Barack Obama Is A Liar. And The American People Know He’s A Liar. The Question Is, Does Anybody Give A Damn About Truth Anymore?

April 17, 2014

Do the American people believe Obama’s dishonest bullcrap any longer?

Not so much:

Poll: Most Americans believe Obama lies on important issues
By Charles Hoskinson  | APRIL 17, 2014 AT 10:53 AM

How much do Americans trust President Obama? Not much, according to a Fox News poll.

Sixty-one percent of respondents in the poll released Thursday said Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. An additional 20 percent said he lies every now and then.

Only 15 percent believe the president is completely truthful.

“Lies” as in DELIBERATELY says things that he KNOWS are false.  Obama knows he’s looking you right in the eye and lying to your face, but he does it anyway.

The article points out that there is some political bias going on in the perception:

Predictably, Republicans were more likely to believe Obama is a liar, with 85 percent saying he lies some or most of the time. Thirty-one percent of Democrats said the president is always truthful.

Two things.  Thing one: “Thirty-one percent of Democrats”?  Less than a third of the man’s own damn party???  That aint so good.  I’m sure other roaches have a far higher opinion about their lead roach.  And thing two, well, I’ll let the article say it and just comment afterward:

What’s interesting is that independents were slightly more likely to believe Obama lies at least some of the time — 63 percent, compared with 61 percent for the total sample.

Yeah, Independents are actually MORE likely to believe Obama is a dishonest lying sack of bovine filth than Republicans are.

So, it really turns out that the only truly “biased” people are the Democrats who rabidly insist on believing their lying Führer no matter what.  We’ve seen that rabid mindset before.  But the fact is that not only are Independent voters with the Republicans, but they are actually even MORE with Republicans than Republicans are in that they are even more likely to point a finger in Obama’s face and snarl, “YOU LIAR!”

By the way:

The April 13-15 poll of 1,012 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Democrats were 39 percent of the sample, Republicans 38 percent and independents 20 percent.

Which is to say (again) that the only people who would find “bias” in this poll are the biased Democrats who are totally out of step with reality and with the rest of the universe.

Here’s the thing.  It wasn’t all that long ago that Obama would have been done with this kind of perception.  His own party would have turned against him, the way Nixon was done when his own Republican Party said, “That’s it.  We’re better than this and we’re definitely better than YOU, Tricky Dick.”  Not long ago, Obama would have been giving his final pathetic wave as president as he flew away before the people showed up with pitchforks and torches to burn the monster.

This isn’t – or at least it shouldn’t be – just about the lies by which Obama sold ObamaCare to the American people and then got re-elected based on the same lies told over and over and over again.  This is a man who began his campaign with lie after lie.  He slandered his predecessor based on lies, such as his attack on George Bush as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for allowing the debt to increase by $4 trillion during his eight years only to increase it himself by nearly $8 trillion in only five years.  This is a man who demonized his opponents in the GOP for voting against his debt ceiling increase when HE HIMSELF voted against the debt increase when he was a Senator.  This is a man who routinely demonizes and slanders his opponents for their “war on women” when HE HIMSELF is far more vicious against women in HIS OWN “boy’s club” and in HIS OWN “gender gap” “wage disparity” than his opponents have EVER been.

Barack Obama is a lying, dishonest, cynical political opportunist without shame, without honor, without virtue and without decency.  And he always HAS been from his first day on the campaign trail.  Obama literally BEGAN his campaign for the presidency with a lie having broken his promise:

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

And in being the first major party nominee to refuse to accept matching funds, Obama didn’t just fundamentally transform the nature of American campaigns by blowing open the doors to money as has never been seen in politics, but he LIED:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

versus:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Barack Obama has ALWAYS been a liar.  And those who hate the truth have always been his most ardent supporters.

Obama has spent his career slandering and demonizing his opponents with his “war on women” slander and has “my opponents want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Down Syndrome and Autism” vileness.

That, too, is just another lie from hell from a liar from hell.  Lest you have conveniently forgotten, Barack Obama’s “signature promise” to the American people was that he would “transcend the political divide.”  He lied.  And the only people who believe that the political climate that has become more bitter than ever is the Republicans’ faults are the pure, rabid, toxic liars who have supported Obama and his ocean of lies.

Obama’s pathological dishonesty has taken it’s toll on America’s national security.  Obama is the man who issued a “red line” warning if Syria used chemical weapons.  And then did NOTHING as they used them repeatedly.  And now Obama is threatening Vladimir Putin on an almost daily basis if Putin keeps doing what Putin keeps doing.  Because nobody believes a thing our Empty-Suit-in-Chief says anymore.

Obama has already been kissing the dirt of Nixon with his own poll numbers.  And that is with the most dishonest propaganda mill since the Soviet Union’s TASS and the Nazi Party’s Ministry of Propaganda spinning the news for their messiah.

But times have changed.  America is a much fouler place.

We are a nation of Pontius Pilates, a nation who skeptically asks, “What IS truth?”

And just like Pilate, we have turned out backs on the Man who is truth’s very embodiment.  And that is because we turned out backs on the values of that Man that made discerning truth even possible.

From the Great City on a hill that many of our founding fathers envisioned, we are a nation that is in darkness just as Israel was in a darkness of wickedness and moral relativism in their darkest days.  We are a people who do that which is right in our own eyes, rather than in God’s.

We find out that our president is a wicked, dishonest man and our response is to yawn in boredom and stuff another handful of potato chips in our faces.

God is patient, yes He is.  I already would have handed out “Flood, Part Deux” were I in God’s place.  And that’s just one of many reasons why I praise and honor God for being God.  But that said, we also know that God is not mocked as those who are deceived think He can be.  What a man sows, that he will also reap.  And what a nation plants, it will surely harvest.  Which is why Longfellow pointed out the truth that “Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small.”

And that is why we are a nation on the way out.  It is why when we collapse, there will be no part of what used to be America big enough to survive.  And it is why it will be no shame when we go the way of the failed empires before us.

God is going to judge this nation as a nation that tolerates lies and that tolerates wicked policies based on those lies.  And as I look around, I see a people and a nation that is ALREADY being ground down.

America has lived by lies, and it will surely perish because of those lies.

 

Obama Thug ‘Justice Department’ COLLABORATED With Lois Lerner To Target And Attack Conservative Groups

April 16, 2014

This is just downright sinister.  Not that Obama or Eric Holder will do anything about it (other than continue to exploit the system to protect themselves as they also continue to reward their friends and punish their enemies).

We have it documented that this scandal goes DIRECTLY to the White House.  We know that “the Chief Counsel’s office of the IRS, headed by Obama appointee William Wilkins, was instrumental in the agency’s campaign of harassment and discrimination against conservative and certain pro-Israel groups.”

We know that Obama has already pronounced that the investigation – which was ostensibly still going on – was over and that as long as he was president there was no possibility that “a smidgeon of corruption” would ever be allowed to be discovered.

For the longest time, the “authorities” refused to even bother to INTERVIEW the victims in the IRS targeting case.  And sure enough, they closed the case having basically refused to interview any of the victims.  Pretty neat trick, isn’t it?

How can you trust Obama to investigate Obama?  You blindly trust his law thug, Eric Holder who runs the Department of Justice, of course.

And now we’ve got something even more explosive: the Obama IRS and the Obama Justice Department actually COLLABORATED to attack groups based on their political ideology:

BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups
Katie Pavlich | Apr 16, 2014

According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,” Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller’s chief of staff.

“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?” Flax responded on May 9, 2013.

After this email exchange, Lerner handed things off to Senior Technical Adviser and Attorney Nancy Marks, who was in charge of setting up a meeting with DOJ.

Just a few short days later on May 10, 2013, Lerner admitted and apologized for the inappropriate targeting of conservative tea party groups during an American Bar Association Conference after answering a planted question. Further according to Judicial Watch, “In an email to an aide responding to a request for information from a Washington Post reporter, Lerner admits that she “can’t confirm that there was anyone on the other side of the political spectrum” who had been targeted by the IRS. She then adds that “The one with the names used were only know [sic] because they have been very loud in the press.”

In other words, only conservative groups were being looked at for criminal prosecution.

Last week news broke that Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings’ staff was in contact with Lerner about the conservative group True the Vote, despite denying any contact occurred. In this specific instance of Lerner discussing possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt groups through DOJ, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have been the person to get the ball rolling.

On April 9, 2013 during a Senate Judiciary Hearing, just one month before the targeting scandal broke, Whitehouse asked witnesses from DOJ and the IRS why groups that had possibly “made false statements” about their political activities had not been prosecuted. On March 27, 2013, just days before the hearing took place, Lerner described the purpose for the hearing to IRS staff in an email.

“As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff,” she wrote. “So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”

This post has been updated.

Justice and the IRS collaborating to go after Obama’s enemies.  That’s what we’ve got here.

We have it on record from Lois Lerner herself that this wasn’t about “the law” and that Obama’s thugs were basically hell-bent on just doing whatever they had to do to punish who they wanted to punish.  In Lois Lerner’s own words:

Emails show that Lerner had previously concluded that the feds were unlikely to be able to prosecute the non-profit groups.

“Whether there was a false statement or fraud regarding an [sic] description of an alleged political expenditure that doesn’t say vote for or vote against is not realistic under current law,” she wrote on March 27, 2013. “Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat — there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”

So none of this was about “the law.”  This was IN SPITE of “the law.”

If you have any doubt of that, Lois Lerner BROKE the law.  She provided confidential tax information to a third party group.  There is no question but that SHE did that.  She belongs in prison – and if it wasn’t for the fact that THE most corrupt and dishonest president in history and THE most corrupt and dishonest AG in history are obstructing justice, she would BE in prison.

We’ve also got IRS employees all over the place nailed like bugs to the wall for violating the Hatch Act.  That’s just another cold, hard fact.

“Not a smidgeon of corruption” Obama’s skinny, weak, pathetic little ass.  Barack Obama is already worse than Nixon EVER was or ever would have been if honest Republicans hadn’t forced him to resign or be prosecuted.

It’s like ObamaCare.  If the law doesn’t work out the way liberals like, they will just ignore it, or illegally change it, or abrogate it, or waive the parts they don’t like while enforcing the parts they just invented, and so on and so forth.

This targeting campaign has been way beyond “Stalinist.”  Stalin didn’t have the modern tools that Obama has.  It is Orwellian:

“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”

We now KNOW that NO liberal groups were targeted and that ONLY conservative groups were targeted.  This is a naked fact revealed by the Treasury Department’s own Inpsector General:

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general.

J. Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political. George’s letter does not say why the progressive groups were given extra scrutiny.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

So the Justice Department – let’s face it, the INjustice Department – and the IRS were going after groups that turned their messiah’s smile into a frown and nobody else.  It was a  naked totalitarian fascist campaign by Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Barack Hussein.

Democrats (pronounced  as “Nazis”) who say anything ELSE are liars, LIARS, LIARS:

REMEMBER: When Democrats say some variation of “liberal groups were targeted too” by the IRS – They’re lying.

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

There is NO EVIDENCE that a single liberal group was given the same scrutiny as conservative groups.

In fact liberal and Progressive groups were fast-tracked through the system.
Eliana Johnson reported at National Review last year:

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous “Be On The Lookout” list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel’s account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like “tea party,” but also “progressive,” “Occupy,” and “Israel.”

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

And, then there’s this… Even the far left website Raw Story admitted that progressive groups did not face the same scrutiny as conservative groups.

An IRS letter (PDF) published by Progress Texas online Thursday showed the liberal group was given 22 days to respond to a list of 21 questions. Some of the questions included up to nine sub-questions.

The questions resembled the list of 35 questions (PDF) sent to the Liberty Township Tea Party, which has complained of IRS harassment.

Though the line of questioning was generally the same, there were some key differences between the lists of questions.

The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked to provide copies of all its activity on Facebook and Twitter, while the Progress Texas was not. The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked for more specific information about the employment background of its officials, including copies of resumes, while Progress Texas was asked for more general information. The tea party group was also asked whether any of its officials had served on the board of another organization or planned to run for office.

Remember this when you hear some far left commentator claim the IRS targeted liberal groups, too.

We either need to install a rabid Republican president who will appoint a thug to put every Democrat in America in prison or we need to get to the bottom of this while we still have at least a few shreds of a constitutional republic left after Obama has very nearly completely destroyed America from within the system.

If this doesn’t prove beyond the wildest shred of doubt that this nation needs a special prosecutor who is independent of Obama and his law thug Holder, let’s just wipe our collective anuses with the Constitution and flush it down the toilet.

We’re living in the last days and America is NOT in Bible prophecy.  The Bible called it 2,000 years ago: the beast is coming.  He will be the ULTIMATE big government liberal who will take over the entire global economy such that “no man may buy or sell” without his mark on them.

Get ready to either vote Republican or to burn in hell.  Because that’s basically your alternatives.

Pot = Brain Damage. But That’s Okay, Because More Brain Damage = More DEMOCRATS

April 16, 2014

Liberals have been pushing for relaxed drug laws for years.  Because liberals are people who use drugs (except of course Bill Clinton who as we all know “didn’t inhale”) and who rely on drug users for their voting base.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder both have acknowledged – you know, in the face of overwhelming evidence – that they DID inhale their ganja smoke.  It is very likely the only honest thing either man has ever said in his life.

And Obama’s law thug just said – and I’m quoting here – “I’m cautiously optimistic” – regarding making it easier for more people to get stoned than ever before in American history.

Well, let’s examine what marijuana does and why Democrats are so damned determined to get more people to get addicted to the crap:

The habit of smoking pot during teen years causes long-term brain damage, according to a Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine study.

Two years after young adults (early twenties) quit smoking marijuana, researchers found changes in the sub-cortical regions of their brains associated with memory and reasoning, indicating the long-term effects of chronic use. They were also found to perform poorly on memory tests.

“The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it,” Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead study author, said in a press release. “With the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain.”

[...]

Through the MRI scans, the researchers found that heavy users displayed abnormalities in all the three brain regions (striatum, thalamus and globus pallidus), irrespective of whether they had schizophrenic disorder or not. The volume of the thalamus was found greatly reduced in heavy users.

Then the participants were asked to undertake four memory tests, like recollecting a sequence of numbers. Heavy users fared badly than healthy controls and non-using schizophrenics.

“The abuse of popular street drugs, such as marijuana, may have dangerous implications for young people who are developing or have developed mental disorders,” said co-senior study author John Csernansky, M.D., chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. “This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia.”

The finding has been published Monday in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.

In short, marijuana causes brain damage.  And when you’ve got more memory derangement than schizophrenics, well, let’s tally that one in the “bad thing” column.

But like all the other things Democrats are  doing to poison and undermine Americans and America, that’s actually a GOOD thing.

Because more brain damage = more Democrats.  And more people who cannot ever amount to anything other than parasites = more welfare.  And ergo sum more Democrats, of course.

Obama is on the record as documented by one of his demonic homosexual liberal minions Perez Hilton:

Barry O is no stranger to some kind bud!

President Obama revealed in a new candid interview that he has smoked pot in the past and finds it to be no more harmful than drinking alcohol!

Wow. Never did we ever think we’d hear the Prez say something like that!

Obama explained:

“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

But if marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, shouldn’t it be legalized nationwide??

The President didn’t unveil any plans to make weed legal coast to coast but he did weigh in his support for Colorado and Washington’s new laws that make dancing with Mary Jane A-OK.

Obama is completely wrong, of course.  Because the fool has never been right about anything in his life.

America has become a nation of moral idiots dawdling to their own self-destruction much like dodo birds.  And Barack Obama is our Dodo-Bird-in-Chief with Eric Holder ignoring one law while using another one like a hammer to protect our Dodo-Bird-in-Chief and of course to reward his friends and punish his enemies.

So toke up, America.  Rot your brains.  And when your brain is sufficiently rotted, vote Democrat.  Because they’ll get you more pot.

The best thing about schizophrenia is that you’ll be able to see all the jobs Obama is lying about and all the tea party racists that Eric Holder keeps seeing.

 

 

 

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message -

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Even More Defiant Of Reality Than Adolf Hitler: Evil, Insane Obama Budget Rejected By House 413-2 (That Means Democrats Too, Bozo)

April 14, 2014

Is Barack Obama a “leader” or is he Adolf Hitler raving crazily in his bunker having led his nation into ruin with nobody listening to his crazed idiocy?

If a budget is any indication – and yeah, it really IS given the fact that governments must function on budgets – Obama is actually more out-of-touch with reality and more ignored by his fellow fascists than Hitler was in his bunker.

You might want to read my article:

Obama, After His 2012 Budget Was Voted Down 97-0 and His 2013 Budget Was Voted Down 414-0 BY EVERY DEMOCRAT, Has Chutzpah To Demonize GOP Budget As ‘Radical’

to see what a crazed, radical ideologue fascist Obama has been from the outset of his Führership.  He has been a man who has pathologically refused to work toward any kind of consensus whatsoever – frankly even within his own Nazi Party – depending instead on lies, demagoguery, slander and executive orders.

In that 2012 article, after documenting the facts, I wrote:

So the only meaningful question is whether we should be talking about Obama’s 0-97 “support” last year or his 0-414 “endorsement” this year.

Let’s just get one thing clear, Barack Obama, who had his 2012 budget handed back to him with 0-97 support from his own Senate and his 2013 budget handed back to him with 0-414 support from Congress, is frankly un-American and pathologically socialist.

A statement from Obama when the Republican leadership approached him in January 2009 says it all:

After the last election, when the “so called Messiah” was elected, John McCain had the temerity to ask him if he was going to work with the republicans. Obama said, “I won the election, John. Elections have consequences.”  This statement was the precursor of what was to come.

Obama proceeded to ram through a massively failed $862 billion stimulus (actually $3.27 trillion, according to a CBO analysis) and a wildly unconstitutional, wildly failed and wildly unpopular ObamaCare as his two signature acts.  Obama rammed these monstrosities through larded with pork, partisan boondoggles and gimmicks of every kind with virtually ZERO Republican support.

I just want you to understand what a dishonest and frankly evil man Barack Obama is before moving forward.

That said, let’s see what this radical socialist ideologue – who has not received so much as even a SINGLE vote from his own party in two years of lies and demagoguery, has to say about Paul Ryan’s budget

Has Obama learned a damn thing?  Is this fool capable of learning a damn thing?

So Close: House Rejects Obama Budget 413-2
Guy Benson | Apr 10, 2014

UPDATE- The House has passed the Ryan budget 219-205. The ‘Path to Prosperity’ received 217 more votes than the president’s budget. You can read the GOP’s plan here. My summary is here.
*** Original Post ***
Last we checked in on the budget battle in DC, our post-partisan president was smirkingly denouncing House Republicans’ fiscal blueprint as a “stink burger” and “meanwich.” The wit! The erudition! With Congress’ lower chamber poised to pass Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity‘ — which reduces the rate of federal spending increases, reforms Medicare and balances within ten years — the House first took up President Obama’s budget proposal. Might this qualify as a “stink burger?”

The House on Wednesday handily rejected a GOP budget alternative based on President Obama’s 2015 spending blueprint. It was defeated 2-413, following a pattern seen in recent years in House votes to overwhelmingly reject Obama’s budget proposals. Today’s vote is just slightly better than the unanimous vote against Obama’s budget in 2012. The two “yes” votes came from Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Jim Moran (D-Va.), who is retiring…An Obama administration official agreed with House Democrats that the GOP substitute was not an accurate reflection of Obama’s budget plan. “The Administration would welcome votes on the actual provisions of President’s Budget,” said Office of Management and Budget spokesman Steve Posner. “That is not what this amendment represents, and a vote for or against this amendment is not a vote for or against the President’s policies.” But Republicans rejected these complaints, and defended the idea of consider Obama’s latest proposal as a way to let the House consider all budget options. “Any time the president of the United States takes the time to produce a budget, it merits a debate,” Mulvaney said. “I think it’s a valid discussion we should have every year.” Mulvaney also offered the president’s budget as a mock alternative in 2012, which was rejected 0-414. Republicans could not offer it last year because the president’s budget was submitted late — instead, Mulvaney tried to offer a blank sheet of paper to represent Obama’s budget, but it was not made in order.

I must have missed Mulvaney’s blank page budget gambit last year, which deserves points for being amusing and for highlighting the fact that the Obama White House can’t be bothered to meet statutory budget deadlines. He might try the same thing as a proxy for Senate Democrats’ FY 2015 proposal, which does not and will not exist. Harry Reid’s caucus has declined to participate in the legally-mandated budgeting process for the fourth time in five years. The White House and House Democrats can claim that the GOP’s version of Obama’s budget wasn’t an “accurate reflection” of the original document, but it essentially lifted Obama’s entire vision and dropped it into legislative language. In reality, all but two Democrats — one of whom was this guy — chose not to attach themselves to the president’s plan, which calls for the following:

President Obama’s 2015 Budget Proposal:(1) Never balances. Ever.

(2) Increases spending, ballooning the national debt by $8.3 trillion over the budget window — $1 trillion beyond than the unsustainable current trajectory. Under Obama’s plan, the red ink on the above chart would be steeper, sooner.

(3) Raises taxes by an additional $1.8 trillion (and again, never balances).

(4) Makes no attempt at reforming the gathering tidal wave of unfunded promises that Obama has admitted in the past are driving a long-term debt crisis.

To their credit, and unlike their Senate colleagues, House Democrats will offer an alternative budget of their own. But Phil Kerpen notices that it’s missing something:

The section on Obamacare ends with this defiant statement of policy: “the law of the land should support making affordable health care coverage available to every American family, and therefore the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.” And that’s it. Don’t repeal it. Don’t acknowledge any of the problems. Don’t do anything to help any of the people whose lives have been thrown into disarray. And certainly don’t do anything to “fix it.” It couldn’t be clearer: members who vote for this budget think Obamacare does not need to be fixed. Indeed it’s hard to read the Democratic budget as anything but a celebration of Obamacare exactly as it is – and that adds insult to the many Americans who have been injured by the law.

In other words, House Democrats’ budget reflects the opinion of those six percent of Americans who believe Obamacare is working well as is. For all their public assurances about “fixing Obamacare” (which didn’t pay dividends for them in Florida), Democrats oppose one of the most popular fixes to the law, their party chairwoman can’t think of a single change she’d make, and their governing document offers zero fixes. Seems legit.

Obama is a creature – a monster, to be more specific – of his own fascist party.  In 2011, I documented the fact that:

Today Is the 900th Day Since Democrats Bothered To Pass a Budget

Well after that, Democrats FINALLY bothered to obey the damn law and the Constitution just long enough to actually pass a budget which they had refused to do for YEARS.

Democrats are people – and this is simply a fact beyond legitimate question – who defy the law, defy process, defy the Constitution (specifically in this case Article I of the Constitution).  And then they fascistically govern by tyranny rather than by any legitimate rule of law.

 

If Heel Slipping Destroys Your Shoes, Here’s Something For You To Try

April 11, 2014

I’m going to admit something: I’m a genetic freak.  In more ways than one, I’m sure.

That acknowledged, we’ll just deal with one of my tragic genetic mutations: the fact that while the ball of my foot is fairly wide, it turns out that my heel is fairly narrow.

That means, of course, that I’ve got to buy wide shoes to fit the ball of my foot, but wide shoes and narrow heels don’t go together so well.

So the result is that my heel slips in my shoes as I’m walking.

For whatever reason, heel slippage has generally not caused me discomfort in my shoes and boots.   And I usually don’t end up with a lot of blisters.

What I end up with is destroyed shoes, as the inside lining gets shredded by my slipping heel.

It was a bad enough problem that I pretty much started wearing all-leather shoes and boots several years ago.  And I’m not just talking about “all leather” on the outside, but on the INSIDE of the shoe/boot as well.  That way, my heel could slip to its little heel-heart’s content, and there was something substantial to rub against rather than that comfy spongy fabric crap they pad the inside of most shoes and boots with these days.

Everything seemed good.

But yet another genetic defect began to rear its ugly, malformed little head: it turned out that I didn’t have the best arches in the world.  Oh, and I had a hammer toe.  Probably a bunch of other freaky foot things as well, given the fact that my left foot is a little longer but slightly more narrow versus my right foot which is a little shorter but slightly wider.

Do you know how difficult it is to buy all-leather boots with good arch support?  Try your glass slipper on in size “impossible” there, Cinderella.

I had to have a custom orthotic.

Now, in the dark ages they would have just left me out to die or euthanized me in some other manner.  But in these humane times they give freaks like me orthotics so we can walk around with the normal humans – you know, the people who AREN’T freaks.

Anyway, my orthotician told me I needed to start wearing boots with good arch support for my walks.  He suggested Hi Techs.

But it turned out that EVERY Hi Tech boot I saw had the same spongy, cushy lining.  Which my slipping heels tore up and destroyed in a matter of two weeks or less.

I tried those heel slippage inserts that have the adhesive and stick inside the heel of your boot.  They lasted about a day or two.

Normal people don’t have to live like this, you know.  Just us abby normal freaks.

I finally figured out a trick that has worked seriously well for me.  And it only cost about sixty or seventy cents for enough material to last for several months.

What you do is go to a fabric store.  I went to the fabric section of Wal-Mart.  And you get the most leather-like fabric material that they have (leather would be GREAT, but it’s hard to find).

Have them cut a yard of fabric between 2-3″ wide.  Like I said, it costs about seventy cents.  By making it 2-3″ inches wide, you make it wide enough to stick in the back of your shoe where your heel rubs.

What you’re going to do is cut off a section of that fabric and stick it under your insole or orthotic to hold it down.  I cut it so I can have about 5″ under the insole/orthotic.  It won’t slip out that way as you’re walking.

And then leave it just long enough to stick out slightly over the top of your heel.

So how much you cut off the yard of fabric depends on a) how long your foot is and b) how high whatever kind of shoe or boot you’re wearing is.

I’ve had the same boots now for over four months and the inside fabric is still intact.  Which is like a miracle.  I use a shoe horn to put my boots on, and what I do is push the material against the heel of my boot with the shoe horn as I put my foot in so the fabric stays in place between my heel and the heel of the boot.  And then I lace up the boot.

Every couple of months the fabric will wear out and you’ll have to do the job again.  But that’s a lot better than the inside of your shoe or boot wearing out, you see.

Like I said, if you could find leather strips about 2-3″ wide, it would be ideal.  Maybe Michael’s sells leather strips?  I haven’t been there to find out.

I just thought I’d pass that tip along.

We freaks need to stick together, you know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Obama Spins Anniversary Of Civil Rights Act, Remember It Was The REPUBLICAN Party That Was Instrumental In Its Passage

April 10, 2014

Right now Obama is on television blathering about how “fundamentally transforming America” is an inherently good thing – such that if it was a good thing in 1964 whatever Obama does to “fundamentally transform America” now is therefore likewise a good thing.  And of course by implication, anyone who doesn’t appreciate or want all of the garbage Obama is pushing is just like the people who opposed Civil Rights in the ’60s.

The key passage below:

“The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.”

Here’s the facts on Civil Rights:

What is the breakdown by party of who voted for and against the Civil Rights act of 1964?

Answer:

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state:

“The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.”

Also, an article on Salon.com states: “According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6).”

Here is the Salon.com article: “Democratic bigots” by Jake Tapper, July 17, 2000.

An excellent article on the CongressLink web site provides a history of the drafting of the bill and the debates within the two houses of Congress. According to the article, this is how the House of Representatives voted: “Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.”

The article later states how the Senate voted: “[...] the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.”

Here is the CongressLink article:
Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party fought a vicious Civil War to keep slavery. Republicans defeated them and freed the slaves. Following that, the Ku Klux Klan – the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party created to attack black AND white Republicans, began its reign of terror to force states to remain Democrat. We get into the 20th century when Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement, was an open racist who RE-segregated the military and the government. The 1924 Democrat National Convention was so completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it was called “Klanbake.” And, until last year, it was the Democrat Party who had as their honored elder statesman a former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle of the Klan in the person of Sen. Robert Byrd.

Obama is pimping Dr. Martin Luther King, a registered Republican who publicly campaigned for Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 50s only to have his civil rights massively violated by the FBI during the Kennedy years.

Mitt Romney’s father was one of the great Civil Rights leaders, but that didn’t stop Barack Obama and his machine from wickedly and deceitfully “fundamentally transforming” Mitt Romney into a racist bigot.

If being black is just like being homosexual, such that if being homosexual is a sin than being black is a sin, then Obama isn’t lying to you.

Otherwise, everything Obama is saying in this pompous self-congratulatory speech he’s giving is pure rhetoric and pure lies.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln, the Party that abolished slavery against a Democrat Party that literally forced America through a brutal Civil War to stop Republicans – has ALWAYS been for legitimate Civil Rights.  It has been the DEMOCRAT PARTY that has consistently been on the wrong side of morality and freedom.

As GOP Presidential Candidates Consider ‘Intractable’ Issues Like Immigration, They Have Obama’s Example To Consider Emulating (Just LIE)

April 10, 2014

Jeb Bush made some waves by taking a stance on illegal immigration (it was ‘love’ that drove them to flout our rule of law) that have many conservatives saying not in this lifetime to his nomination.

And we’re told every single day by the leftist-oriented media talking head propagandists that any true conservative has absolutely no chance of ever winning the presidency.

Mind you, we also have the same ACTUAL history being replayed on a regular basis: Republicans listen to these leftist talking heads and opt for a RINO – as in “Republican In Name Only” denoting a candidate who is nowhere even CLOSE to being a true principled conservative – for their nominee on the assumption that said RINO will be able to capture the hearts and minds of the morally idiotic undecided voters.  But once we have committed to the rationale that the left gives us that a more liberal candidate is a better candidate, the left does the “Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown” trick: they proceed to demonize our RINO and literally give him bloody fangs a la John McCain:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the floor of the United States Senate, assured America that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in years and he had the proof.  The fact that Harry Reid is a diseased liar and a truly demon-possessed creature was left out of the picture.

Democrats play the game of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” when it comes to destroying Republican candidates with lies.  Only of course it’s a TRILLION cuts as the lies and slander and lunatic demonization piles on and on and on.

That said, it truly IS a difficult problem that a conservative Republican nominee for president is in when it comes to issues such as immigration and homosexual marriage and the like.  It often seems, in our truly diseased culture, that the only way a politician has a chance is to be as evil and as toxic as the culture has become.

Ah, but we have an out now.  And we have it thanks to Obama.

If you’re a true, rabid, die-hard, vicious conservative and – for the sake of argument – you truly want to punish your enemies and reward your friends the way Obama has done to his enemies on the right and for his friends on the left – what can you do to get elected?

Just lie, lie and then lie some more.

How did Barack Obama resolve his problem with homosexual marriage in 2008?  He said something that everyone now knows was never true.  He simply lied like hell.  Homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency until homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency.

How about selling major economic plans?  Again, just lie.  Make stuff up.  Obama sure as hell did that with his boondoggle stimulus that promised the moon and delivered a mountain of bovine fecesObama added $3.27 trillion to the debt and gave the economy a shot of raw sewage in the arm.

Want to take over a sixth of the economy?  Lie like hell first and foremost.  Hey, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.  And my health plan will reduce costs by $2,500 for a family.  Even though it will do the exact opposite.

National security?  Hey, promise to restore America’s prestige and make the nation stronger and greater when in fact you’re going to do the EXACT freaking opposite.

Start your campaign by promising you won’t run – only to lie.  Assure the country that you “can unequivocally say” you won’t do what you will do.  Fund your campaign by promising that you’ll take federal matching funds.  And then break your promise.  Tell America you’re going to be a new politician and then hold more fundraisers than the previous five presidents COMBINED.  Raise more money than any politician who has ever lived while demonizing and slandering your opponent for the money he’s raised.  Just make sure that whatever the hell you say you’re going to do that you use the IRS as a thug agency to rabidly attack your opponents.  Because if being a dishonest liar without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency, without any virtue of any kind worked so well for Obama, why the hell not?

If you follow Obama’s example, you can say WHATEVER you need to say, get yourself elected, and then do whatever you’re going to do.  All the while demonizing everybody else around you.

So, yeah, say the Jeb Bush line.  Hell, say it at least 37 times on major venues.  And then after you’re elected, deport every damn ONE of the up-to 20 million illegal immigrants.  I mean, kick down every damn door in America and drag them out screaming by their hair just because it’s more fun to drag them out that way.

Here’s how a Republican candidate for president ought to campaign: just mirror Obama and be as dishonest with what you are actually doing as imaginable.  What did Obama do?  He’s a pathologically dishonest liar who wanted to present himself as caring for illegal immigrants on the one hand while dealing with the clear and present danger they posed on the other.  So Obama claimed he was only attacking CRIMINAL illegal immigrants.  When in fact he was doing no such thing: the cockroach was letting them go free to prey on Americans again and again.  And we now know that Obama was dishonestly inflating his deportation numbers all along - because he is the DEFINITION of “dishonest.”  Here’s that:

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. [...]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

You see, being a pathologically dishonest liar, Obama relied on the worst form of lie - cooked statistics (just like he has done with his health care takeover):

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

“Correct,” Mr. Johnson confirmed.

That would mean that in a one-to-one comparison with the final years of the Bush administration, deportations of those same people under Mr. Obama had actually fallen, according to immigration analysts who have studied the data.

So if you are the conservative mirror of Obama, with dishonesty being your common ground, here’s what you will do: you will kick down doors and you will drag out every single illegal immigrant in America by their damn hair while their children scream for their mommies and daddies.  But you will say you will do (are doing and have done) just the opposite.  That way, you can be like Obama and have your political cake and get to eat it too.

Just lie, lie, LIE like the devil Obama.  Say whatever you want.  Say illegal immigrants flooding into America is “an act of love.”  And then ruthlessly target them the way the Obama thug IRS targeted the tea party while announcing how loving you are.

There you go.  Intractable political problem solved.  And all it takes is the willingness to be the worst liar in the history of the human race (after Obama, who has set the bar of deceit and dishonesty so high no one will ever break his record).

If you have the spirit of Obama, you will promise to be a fundamentally different politician who will transcend politics and elevate America.  And then you will crush your enemies, break them, divide them, and drive them off the field.  Break America into fractured, divided pieces as long as you end up with at least one more piece than your enemies.  And ride on, you son of a gun.

Now, I write that knowing the future because I know the Bible.  It won’t happen.  It won’t happen because America has degenerated into a place where liars and their lies will win, and Democrats are just better at being liars while their base is better at tolerating lies.   Republicans can’t win that game any better than they can win the socialism game by promising to out-socialist the Democrats to buy whatever votes they need to buy.

I think – maybe even dare to hope – that Republicans will have a great 2014 midterm.  But by 2016, the consistent liars will win the day (in other words, President Hillary).

You see, there comes a point when a culture is so toxic that there are simply no good options.  We’ll have only “choices” like we had in 2012 (where we could either elect a man who believes that Christ Jesus is Lucifer’s brother or we could re-elect a man who actually IS Lucifer’s brother).  And given the choice between bad and worse, a wicked people will generally choose “worse.”  Until a Hitler comes and then until the end.

God knew and knows the end from the beginning.  He knew that America would rise on godly values and He knew that America would fall as the people became sufficiently wicked as to vote for a Democrat Party that would pervert and piss on every virtue the Word of God holds dear.  That’s why America is nowhere to be found in Bible prophecy as we literally vote to destroy ourselves in the suicidal and nihilistic act of cutting ourselves off from God’s blessing.  God knew that America was going to go down and go down hard.

Ultimately, big government liberals will transition to the ultimate big government liberal: the Bible calls him “the beast” and he will take over the global economy just as every liberal as dreamed about.  Like Obama, he will promise the world and make political progress by skillfully demonizing his enemies.  But he will lead the world into literal hell on earth.

 

The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule.

April 7, 2014

Back in 2008 I wrote a three part series of articles entitled, “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism.”  Guess what?  It still does.

Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example.  He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.

But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of.  It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist.  Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.

In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.”  But socialism is socialism.  Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok.  Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think.  If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives???  Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.

Gene Edward Veith makes this point:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”

The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT.  Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing.  The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism.  But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.

So “fascism” is NOT “right-wing.”  The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.

One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.”  Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing.  What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4]

In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty.  THAT’S a classical liberty.  Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists.  Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.

As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.

Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.

“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge.  If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”

When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.

“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”

“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”

“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard - must have mused when he heard this.

The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).

This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns under fire for supporting Prop. 8
By Salvador Rodriguez
April 3, 2014, 2:32 p.m.

Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.

Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.

“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”

The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.

But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.

Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.

“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.

Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.

This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found.  But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.

If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.”  Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.

Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign.  And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side).  But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.

What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here.  It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap.  Here it is:

“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement.  “Mozilla supports equality for all.”

You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.

What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.”  You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.

Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008 

The ONLY reason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.

Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.

When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism.  And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.

If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think.  You double-think.  You unthink.  You anti-think.  Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot.  And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.

Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.

Stormfront – from where I found the Youtube video below – also found this beauty of self-contradicting liberalism:

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website (feministcampus.org).

Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again.  Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like.  Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:

Here’s a write-up from Campus Reform, which sent the reporter to be treated like a leper by “the tolerant and inclusive” people:

Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.

Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.

“You guys aren’t wanted here.”

The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.

“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.

“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.

The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.

The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better.  One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”

But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.

Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):

‘Trigger Warnings’ Are Antithetical to College Life

You can’t bubble wrap students against any and all possible moments of discomfiture.At the Los Angeles Times, a rare outstanding editorial, “Warning: College students, this editorial may upset you“:

The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.

The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.

The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…

More.

Keep in mind that this development is something that derives entirely from the radical feminist left.

For more on that, see Robert Stacy McCain, “‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’.”

May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please?  Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost.  That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.

Accompanying this at UC Santa Barbara is a leftist professor who came unglued because somebody thought they had the right to be opposed to abortion and grabbed the sign away as her inner Nazi erupted:

The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.

Mireille Miller-Young

It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?

Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.

This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”

Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.

Instapundit and Jim Treacher also have some choice words.

So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence?  Only if I’m a liberal.  If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere.  That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.”  Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.

Understand: college and university faculties are THE most intolerant establishments in America, bar none.  If you are a conservative, you won’t be hired.  If you’ve already been hired and you’re a conservative, you’ll get the “Mozilla treatment” and lose promotions if not your positionProfessors openly ADMIT they discriminate against conservatives.  They take the amazing position that it is literally discriminatory for them to hire anyone who does not think exactly like they do.  If you so much as try to speak as a conservative at a college or university, you will be shouted down by rabidly intolerant “tolerance” hypocrites.

And don’t tell me that university faculty and students are some “fringe” element within the Democrat Party or the liberal movement.  Don’t tell me the violent and vicious Occupy movement fascists - and yes I truly do mean “violent and vicious” – that violated and just plain polluted the property rights of damn near everybody not long ago are some “fringe” element.  Don’t tell me that the union thugs who either beat people up or shake people down aren’t at the heart of the liberal bowel movement.  These people are all IT – whether you mean “Democrat,” “liberal” or “fascist.”  They’re all part of the fascist army of liberal goose-steppers.  Don’t tell me that the black people who make up the heart of the Democrat Party to the tune of voting 95% Democrat aren’t anything other than vicious.  When they aren’t murdering their own babies or murdering one another, they are beating the fascist hell out of innocent white people in unprovoked racist attacks.

And if white kids had a game called “black bear hunting” in which they sucker punched little old black ladies, I have a damn feeling that the media and the courts would treat these racist young punks differently and call it for what it clearly is.  But it’s black thugs, and Eric Holder says, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” on my watchSo we’ve got this “knock out game” a.k.a. “polar bear hunting” going on all over America, and of course it can’t be “racist” for a black thug to sucker punch a white person.

The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI.  And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.

You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off.  Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them.  And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals.  And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.

Do you want to know what is interesting?  It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:

Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel:

“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”

Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):

“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”

Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism.  And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.

Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:

Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People.  This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them.  “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80

Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.

Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers.  Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values.  Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.

Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy.  Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:

For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176

The solidly left-leaning (as acknowledged even by the leftist BBC) Prospect Magazine published an article titled, “In Defense of Heidegger.”  If you want more proof that it is leftist, consider that it considered the EXTREME leftist Noam Chomsky as its greatest of its 100 Greatest Intellectuals.  Most of the other 99 were quite leftist too, by the way.

The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi.  But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”

Even a socialist publication admits out the following:

The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[

And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit.  The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie.  And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil.  And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man.  You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing.  And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.

The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:

In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176

And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right.  You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences.  And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.

You OWN it.  Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.

One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:

David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.”  Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.”  Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103

At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time.  Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.

It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8″ campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have - he would still be there.  Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.

So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.”  It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.

Just a few days ago, Obama said this incredibly demagogic and frankly hateful thing as his Republican straw man/bogey man:

A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

Everything Obama says is a lie, so why should this be any different?  Republicans DO have an alternative to ObamaCare.  They’ve been talking about their alternatives for years now.  Hell, I wrote a post in 2009 describing the Republicans’ alternative and pointed out that even at that early date they had already offered THREE alternative bills to ObamaCare.  So Obama just lies like the devil and then demonizes his enemies.

He has repeated his lie about Republicans offering no alternative to his fascist health care hijack act even more times than he lied about people being able to keep their doctors and their health plans.  And he lied about those things a LOT.  But Obama believes in the Big Lie just like Hitler believed in it – