-damn-six years-old – but it is hardly as if these young adults are some kind of a different species or somehow do not have all of the same sexual equipment that any ADULT male or female has.  It is not as if 17-year-old “underage children” constitute a different sexual gender than legal eighteen-year-olds.

We just crossed another major Rubicon in the age of Obama: more than HALF of all adults in America aren’t married, up from 37% in 1976.  Now, there’s a couple of different reasons for that, such as that the left has “progressively” redefined “marriage” such that it is a blasphemous perversion of what the God who ordained it says it is – and why even bother getting married when “marriage” is nothing more than a trivial societal convention rather than something that God ordained and made sacred?  But the other major reason that we’re no longer marrying or marrying at increasingly older ages is that the big labor unions have so destroyed the education system that a boy and girl who used to be ready to tackle the world as teens are now STILL not ready to tackle the world when they’re in their late 20s and beyond.  I mean, mid-thirties is the new eleven these days.  And we can’t have these 35-year old violating Roman tradition and getting married when they’re emotionally and intellectually only eleven, can we?

There is no question that it ought to be a crime for a grown-up adult to have any kind of sexual intercourse with a minor, given these times.  Young people have not yet formed their identity and the devastation is beyond terrible for young people who have sexual intercourse too early outside of the bonds of sacred marriage – you know, as the BIBLE says and as Christians who are for abstinence keep pointing out.  Casual sex is destructive for anyone at ANY age, for what it’s worth, as anyone who has any wisdom knows.  But it’s far beyond “naïve” to suggest that these young adults are “genderless children” and that a man having sexual relations with one is a “pedophile” as opposed to being either a hetero- or homosexual PERVERT.  It is simply dishonest to the point of being obscene.  To suggest that a 17-year-old YOUNG MAN is no freaking biologically different from a six-month-old is beyond idiotic and beyond irrational.

By creating the category of “pedophile” you are creating some kind of disease the way we’ve turned alcoholism into a disease when it used to be a MORAL problem that people were RESPONSIBE for not being able to control back in the day when we had this thing called “morality and common decency.”  And back in the day before we had sky-high rates of this perverted garbage.

You people who say this pervert is a “pedophile” because he’s having sex with “underage boys” versus “men” are sick and depraved and frankly insane.

But you DO IT ANYWAY because your sick and twisted liberal ideology compels you to do so.

This “homosexual-no-no-no-it’s-just-pedophilia” bait and switch goes on all the damn time.

The left played this game with the infamous “Pedophile Priests.”  In actual fact, 80% of the “boys” molested were teenage boys rather than prepubescent kids:

Second, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young alter boy or girls of any age.

Do you know why these “pedophile priests” became “pedophile priests” rather than what they actually WEREHOMOSEXUALS?  Because the left wanted it that way and because they twist facts and bend them into whatever conclusion they want, is why.

Let’s consider the FACTS about the Catholic priesthood and the rampant number of homosexuals who have increasingly come to dominate it:

Many priests and theologians have commented about the gay sub-cultures in Catholic seminaries:

 bullet Father Donald Cozzens wrote that several studies have concluded that about 50% of priests and seminarians are gay. 5
bullet David France of Newsweek, referring to St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, CA, wrote: “Depending on whom you ask, gay and bisexual men make up anywhere from 30 percent to 70 percent of the student body at the college and graduate levels.3
bullet Rt. Rev. Helmut Hefner, rector of St. Johns Seminary “accepts that his gay enrollment may be as high as 50 percent.3
bullet Gay journalist Rex Wockner commented: “When I was in the Catholic seminary in my early 20s (St. Meinrad College, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1982-1983; University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill., 1983-1984), at least 50 percent of the students were gay….At St. Mary of the Lake, the straight students felt like a minority and felt excluded from some aspects of campus life to such an extent that the administration staged a seminar at which we discussed the problem of the straight students feeling left out of things…6
bullet Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 55.1% of seminarians were gay. 7
bullet Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop of Chicago, rejects some estimates that as many as 50% of seminarians have a homosexual orientation. 3
bullet An anonymous priest from the Boston area commented in an interview with Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald: “there’s a subculture of gay priests and everyone knows it. I went through seminary with a lot of them and got hit on. And when I reported it, I was harassed to a point where, emotionally, it was very difficult to get ordained. I’m not the only one who had to fight to get through it; I know guys who left because of it. It was clear there was a cabal tacitly saying, ‘Don’t bother reporting this stuff.’ You wouldn’t believe the self-justifications, like, ‘Well, celibacy only applies to not getting married, so since we’re not getting married we can do whatever we want.’ It was horrible, with a lot of intimidation, but I stayed because I felt this was what God was calling me to do; besides, if I’d walked, they’d have won.8
bullet Father McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame, commented that some seminary students “…who feel they have a genuine vocation for priesthood go into a seminary and feel very alienated by the gay culture. I don’t say this in any homophobic sense. It’s just the reality.2
bullet Pope John Paul II held a meeting with the American cardinals which dealt with the clerical sex scandals. Afterward, Bishop Wilton Gregory, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said: “One of the difficulties we do face in seminary life or recruitment is made possible when there does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice [about entering.] It is an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.9
bullet R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at Notre Dame, said: “People I know quite well have left the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping vows, or in alienation because they’re not gay. In some cases it’s a serious problem.3
bullet The Most Rev. Wilton Gregory said: “[T]here does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice.3
bullet The Rev. Charles Bouchard, president of the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis said: “I think straight priests and seminarians shouldn’t be whining. I just don’t think it’s a big deal.3
bullet Father Donald Cozzens wrote: “What impact does the gay subcultrue have on the straight priest and seminarian?….straight men in a predominantly or significantly gay environment commonly experience chronic destabilization, a common symptom of which is self doubt…Their psychic confusion, understandably, has significant implications for both their spiritual vitality and emotional balance.10
bullet Timothy Radcliffe, Master of the Order of Preachers, commented on the emergence of a homosexual sub-culture within a seminary or religious order: “It can threaten the unity of the community; it can make it harder for the brethren to practice the chastity which we have vowed. It can put pressure on brethren to think of themselves in a way that is not central to their vocation as preachers of the Kingdom… 11

You can go to the site to view the source of each of these footnoted points.

If you are a “professor” clinging to that lie, you are as dishonest as “Professor Williams,” you are nearly as depraved as “Professor Williams,” and you ought to have your damn credentials stripped from you as a moron.

It wasn’t all that long ago that I was reading my local newspaper and a “wildlife expert” said not to kill rattlesnakes because they would only reproduce more and you’d end up with more of them.  And I was like, “Really?  You’re expert is THAT stupid?”  You’ve got to understand that I live in a state that has a grizzly bear on its state flag when there are NO grizzly bears in the state any more: BECAUSE WE HUNTED THEM TO EXTINCTION HERE.

If you kill a rattlesnake, one of the things that rattlesnake won’t do anymore is reproduce.  And it’s not like the rest of the rattlesnakes have a conference and determine that they need to each reproduce a little bit more to pick up the slack for poor dead Ronald the Rattlesnake.  And so all the rattlesnakes at the Great RepFab agree to have more babies for Ronnie’s sake.

At the time, I merely dismissed it as idiotic.  But it later came to me that this expert wasn’t stupid; what he was was dishonest.  He was trying to use his influence as an “expert” to manipulate people into behavior that he wanted as a philosophical environmentalist: don’t hurt rattlesnakes; you should just let them hurt YOU instead.

And of course at the same time, other “experts” are having it both ways.  Because at the same time one expert is suggesting not to kill rattlesnakes lest they increase their breeding rate, others are out there helping to impose incredibly draconian regulations on irritating, annoying, bothering, irking, harassing, badgering, teasing, tormenting, provoking, maddening, taunting, angering, displeasing, pestering, exasperating, riling or vexing animals LEST THEY GO EXTINCT.

It’s no coincidence that so many professors are leftists, because this is intellectual Stalinism: they think they ought to get to have everything not only both ways, but in as many ways as they want it.  And if their ways contradict each other, if their theories are contradicted by the facts, well so much the worse for the facts.

As an example of the left having it both ways, consider the fact that when it comes to “pedophilia,” the victims under 18 are “children.”  But when it comes to justifying ABORTION, these young girls are as adult as anybody else and have all the adult rights of access to abortion so they can make the adult decision to kill their own babies rather than have to as children have their parents’ consent.  The left ALWAYS must have it BOTH WAYS or else it would crumble for the intellectually and morally vacuous cancer upon society that leftism is.

You want another blatant example of the left having it both ways?  Take feminist women.  Women are every bit as capable as men, they tell us.  Women ought to be cops and firefighters and serve in combat and be Navy SEALs.  But then Ray Rice shows us what happens when a man and a woman actually fight and it’s lights out for the woman.  And now the same woman who can do EVERYTHING a man can do is a helpless victim against domestic violence.  Because the left is the nexus where mutually exclusive realities converge into one massive contradiction.  [My own view, fwiw, is that women CAN'T do everything men can do - and vice versa - and that when men batter women it is intrinsically an unfair fight and men ought to be held accountable for that abuse the same way adults ought to be held accountable for beating children.  But then again, I'm something called "consistent" which no liberal can ever possibly understand].

And so just like our “pedophile” – and please make that HOMOSEXUAL – Professor Williams, we have a massive overrepresentation of homosexual priests who acted out on their HOMOSEXUALITY.  Period.

And homosexuality was declared to be “normal” in the very same sort of disgusting politically-correct-damn-reality sort of way:

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.  Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.  Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis.  There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated.  And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco.  These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.  In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal.  The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.  This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.  They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.  And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed.  And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy.  So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

You want to be declared mentally healthy?  Just RIOT enough and then watch the moral and intellectual cowards declare you to be whatever you want to be declared.

Given the FACT that homosexuals constitute no more than 2% of the population, and given the whopping number of “child molestation” cases, to properly link the two together as the facts actually DEMAND is to point such a whopping finger of indictment at homosexuals that their predatory danger to the soul of the nation would be manifest.  And that would in the same way indict all these damn “experts” who said all these twisted people were fine, wouldn’t it?

Can’t have that, obviously.  No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

In so many ways it is beyond unreal, homosexuality is dangerous to America and to our moral fabric as a society.

But the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness, as Romans 1:18 – which begins the outcry against homosexuality – points out.  And they lie with their statistics and their theories and their pronouncements.

The Bible is as clear as it can be in its condemnation of the danger of the homosexualization of society as has HAPPENED in our society.  Just read Romans 1:18-32 for that.

If you’re a liberal, you’ve made your choice to completely disregard the teachings and warnings of Scripture.  You have radically rejected God and as a result one day soon He will radically reject YOU to the hell He prepared for the devil and his demons.  But if you’re NOT yet submitted to worshiping depraved culture rather than God, consider reality.  Realize that most of what’s being pumped into culture today – whether in the name of “art” or “politics” or “academia” or “science” – is demonic garbage from people who have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25).  These are people who have had their minds blinded by the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) so that they are “always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have defiantly led America to the full wrath of God according to Romans chapter one.  To the extent that we yet have time, if it is not too late, you had better make your stand right now and determine to either stand with Christ or stand with the coming Antichrist who will complete the Democrat Party agenda in its radical and terrifying opposition to God.

George Bush Predicted The Fiasco A.K.A. The Fool Obama Presidency Back In 2007. You Voted For Hell And You’re Going To Get What You Voted For.

September 5, 2014

A little history lesson is in order.

Why did we leave Iraq when the war was WON and we had a safe, stable region?

Because Barack Hussein Obama is a moral idiot and a wicked man:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you see that date?  February 2009.  Do you see what Obama swore up and down he was going to do as soon as the fool could do it?  Withdraw our troops.  Do you see who was so dead-set against it that it was beyond unreal?  Pretty much every general in the American military.  Do you see how freaking unreal ARROGANT Obama and his advisers were in saying Petraeus thinks he’s dealing with a decent and reasonable man in George Bush rather than a demon-possessed fool in Barack Obama?  Do you see how Obama’s decision to withdraw all the troops out of Iraq and guarantee a VACUUM for the terrorists to fill had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any “status of forces agreement” or any Iraqi dumbass prime ministers?

Please see this article if you have any doubts whatsoever that Barack Hussein Obama is literally a liar straight from the devil.  Because I defy ANYONE to refute the FACTS that the war was won, that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden literally claimed credit for the safe, stable region that George Bush had left behind in Iraq, that Barack Obama ordered the withdrawal literally in 2009 over the fierce objection of his generals, that Barack Obama claimed CREDIT for the withdrawal before dishonestly and treasonously claiming it wasn’t his idea only AFTER the DISASTER that George Bush predicted happened EXACTLY as George Bush predicted it would.

What did George Bush tell Barack Obama would happen if the fool had only had the wisdom to listen to wisdom?

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

You tell me that isn’t EXACTLY what has happened, you demon-possessed liberal and future resident of the eternally raging fire of hell.

Somebody had this giant nugget of truth:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.”

That is a superb way to explain what I’ve tried to say repeatedly in articles: we have become a toxic, immoral people.  And our election for the first president to call down the full wrath of God upon America according to Romans chapter one is proof of it.

This nation is about to fall harder than any nation in the history of the world has EVER fallen before.  That’s because once we called on God and now we’re worshiping homosexual sodomy on an altar of more murdered babies (56,662,169 babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973) than all of the human beings combined who died in the worst and bloodiest war ever waged by mankind (56,125,262 died during World War II).  You called upon God as no people had ever done and you ABANDONED God as no people had ever done.  And God is not mocked for long.  Is it going to be in a holocaust of nuclear war as we arm apocalyptic Iran while Russia and China weapon-up while Obama guts our military?  Will it be in a bloodbath of terrorismWill it be due to a civilization-ending megadroughtWill we financially collapse in the worst financial disaster EVER due to the hundreds of trillions of dollars in immoral debt that Barack Obama and his Demonic Bureaucrat Democrat Party has inflicted on us over the decades?

It will be the hand of Almighty God.  Just as Revelation chapter 6 says that the Antichrist – the ultimate big-government tyrant who is to come – will be the judgment of God as Democrats worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  Then they shall eat the ultimate fruit of socialism in the form of an economic system in which no one can buy or sell without literally worshiping the State.

When America collapses, that day will surely be coming soon.  I feel the hoofbeats of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse coming nearer and nearer.

You wanted the beast and you’re going to get him.  And death and hell will follow with him.

Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America: Now The Rest Of The World Sees Us As Decapitated Corpses In Orange Jumpsuits

September 3, 2014

What does America look like under Obama?

It looks like a captive in an orange “Gitmo” jumpsuit with his hands bound behind his back waiting submissively for a terrorist to agonizingly saw his head off.  That’s what it looks like.

I was predicting this way back in March of 2009.  I began that article with these words:

I heard so many liberals crying that Bush had forfeited “American prestige” in the world – and that Obama would magically restore the image of America around the world – that I finally just kept a vomit bucket next to my chair.

Let us just say that a mere 6 weeks into the Obama presidency, the outright, “barf all over your shoes” idiocy of the liberal mantra.

I saw something that only a sad minority of Americans could see: the truth about the horrifying choice the American people had just made.

The Democrats were going to restore “American prestige.”  Remember that?

What does “restored American prestige under Obama” look like???

It looks like this:

001

002

003

004

Obama said a few weak, blathering words of gobbledygook to denounce the James Foley beheading.  And was literally on the golf course NINE MINUTES LATER.

But ISIS has got a queue of American victims lined up.  So NEXT…

005

Are we at war with ISIS?

Nope.  At a time when we need resolve and a strategy, we have Obama instead.

Barack Obama is the living embodiment of DISGRACE.

We’ve got an American Marine who served honorably in combat left to twist in the wind in a Mexican prison right now.  We’ve got at least three American rotting in North Korean labor camps while they exploit them for propaganda purposes and rub the American people’s noses in their own weakness.  We’ve got Russia invading nations and Obama fearful to use the word “invasion” because then he’d have to get off his skinny, pimply little ass and DO SOMETHING:

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are refusing to call Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine this week an invasion, and the issue is not on the agenda for Thursday’s National Security Council meeting.

Putin boasts, Obama cowers.  Obama looks like he’s aged fifty years in the time he’s been exposed for the pathetic tool that he is.

We’ve got China pushing American Navy pilots out of the South China Sea:

The Pentagon on Friday made public what it characterized as a particularly aggressive encounter on Tuesday. U.S. officials later said that at least three similarly provocative incidents occurred earlier this year in the same general location, all in international airspace.

“The Chinese are trying to be more active in establishing good quality military-to-military relations. There’s just something different and unique about what’s going on in the South China Sea,” a senior U.S. official said. “Something’s out of whack.”

Barack Obama what’s “out of whack.”  Because he’s a demon-possessed moral whackjob and he is an abject disgrace and the collapse of America is now a certainty because we made this fool our king.

And of course we’ve got two beheaded journalists.

You could write this up to the tune “The 12 Days of Christmas.”  I mean, one jailed Marine, two beheaded journalists, three American prisoners in North Korea, four Chinese incidents… and the refrain, and a demonic Obama presidency.

Obama’s entire foreign policy fiasco has been rightly compared to the Brazilian national soccer team’s complete meltdown.  Because just like the Brazilians, the Obama team “folded, they collapsed, they just absolutely capitulated.”

Obama dishonestly and wickedly mocked George Bush’s foreign policy as “cowboy diplomacy” because Bush – who assembled a coalition of forty nations who sent TROOPS in his Iraq War that Obama slandered – somehow in Obama’s deranged and frankly demon-possessed mind couldn’t get the world behind him.  You tell me: how many nations will send troops to Obama???

When it came time for Obama to deliver on his infamously idiotic “red line” warning to Syria, how many nations were willing to follow this living embodiment of disgrace?  ZERO.

How has Obama done in leading the world to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine which literally constituted an act of war against the United States?  Like a damn ZERO.

Now, let’s keep in mind that vicious violence always comes from the LEFT.  So it ought to be no surprise that these rabid Islamic State terrorists aren’t doing anything that union thugs said they were going to do:

Vicious Obama ‘They Bring a Knife, We Bring A Gun’ ‘Punish Our Enemies’ Tone In Wisconsin: ‘We’ll Cut Scott Walker’s Head Off!’

I still remember the shrill ecstasy that the leftist media erupted into over Abu Ghraib and how they blamed it all on George Bush and Dick Cheney.  I stopped COUNTING the various “Abu Ghraib moments” of Barack Obama over two years ago:

Obama’s FOURTH ‘Abu Ghraib Moment’ Shows New Gay Military Disintergrating Under Messiah-In-Chief – Not That Media Will Ever Hold Him Responsible

We have in Obama a true narcissist who tries to grab the credit earned by others even as he blames others for his mistakes – as this article dated 2011 rightly predicted:

Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat

I’ve said that in the “God damn America” choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, America had to choose between a Mormon who believes that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer versus a man who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer.  That’s the kind of choice you get when God turns his back on a wicked nation.  And Obama lied like the spirit brother of Lucifer that he truly is when he claimed that the complete pullout and abandonment from Iraq wasn’t his damn fault.

Obama is too much of a weakling, too much of a coward and too much of a moral idiot FOOL to send terrorists to Gitmo and put them in orange jumpsuits.  He says complete, abject WEAKNESS is the answer instead.  And the terrorists are mocking him and mocking the United States of America.

What is Obama’s strategy to deal with the terrorist threat that he allowed to metastasize out of control?  He said himself: he doesn’t have one.  Because Obama is a true fool who stupidly and tragically believed the world and simple human reality were very different from what they actually ARE in FACT.  And Obama – being a true moral coward because he cannot differentiate between good and evil – cannot respond to the real world or even understand it.

Obama began in a press conference boasting that he was going to destroy ISIS.  But then reporters started asking him what his damn strategy was and he had a scrawny little body in an otherwise empty suit:

President Obama sent seemingly conflicting signals Wednesday about his ultimate goal in the fight against the Islamic State, saying at a press conference in Europe that the aim is to “degrade and destroy” the terror group — but moments later, claiming he wants to make it a “manageable problem.” [...]

Speaking in Estonia during a visit to Europe, Obama at first took a hard line. He condemned the execution as “horrific” and “barbaric” and vowed “justice will be served.”

After taking some heat for admitting last week that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to address the militant group in Syria, Obama said they do have a regional strategy. Ultimately, he said, “our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.”

But later in the press conference, Obama returned to the topic and noticeably softened his tone.

He clarified that if the U.S. is joined by an international coalition, they can “continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

The remarks are likely to sow confusion on Capitol Hill, and possibly among allies.

“Are we going to contain ISIS or are we going to crush ISIS? And the president has not answered that.” …

He doesn’t have an answer.  He cannot understand the world.  His secular humanist progressive liberalism is a completely and radically failed ideology that is only effective at slandering and deceiving and undermining and backbiting.

This blind, stupid, demoniac said as recently as June that “the world is less violent than it has ever been.”  I mean, listen to this FOOL speaking on June 11, 2014:

But this country has always been built both through an individual initiative, but also a sense of some common purpose. And if there’s one message I want to deliver to young people like a Tumblr audience is, don’t get cynical. Guard against cynicism. I mean, the truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.

And as for any appearances to the contrary, well, blame the media (just don’t blame the Fool-in-Chief):

President Obama, at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Purchase, N.Y., Aug. 29:

[T]he truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy. In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through. The good news is that American leadership has never been more necessary, and there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.

That’s right.  The complete meltdown all over the globe is nothing but the smoke and mirrors of social media.  Nothin’ to see here, folks.  Messiah Obama has lowered the level of the oceans and healed the planet, after all.

At his 400th PLUS FUNDRAISER, Obama said that American leadership has never been more necessary.  Which is why he needs to resign effective January 20, 2009.  Let’s use a golfing term – you know how much Obama loves to golf when he ought to be LEADING, after all – and call the 2008 election a “mulligan” and appoint John McCain president.

But that won’t happen, will it?  Which is why this nation will die the pathetic death of the headless chicken.

In John 11:51 St. John the apostle points out the fact that when Caiphas said “that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50), that he was speaking as high priest and therefore literally speaks prophetically as high priest.  We now have a similar situation in Barack Obama and his “high priest,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  As Obama’s “reverend” and “spiritual adviser” for more than twenty years, America anointed Jeremiah Wright as our modern equivalent of high priest.  And thus when Rev. Wright said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!” he spake as a prophet.

And God is damning this nation indeed, just as we voted to be damned by God when we voted for Rev. Wright’s disgrace of a candidate.

 

This Labor Day, Demand Leftists Professors And Universities Have Their Salaries And Tuition Redistributed To Poor Working Students

September 1, 2014

I am so sick of the left.

On a daily basis, you have the left screaming for a higher and higher minimum wage, beyond what most businesses can afford to pay entry-level and unskilled workers.

The unions want it because they will then demand a wage hike for THEIR workers; after all, if that unskilled slob is now earning twice what he used to, surely that union worker ought to earn twice as much, too, right???

It doesn’t matter how much it hurts the little people who both struggle to run small businesses and struggle to find jobs as they are literally priced out of the market as it simply doesn’t pay to hire them anymore.

So I’m watching the television and there’s this leftist professor demanding higher minimum wages.

Let it come out of HER wages.  Because as a liberal professor, she represents THE most depraved money-hungry predator of ALL:

Between 2002 and 2012, prices for new textbooks rose 82%, while tuition and fees increased about 89% during that period, and overall consumer prices grew 28%, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

That according to the Los Angeles Times dated TODAY.

Tuition is skyrocketing.  The cost of college textbooks is skyrocketing.  And who runs that vile system lock, stock and barrel?  Cockroach liberals who say “other people ought to be forced to pay more.”

THEY ought to be forced to pay more.

I propose college tuition and books be reduced at the expense of college/university faculty and staff.

I further propose that any “living wage” increase ought to come right out of the wages of union workers who want to force other people to get gouged to pay for.

Let’s call it the “If you want it, YOU effing pay for it!” law.

Consider a smattering of articles I’ve written on the subject of “minimum wage”:

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

Miniumum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease

The Party Of Genuine Evil And The Destruction Of America: In 39 States, Democrat Welfare Pays Better Than A Secretary’s Job

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

The Union Label Is Hypocrisy: Unions Hire Minimum Wage Non-Union Workers To Do Their Picketing For Them

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

Minimum wage increases invariably result in fewer employers offering the entry-level jobs that people need to begin working their way up the ladder to self-sufficiency.

Democrats WANT and in fact NEED people to be dependent on government.  That’s why they deliberately sabotage the jobs that people need to be able to succeed without them and their garbage socialism.

Democrats want the redistribution of wealth.  I’m fine with that; redistribute THEIR wealth and see how long they think it’s a good idea.

 

It’s Now Crystal Clear: If You Have Courage And Want To Fight Terrorism, Vote GOP; If You’re A Coward And Want To Be A Slave, Vote Democrat

August 29, 2014

Yesterday pretty much nailed it: John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement way back on August 7 that said, “The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS.”  And then Obama went on vacation and played golf.  Lots and lots of golf, prompting the liberal editorialist Maureen Dowd to point out on August 23:

FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I mean, Obama literally left to play golf NINE MINUTES after delivering his “statement of resolve” following Foley’s beheading.

Wednesday, John McCain says what is by now beyond painfully obvious yet again:

Asked if he would want Obama to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, McCain said the president still hadn’t developed a strategy.

“Under the War Powers Act he can bomb and then come to Congress after 30 days,” McCain said. “But what he really needs to do is come to Congress with a strategy, with policies that implement this strategy. Does anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?”

Well, DOES anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?  When the Turd-in-Chief finally comes back from vacation even HE says, “Hell no!”  He pointed out yesterday, “Hey, I’m the fool president and even I don’t have a damn clue what the president’s strategy is.”  That’s basically what Obama said:

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

At least the fool didn’t say, “I don’t want to put the cart before the clubs.”  As in GOLF clubs.

Now, he could have gone on to say, “But don’t worry.  I will be going straight to the Situation Room and will not be coming out until America has an effective strategy to  deal with the terrorist army that I foolishly and stupidly called “JayVee” just a few months ago.”  But then he’d have to say, “PSYCH!  I’m only kidding.  I’m not going to the Situation Room.  I’m going to another damn FUNDRAISER!  I don’t give a damn about the American people.  They’re less than cockroaches to me.”

Mind you, it’s not like this terrorist army that Obama only recently was mocking as “JayVee” has been building and growing for the last four years.  Except oh, wait, it HAS been.

Obama having no strategy is a national disgrace that will cause serious damage to America.  There IS no enemy who presents a greater threat to the security of the United States than our Fool-in-Chief.  It is FAR easier to destroy a nation from within than it is from without; as Obama is proving every day.

Amazingly, Obama the coward is trying to blame both the media and the Pentagon for his being a fool without a damn plan.  It’s not the Pentagon that doesn’t have a damn plan; it’s the failed fool who is supposed to be the damn commander-in-chief.  The Pentagon has ALL SORTS of plans that are just waiting for a president to ask for them.  That’s all some top brass DO is formulate plans for every possible scenario.  The only possible crisis disaster that the Pentagon doesn’t have a plan for is what happens if a moronic thug assumes the office of the presidency of the United States.  At the same time, Obama is trying to blame the media for the stupidity of his words, as if it’s the media’s fault that they are quoting exactly what he said exactly as he said it, as if Obama views himself a hand-puppet and is accusing some reporter of forcing his lips to mouth “I don’t have a plan” as he impersonated Obama’s voice just off the platform.

That sort of moral cowardice is the hallmark of his entire presidency as he first demonized and blamed Bush for his first failed term as president and then began to blame the House of Representatives for his second failed term as president.  Every president since George WASHINGTON had a predecessor and even WASHINGTON had politicians from the other party in Congress.  Obama is the first true coward who believes that a single opponent with any power is a threat to his status as a fascist dictating tyrant.  And that’s why this malevolent narcissist is so paranoid about Republicans.

And of course what’s Hillary Clinton saying about Obama’s not having any plan?  She’s repeating her Benghazi line saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?”  She said in testimony about that utter and disgraceful fiasco, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”  And she couldn’t even provide the correct motive – a TERRORIST ATTACK – as one of her possible scenario options to consider.

We had THREE WEEKS WARNING of that attack which resulted in the murder of the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  But what difference does it make, indeed.

There’s a crystal-clear pattern of Democrat behavior: an inability to see or face danger which results in our being viciously caught unprepared.  It’s been the case since World War I, frankly.  World War II, happened again.  Korea, happened again.  Vietnam, happened again.

Mind you, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.  Her replacement as Secretary of State has also twisted reality into a pretzel to suit the Obama talking points spin.  A year ago they refused to arm the rebellion in Syria when the experts (and the Republicans) were urging them to, citing their fear that the weapons would fall into the hands of the more radical elements.  Until it suited their talking point to claim the EXACT OPPOSITE and argue that in fact the rebel opposition was actually somehow growing more moderate as a result of Obama’s dithering and refusing to lift a damn finger to help them.  And the facts that documented the opposite just be damned.

Now, I would submit to you that the forces of ISIS/ISIL that pretty much OWN everything that Syrian dictator Assad doesn’t rather proves the fact that John Kerry and the damn Obama regime couldn’t have been more freaking wrong.  With the result that Obama literally cemented both ISIL AND Assad to permanent power in the region.

Meanwhile, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan wrote a letter asking to join ISIS/ISIL and become a “citizen” of the terrorist state.  But keep in mind according to Barack Obama, Nidal Hasan is NOT a terrorist.  He’s only guilty of “work-place violence.”  And the fact that he screamed Allah Akbar while he was murdering American servicemen after passing out business cards that announced him as a “soldier of Allah” meant NOTHING to Democrats.  Not ONE DAMN THING.  So let’s bury our heads in the sand and not call reality what it is and hope it goes away.  That’s the security platform of the Democrat Party.

Democrats are pathologically weak on national security.  And they have been ever since they hounded Lyndon Baines Johnson – who of course is to blame for the Vietnam War if ANYONE is – back in 1968 when they showed that the heart of the modern Democrat Party is VIOLENT FASCISM at the 1968 riot otherwise known as the Democrat National Convention.

There’s a reason for that.  And that reason is that the Democrat Party is completely wedded to secular humanism, and therefore to atheism, to postmodernism and to existentialism.  They don’t believe in Truth as an objective category, and therefore they do not believe in any ultimate line between good and evil.  It’s all infinite shades of gray to them.  At least unless they’re talking about homosexuality and abortion – in which they take a firm stand landing on the completely opposite side from God and His Word.

And that moral idiocy makes Democrats moral cowards.

Consider a few FACTS as I demonstrate this point and drive it home:

On many levels these ISIL terrorists are worse than the Nazis EVER were and a far greater threat to the world than the Nazis ever were.

Who let this happen???  If you say “Bush” you are both stupid and depraved.  By the end of 2007, al Qaeda in Iraq was routed.  In fact, al Qaeda had not only been defeated, but humiliated.  Obama kept claiming that al Qaeda was on the run while in reality he was allowing them to rebuild.  But al Qaeda truly WAS on the run when Bush left office – having been routed and humiliated in Iraq – and ISIS basically didn’t even exist yet.

It is simply a documented FACT that Barack Obama cut and ran from Iraq AFTER the United States under George W. Bush had secured victory in the form of a safe and stable Iraq that Obama and Biden BOASTED about.

It is a documented FACT that back in early 2009 we have Obama ON THE RECORD overruling his generals and his experts and deciding that he would completely abandon Iraq.  That is simply a FACT and anybody who tries to whine about Obama desperately trying to obtain a suitable status of forces agreement is a LYING FOOL.  In the same manner, we have Obama ON THE FACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD OVERRULING HIS ENTIRE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM AND DECIDING IN HIS OWN INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY NOT TO ARM THE PRO-DEMOCRACY REBELS IN SYRIA WHEN THEY HAD A REAL CHANCE TO ATTAIN VICTORY.

There is simply no question that Obama gave his fiasco of a “red line” warning and then did NOTHING.  Except allow Putin and Russia to step in and ensure the continued rule of Syrian dictator Assad who suddenly became instrumental because of his part in cooperating to destroy the WMD (much of which almost certainly came to Syria via IRAQ, fwiw).  And allow ISIS to spread like the cancer it is, first exploiting Obama’s weakness in failing to attack in Syria and then in Obama’s weakness in completely pulling out and abandoning Iraq.

If you ask any liberal, “Which wins wars, materiel or will?”  That Democrat will say “Materiel, of course”  They view war as pushing a button and defeating an enemy.  But to any graduate of West Point or Annapolis, that answer is WRONG.  It is WILL that defeats opponents and wins wars.  And under Obama we don’t have any will to fight.  Polls show that the American people don’t want to fight because their president has taught them his moral foolishness and cowardice.  A people need to be led; Obama has led them to the pen where they can be slaughtered like the sheep they have become.

And now we have not a terrorist group but a terrorist ARMY that is even WORSE than al Qaeda with a stranglehold over a 36,000 mile CALIPHATE that Osama bin Laden DREAMED of to show for it.  Obama’s own experts are pointing out the FACT that they are more dangerous than al Qaeda EVER was.  And it was Obama who allowed this terrorist army to metastasize.  They called themselves “ISIS” which meant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.  But since Obama literally GAVE them Iraq and Syria, they are now calling themselves simply “IS” for “Islamic State.”  Because the more you give these monsters, the more they become hungry to TAKE.  You cannot negotiate with them.  You cannot appease them.  You can only either defeat them or bow down before them.  That is your stark, black-and-white choice.

Back in 2005, US intelligence captured a letter from the top al Qaeda leadership that put the aims of al Qaeda into four stages: 1) Drive America out of Iraq; 2) create a caliphate; 3) use that as a base to attack the United States and other countries; 4) attack Israel.  They didn’t drive us out of Iraq; Obama drove us out of Iraq when we had already secured victory.  And we have since watched them systematically succeed in their plan beyond all of the worst possible scenarios.  They’re coming right back at us and we’re now far too weary, weak and divided to fight them.

Liberals don’t believe in “black-and-white.”  Their world consists of infinite shades of gray.  There are no transcendent absolutes; there is no objective right or objective wrong.  Morality is relative, constantly changing and evolving according to Obama’s whim rather than according to God’s timeless Word.

There is no question that Obama and Democrats allowed this.  The only question is WHY did they allow it.  And here’s the answer:

Jonah Goldberg reminded us of the attacks that came from the left when George W. Bush had the narrow-mindedness to refer to terrorists as “evildoers.”  Goldberg pointed out the left’s objection to the word “evil” because to them:

it was, variously, simplistic, Manichean, imperialistic, cartoonish, etc.

“Perhaps without even realizing it,” Peter Roff, then with UPI, wrote in October 2001, “the president is using language that recalls a simpler time when good and evil seemed more easy to identify — a time when issues, television programs and movies were more black and white, not colored by subtle hues of meaning.”

A few years later, as the memory of 9/11 faded and the animosity toward Bush grew, the criticism became more biting. But the substance was basically the same. Sophisticated people don’t talk about “evil,” save perhaps when it comes to America’s legacy of racism, homophobia, capitalistic greed and the other usual targets of American self-loathing.

For most of the Obama years, talk of evil was largely banished from mainstream discourse. An attitude of “goodbye to all that” prevailed, as the war on terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation. War was euphemized into “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic military action.” There was still bloodshed, but the language was often bloodless. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a protege of al-Qaida guru Anwar al-Awlaki, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed his colleagues at Fort Hood. The military called the incident “workplace violence.”

But sanitizing the language only works so long as people aren’t paying too much attention. That’s why the Islamic State is so inconvenient to those who hate the word “evil.” Last week, after the group released a video showing American journalist James Foley getting his head cut off, the administration’s rhetoric changed dramatically. The president called the Islamic State a “cancer” that had to be eradicated. Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as the “face of . . . evil.”

Although most people across the ideological spectrum see no problem with calling Islamic State evil, the change in rhetoric elicited a predictable knee-jerk response. Political scientist Michael Boyle hears an “eerie echo” of Bush’s “evildoers” talk. “Indeed,” he wrote in The New York Times, “condemning the black-clad, masked militants as purely ‘evil’ is seductive, for it conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs.”

James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word “evil,” he wrote, “stops us from thinking.”

But as Goldberg points out, it’s not the people who use the term “evil” who “stop thinking”; it’s the idiots who refuse to think in the category that clearly reflects basic human reality.

The Bible nails these people.  They are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  And “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

When James Dawes says that “using the term evil stops us from thinking,” he’s not referring to himself or to his leftist ideology.  Of course not.  He’s referring to narrow-minded conservatives who think in ancient and therefore non-progressive and therefore obsolete terms of right and wrong.  He’s referring to those who in their narrow-mindedness refuse to understand morality as “colored by subtle hues of meaning” the way he does, the way Peter Roff does, the way Michael Boyle does, the way Barack Obama does.

Understand that Obama’s political rhetoric may have changed but he is still a doctrinaire liberal who continues to think like the doctrinaire liberal he is.

Obama referred to ISIS after the choreographed video of James Foley’s public beheading as a “cancer.”  But it’s just words.  If Obama truly realized the Islamic State terrorist army was a “cancer” he would order all of our resources to cut that cancer out and remove it no matter how painful that “surgery” would be.  But General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with crystal clarity that the only way to defeat ISIS is to take them out in Syria:

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Obama’s meaningless response to ISIS in Syria makes it clear: Obama will NOT defeat ISIS.  At best, he will play patty cake with “cancer.”   Thank God Obama will eventually go, but when he [finally!!!] does, the “cancer” of ISIS will remain.  Due to the pathological weakness and cowardice of Obama.

ISIS/ISIL has been growing and building for all the years that Obama has been our failed president.  While Obama was mocking them as “JayVee” they were building up with experienced terrorist personnel, seizing territory, seizing BILLIONS of dollars, seizing a vast arsenal of military equipment such that they literally have the power of a true state, and absorbing whole networks to keep becoming more and more and more effective.  While Obama did NOTHING.

Now, understand why I call Obama a “coward” for not taking on a fight that his previous weakness and cowardice caused.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN if our soldiers die; he’s out golfing.  What makes Obama afraid and a COWARD is that if he tries to stand up and do the right thing, his own leftist base will viciously turn on him.  Because liberals are evil and cowardly and everything that is truly contemptible.  Obama isn’t man enough to deal with his own base; THAT’S what makes him a “coward.”  And a coward he is.

This is a story of of Overseas Contingency Operations, Man-Caused Disasters and how the pathological weakness and moral cowardice of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party has inspired ad emboldened our worst enemies.

One of the things I vividly recall after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was his statement – after being waterboarded and broken – that he believed that the United States response after the 9/11 attack was so massive and so lethal and so devastating that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

The terrorist mastermind was waterboarded until he was “vomiting and screaming.”  He was waterboarded and he was interrogated until he was broken.

Now, we were told by a dishonest media that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “waterboarded 183 times.”  Which is bullcrap.  He was waterboarded FIVE TIMES, which consisted in 183 pourings of water.

Another lie of the dishonest leftist media is that Mohammed was interrogated during his waterboarding and we could somehow not trust anything he said because people will say anything you want them to say when they are being tortured.  Again, bullcrap.  For one thing, waterboarding consisted in only one aspect of his interrogation.  He wasn’t interrogated AT ALL while he was being waterboarded; the entire process was intended to acheive one thing and one thing only: to alter the terrorist’s perception and to force them to understand their new reality, that the United States of America owned them and would stop at nothing to defeat them and to crush their ideology.  Waterboarding was only one PART of that process that Obama has ENDED.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong, of course, in his assessment that terrorists would never dare to attack the United States again due to the astonishing massiveness of the American response.  He was wrong because his waterboarding colored his thinking such that he failed to remember how pathologically weak the Democrat Party truly is and how inspired and emboldened the pathological weakness of the Democrat Party makes our enemies.  All it took was for one Democrat regime to get elected to re-embolden the stunned and dismayed terrorists.

It was via waterboarding and that breaking process that KSM and the other two terrorists who were WATERBOARDED gave up two key facts that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden: the name of Osama bin Laden’s courier – Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq – and the city in Pakistan -Abbottabad – where bin Laden was hiding.  Those two crucial pieces of information ultimately enabled American intelligence to track Osama bin Laden to the very house he was living in in that large city.

Barack Obama was able to boast that he got bin Laden.  But he only got him because of the very thing he demonized and criminalized.

America will NEVER break another terrorist until every Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive.  Because the platform of the Democrat Party is treasonous self-loathing and the refusal to stand up to our enemies and punch them in the mouth before you blow their smirking heads right off their shoulders.

Obama has GUTTED our intelligence capability and he was already at work doing so back in 2009.

Right now we’re seeing the fruits of Obama’s pathological weakness.  For example, when you see the images of beheaded journalist James Foley and the other captured Americans in orange jumpsuits -

Both prisoners in the video are wearing orange shirts and pants, similar to orange jumpsuits worn by detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A similar outfit, believed to be a jihadist symbol of the prison, was worn by Nicholas Berg, an American businessman kidnapped in Iraq in 2004 whose execution by an Islamic State precursor organization was recorded on video and posted online.

- realize that Barack Obama is very obviously far too much of a damn coward to put terrorists in orange jumpsuits (which scream GITMO), but our terrorist enemies have no such fear of putting Americans in them.

In the same manner, consider how liberals came completely unglued over “the scandal” of Abu Ghraib and terrorists being “abused” and “humiliated.”  And of course it was all Bush’s fault.  But of course the even worse scandals that happened under Obama WEREN’T his fault.  But forget about the leftist abject hypocrisy and simply contrast our Abu Ghraib with how the same people who were such “victims” act when THEY get power: they strip them to their underwear, march them humiliated into the desert and mass-execute them.  The Islamic jihadist terrorists view us as weak because we don’t have the stomach to impose our power the way THEY clearly have.  And liberals are literally morally incapable of saying which is worse – Abu Ghraib where nobody died or ISIS where they slaughter their prisoners like sheep – because their hatred of Bush is only surpassed by their hatred of Truth and Objective, Transcendent Morality.

We’ve got a very firm and clear pattern established: Republicans fight evil and liberals surrender to it.

You look at the disastrous cuts of the 1970s under Carter.  You look at the disastrous cuts under Clinton in the 1990sYou look at the disastrous gutting of the military under Obama now.  And you realize that Democrats are pathologically stupid people because they are pathological moral idiots who cannot understand the nature of the world because at their core they do not believe in good or evil due to their abandonment of God.

We had the weak disgrace Jimmy Carter.  And then we had Ronald Reagan who had to pick up the pieces of Carter’s disgraceful weakening of America.

Then we had George H.W. Bush’s “This will not stand” contrasted with the Bill Clinton subsequent legacy of disgraceful policy toward terrorism.  Bill Clinton’s legacy was to leave America both weak militarily and blind due to his crippling of our intelligence capabilities.  As I’ve documented more than once:

Why did we get attacked on 9/11? Let’s find out in the words of the man who attacked us after Bill Clinton’s abject fiasco commonly known as Black Hawk Down in Somalia:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Our military was weak as a result of Clinton’s cuts. How about our intelligence that is tasked with seeing an attack coming??? Clinton gutted that too:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately
.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The 9/11 attack was the result of the joke that the military had become as a result of a Bill Clinton who gutted the military budget. Bush I took Reagan’s mantle and won the Cold War and defeated the Soviet-armed Iraqi regime; Bill Clinton tore that great, powerful military apart. And we paid dearly for it. And every single penny that Clinton saved by dismantling our military and our intelligence Bush had to pay a thousandfold.

As Bill Clinton turned over the presidency to George Bush, he turned over a nation that had already been infected with the 9/11 attack.  Every single 9/11 attacker was ALREADY IN AMERICA while Bill Clinton was president.  They already had most of their training.  They already had their funding.

And now we’ve got George W. Bush contrasted with Barack Obama.  Carter tore the military down.  Reagan built it back up and won the Cold War that had begun under the presidency of Harry Truman in the aftermath of World War II.  Bush II continued the military build-up to confront the new threats that were arising in the Middle East; Clinton said a strong military was obsolete and tore it down again.  Bush II built the military up because Clinton had failed America and ignored the warnings of the cancer of terrorism.  And now Obama has gutted it again.  Our military is a shambles under ObamaThree calendar years ago I was pointing out how evil was spreading like  cancer in the Middle East under Obama.  That is simply a fact and has BEEN a fact that our enemies have noted just as they have taken Obama’s measure and noted his personal weakness.  And if you want to tell me that Obama’s putrid weakness has worked better for us that Bush’s policy of FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES, please don’t write to me, because weaklings and cowards make me sick and I’m sick of being sickened by people like you.

Bill Clinton said the right things when it was politically expedient for him to do so and then denied the very things he said when it was politically expedient for him to do so.  He stood for nothing.  And it was just hollow words, much like when Obama calls ISIS/ISIL a “cancer” and then refuses to stop its spread and kill it.

A liberal writer writing for the liberal Daily Beast and quoted by a different liberal publication framed the rise of al Qaeda from the dust of death it had been in thus:

The regeneration of al Qaeda in Iraq and its expansion into Syria is a warning to American decision makers. Few al Qaeda franchises or associated movements have ever been permanently destroyed. They can be disrupted and dismantled and yet fully regenerate once the pressure subsides. [Daily Beast]

Let me simply ask you: who kept the pressure on and who took the pressure OFF?  It was OBAMA who took the pressure off these terrorists and allowed them to rebuild.  Who on the other hand has been screaming to keep the pressure ON and been repeatedly demonized for doing so?  The Republicans who have the courage to face reality while the Democrats are COWARDS to their cores.

Which is why Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines.”  As they New York Times put it in describing how these two nations took matters into their own hands (because Obama was cowering in a corner when he wasn’t strutting around on a golf green) and bombed ISIS in Syria.  We are now completely irrelevant, even to our closest ALLIES in the region.  We spent the last century building our power and our alliances so that we could shape events.  And one weak, cowardly petty tyrant has squandered all of our influence and prestige and ability to project power away from us.

There is something chilling about the execution by beheading of James Foley that you need to understand:

A video posted on YouTube, later removed, purported to show the execution of James Foley after he recited a statement in which he called the U.S. government “my real killers.”

Foley gave them what they wanted.  He said everything they wanted him to say, did everything they wanted him to do.  And then they slaughtered him anyway.

You can’t appease these people.  You can’t compromise with them.  You can’t negotiate with them.  You can’t “seek to understand them.”  Tolerance is a form of suicide.

The Democrat Party has not understood that since 1968.

You either fight and defeat jihadist terrorism or you knuckle under and surrender to it.  And history has now proven again and again that Democrats will surrender to terrorism every chance they get.  Because they are moral idiots who are incapable of truly believing in good and evil and therefore have an innate tendency to seek to compromise with evil and negotiate with it and ultimately to surrender to it.

There is a simple formula of wisdom or common sense: when it comes to a strong military and reliable intelligence, would you rather have when you may not need – as conservatives have been arguing we should have since we were caught completely flat-footed and weak when we were attacked to start World War II – or would you rather desperately need when you do not have as Democrats desire?  That formula has led to disaster over and over again.  And it has led to disaster now.  Conservatives want a greater projection of strength to DETER aggression; Democrats want more welfare, more dependency, fewer people with jobs, a weaker America, an America that will bare its throat to the scimitar.

There are TWO forms of evil that are both working in concert to destroy America today: one is the evil of ISIS terrorists and the other is the evil of the Democrat Party that has enabled them to so gain the upper hand and which continues to be the only barrier to America having the resolve to fight them and destroy them.  And interestingly both forms of evil are mutually parasitic upon the other: the terrorists cannot win without the Democrat’s movement of cowardly appeasement and surrender; and the modern Democrats need to have Republicans take a strong stand against evil so they can backstab and undermine and demagogue and demonize and fearmonger that strong resolve as they whine, “They’re going to drag you into another war if you vote for them!”

Your vote in November, in 2016 and beyond will be a historic affirmation of whether you have courage or whether you are a true coward.

Liberals: Money-Grubbing Crony-Capitalist Fascist Hypocrites. And The Morons Who Believe Their Lies.

August 27, 2014

There’s this narrative that conservatives and Republicans favor the big rich guy and the corporations and that liberals and Democrats favor the little, poor guy and the workers.

It’s a complete lie and if you believe that crap, you are stupid.

As usual, there are multiple stories to disprove this easily refutable lie.

Allow me to preface story one by pointing out that Warren Buffett is the poster-boy for rampant liberal hypocrisy.  The man is a tax-dodging advocate for Obama’s tax and spend policies.  He’s a guy who says other people ought to pay high taxes while HE DOESN’T PAY THE TAXES HE OWES, LET ALONG THE HIGHER TAXES HE SAYS HE’S WILLING TO PAY.

And Burger King is a liberal, liberal, liberal corporation:

Burger King Reveals The Gay Pride Whopper
July 2, 2014 |  Filed under: Good News,Politics,Top Stories |  Posted by: Cheston Catalano

The “Proud Whopper” to celebrate gay pride, will be in a rainbow wrap.

Burger King released a short film Wednesday on YouTube featuring patrons’ reactions when opening the new burger, offered during San Francisco’s Pride Parade Sunday, June 29. The burger appears different on the outside, but soon enough customers realize it’s the same Whopper the fast-food chain has been selling for years. Once unwrapped, the words “We are all the same inside” are revealed on the wrapper.

“I cried in there because I was overwhelmed,” one patron said in the video. “A burger has never made me cry before.”

“Have it your way” has been changed to “Be your way.”

God knows what that “patron” is talking about.  That sodomy burger makes Him cry, too.

I have never walked through the doors of a Burger Queen since, for the record.  If conservatives started to boycott liberal companies the way liberals target conservative businesses, there would be a truce right quick in the boycott industry.  But as it is, liberals are free to target any business they don’t like for doing anything they don’t like that business doing, while conservatives stand on the “principle” of allowing businesses to do what they want.  With the result being that our businesses are naked and exposed and quickly fold while the rest of the businesses realize that they had better get in bed with the rabid left because it won’t cost them anything to do so and it will cost them dearly if they don’t.

So here’s überliberal hypocrite Warren Buffett leading überliberal Burger Queen into the very sort of inversion tax dodge that liberals claim they hate:

Burger King and Warren Buffett under fire for Tim Hortons deal
By Jim Puzzanghera,  Shan Li  contact the reporters
August 26, 2014, 7:35 PM

Burger King’s $11.4-billion deal for Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc. — with a new headquarters in Canada — sparked calls for a boycott and criticism of billionaire Warren Buffett, who is helping to finance the merger..

The latest in a series of corporate offshore tax-reducing moves, known as inversions, also puts the Obama administration in a difficult spot as it tries to stem the flow of U.S. companies moving to countries such as Canada with lower tax rates.

“I’ve eaten my last Whopper,” Oscar G. Echeverría of Irvine vowed Tuesday in one of dozens of negative comments about the deal on Burger King’s Facebook page.

Alejandra Aguilar, 35, of East Los Angeles said she planned to stop going to Burger King, where she eats once or twice a month.

“If that goes through, especially if it means the loss of money and jobs in the U.S., I would definitely boycott them,” said Aguilar, who works as a distributor for a beauty company. “I would, even though I love the little burgers.”

Burger King Worldwide Inc. executives said the move to create a corporate holding company in Canada was not a tax dodge. Instead, they said, it was justified because Canada would be the new company’s largest market. They noted that Burger King would remain a stand-alone brand with its headquarters still in Miami.

The outrage over another corporation moving out of the U.S. normally would fuel President Obama’s recent efforts to tighten restrictions on inversions. But the role of Obama ally Buffett, whose firm is investing $3 billion to finance the deal, muddled the message for the administration.

Buffett has been a staunch advocate of companies and citizens paying their fair share of taxes — so much so that the administration’s proposal to force millionaires to pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families is known as the Buffett Rule.

But on Tuesday, Buffett was criticized as a hypocrite even though he echoed Burger King’s comments that the move was not done to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

“It has to be twisting the White House in messaging and political knots,” said Chris Krueger, a Washington policy analyst with Guggenheim Securities.

“How can you hammer a deal for tax policies when the very person your signature tax policy — the Buffett Rule — is named after is involved and argues that [the deal] is not tax-motivated?” Krueger said.

“The White House cannot paint this as a black-and-white issue, and Buffett’s involvement shows that it is more like 50 shades of gray,” he said.

Burger King’s purchase of Tim Hortons, creating the world’s third-largest fast-food company, is one of the highest-profile tax inversions so far.

In such a maneuver, which is legal, a U.S. company buys a foreign competitor in a nation with a lower corporate tax rate and shifts its headquarters to that country. As inversions have gained in popularity in recent years, the Obama administration and some congressional Democrats have been pushing for new restrictions.

[Blah, blah, blah]

Just remember that Warren Buffett is a good shameless hypocrite whore and the Koch brothers are evil and the liberal narrative will remain pristine in unicorn fairy land where every village idiot in the land chants mindless leftist slogans.

The überleftist apologist propaganda mill otherwise known as “the press” is desperately trying to equivocate this story.  After all, they tell us, Canada isn’t exactly a tax haven.  Well, here’s the thing: the US corporate tax rate is the highest in the damn WORLD.  EVERY OTHER PLACE ON EARTH is a damn tax haven compared to Obama’s Socialist States of Amerika.

Okay, next story, same day, same Los Angeles Slimes newspaper, same crony capitalist fascist liberals:

Can Supt. Deasy survive LAUSD’s iPad fiasco?
Steve Lopez
Los Angeles Times
August 26, 2014, 3:16 PM

So, remember that $1-billion plan to get iPads for each and every Los Angeles Unified student the district has been working on and steadfastly defending for a couple of years now?

Forget about it. The deal is off, creating a new round of L.A. Unified chaos just as another school year begins.

The announcement came just days after the release of emails detailing Supt. John Deasy’s cozy contacts with Apple and curriculum software manufacturer Pearson before they were awarded large contracts.

Deasy, who has denied any improprieties, actually tried to put a positive spin on the long-running fiasco when he announced that the deal with Apple was kaput. The decision, he said in a memo to school board members Monday night, will “enable us to take advantage of an ever-changing marketplace and technology advances.… We will incorporate the lessons learned from the original procurement process….”

You’d think all had gone according to plan, but make no mistake:

Despite the upbeat, moving-on tone of that message, the Deasy pullback is a defining moment in his tenure. It was nothing short of a forced surrender to critics who have argued for months that Deasy charged ahead on the iPad project as if he knew best and everyone else’s job was to get out of the way.

And what did that get us? A commitment to spend tens of millions of dollars on pricey tablets and on software programs that hadn’t even been developed.

And the iPad fiasco is not the only problem bearing down on Deasy.

He’s got a newly radicalized teachers union calling for his scalp in the middle of contract negotiations. The two sides are miles apart on a range of issues, including salaries, teacher evaluations and the ever-rancorous philosophical divide over the corporate and nonprofit influences on public education.

He’s potentially lost his reliable majority on the school board with the election of George McKenna to an open seat.

He’s got the possibility of a new round of investigations into the Apple/Pearson deals by the L.A. Unified inspector general because of the emails.

And the school district, which years ago ditched a disastrous $120-million computerized student tracking system, is now trying to figure out how to fix persistent problems with the new $20-million system that replaced it. Early glitches have sent some parents and teachers into a tizzy over ridiculously large class sizes and misplaced transcripts, among other mishaps, and Jefferson High students staged a sit-in.

But getting back to iPads, Deasy’s white-flag moment follows not only the email release, but also comes in the wake of a damning report on the bidding process by an L.A. Unified technology committee. A draft, obtained last week by my colleague Howard Blume, covered what critics have been telling me and others for more than a year — that the rules of the bidding process appeared to benefit Apple and Pearson, and that there was at least an appearance of a conflict of interest on the district’s part.

And the emails really make you want to hold your nose.

“I believe we would have to make sure that your bid is the lowest one,” now-departed Deasy deputy Jaime Aquino wrote to Pearson in May 2012, two years before the contract was approved.

Aquino, if you have forgotten, had been an executive with a Pearson affiliate prior to heading up Deasy’s tech implementation plan.

Deasy — who graciously appeared in a promotional video for iPads before the contracts were awarded — later jumped in on that same email conversation.

“Understand your points and we need to work together on this quickly,” wrote Deasy, later adding he did not want to lose “an amazing opportunity.”

Deasy maintains that the emails were not about the larger, $1-billion tech plan but about “a pilot program we did at several schools months before we decided to do a large-scale implementation.”

Even if you believe that, along with Deasy’s claim that “nothing was done in any inappropriate way whatsoever,” his contact with Apple and Pearson raises countless questions about whether a legitimate bidding process was ever an objective.

“You should make every bidder think they have a slim chance of getting the job,” said Stuart Magruder, the school bond oversight committee member who briefly lost his post for asking too many questions about all of this. Deasy “didn’t do that. He created an environment where Apple and Pearson probably didn’t have to be as creative as they could have been.”

Or as thrifty. As Magruder noted, the district agreed to a far higher cost per device than what other districts were paying. Magruder also argued that he believes the main objective with digital devices has always been to facilitate more test-taking rather than better teaching and deeper, more meaningful learning experiences for students.

“There are all of these adults fighting among themselves and doing nothing to actually get the kids educated,” Magruder said. “And so many skirmishes between us seem to drive more skirmishes.”

So here we are, back to square one after a couple of wasted years, with Deasy calling for the process to begin all over again. It’s almost as if now he’s in a hurry to make everyone forget the past.

But it remains to be seen whether the superintendent, having lost a great deal of credibility, can survive the political fallout and learn enough from his blunders to lead the way more capably.

“I think that John Deasy lives by the sword and suffers by the sword of urgency,” L.A. Unified board member Steve Zimmer said. “I wouldn’t want him to not be urgent, and not be impatient, but sometimes there’s a cost to that.”

So, yeah.  An überleftist crony capitalist fascist liberal school superintendent from one of the most radically liberal cities on EARTH is caught pretty much red-handed committing about every sort of fraud known to man.  And he did it with YOUR tax dollars.  Because THAT’S what liberalism does.

You need to understand: according to liberalism, it’s evil when a business wants to keep more of its own money rather than pay it out to big government liberals in the form of the highest tax rate on the planet.  Well, unless it’s LIBERALS doing it, which they do every damn bit as much as the people the constantly demonize and slander.  But it’s perfectly FINE when liberals take that giant stash of money they looted from all the businesses they forced to pay all those taxes and “invest it” – crony capitalist fascist liberal style – on their politically-engineered boondoggle.

Mind you, those paragraphs at the beginning of the above article pretty much represent the entire disgraced presidency of Barack Obama.  Let’s just replace the name “Deasy” with the name “Obama” and try it for size:

Obama, who has denied any improprieties, actually tried to put a positive spin on the long-running fiasco when he announced that his cut-and-run from Iraq and then from Libya and then from Syria was kaput. The decision, he said in his 400th damn campaign fundraiser to his rabid ideological communist supporters Monday night, will “enable us to take advantage of an ever-changing “fundamental transformation of the United States of America”.… We will incorporate the lessons learned from the original cut-and-run while we redefine terrorism process….”

You’d think all had gone according to plan, but make no mistake:

Despite the upbeat, moving-on tone of that message, the Obama pullback is a defining moment in his tenure. It was nothing short of a forced surrender to critics who have argued for months that Obama charged ahead on the self-suicidal liberalism project as if he knew best and everyone else’s job was to get out of the way.

And if that disaster computer system doesn’t remind you of the disaster ObamaCare computer system, you are too far beneath the term “idiot” to describe in human terms.  You need to be described in single-celled amoeba terms of being capable of anything only when some leftist slogan stimulates you.

If you think I’m being in any way, shape or form unfair to Obama, read this article here that documents the TRUTH about OBAMA’S strategy to completely pull out of Iraq going all the way back to February 2009.  The military desperately wanted to remain to prevent the forfeiture of everything they’d fought for.  Obama demanded that America cut and run instead.  Then read the paragraph that says, “Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”  Do it Obama’s way until the obvious fiasco happens and then watch him blame everybody else.  Obama overrode ALL his generals regarding his now-proven idiotic decision to completely abandon Iraq after all the work America had done to secure the country.  Just as Obama would later disregard his ENTIRE national security team when it came to abandoning Syria to terrorists who ultimately exploited Obama’s weak abandonment of Iraq and seized a 36,000 square mile caliphate for themselves.

That’s who liberals are at every turn and in every way.  In the spirit of Romans chapter one – which fits liberals to a “T” – they profess themselves to be wise, but in reality they are utter FOOLS.

And If you still think that liberals are one iota more willing to pay income taxes than conservatives, and if you’re NOT a mindless ideologically leftist moron who is as incapable of comprehending basic reality than a cockroach, just do some reading on green energy liberals and Hollywood liberals and liberals in basically every industry under the sun who lavish themselves with tax breaks at every possible turn.

I live in the California desert, and frankly if I had just one damn penny for every phone call I keep receiving from some leftist “green” business trying to capitalize on Obama green energy boondoggles to install subsidized solar energy panels “at no cost to you,” I’d be so filthy rich I’D BE THE ONE BUYING TIM HORTONS instead of Warren Buffett and Burger Queen.

The left has had a strangehold on our education system – both public schools and colleges and universities – for several generations now.  And they have made America dumber and dumber and dumber and less and less and less religious.  And now its no accident that we’re stupid enough to believe damn well anything.

When the Antichrist comes to take over what liberals started, he’ll have a ready-made population to manipulate with the same sort of lies that liberals have been beaming into the skulls of moral imbeciles since the 1960s.

And one of the core lies is and will continue to remain the lie that liberals only want to help you and conservatives only want to hurt you.  When if anything its the other damn way around.

 Update, Thursday, August 28, 2014: Yep, just one day after I wrote this, liberal Democrats just forked over $330 million to their fellow Hollywood liberal buddies in the form of “tax credits.”

Or how about this “little guy” that liberal Democrats love to give your money to: big labor unions.  The same day and again in the same Los Angeles Times there is an acknowledgement that DEMOCRATS are responsible for stacking the deck against taxpayers and loading up the pension boards with liberal union members who override and outvote the taxpayers  again and again and again while cities across the nation go bankrupt.  When Gov. Brown tried to enact a “modest pension reform measure,” the union-packed board made it meaningless and “The state’s overwhelmingly Democratic legislature refused” to prevent the outright ROBBERY of the taxpayers.

So when somebody tells you that Democrats care about the little guy, it wouldn’t be the least bit inappropriate of you to just start urinating right in their face.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers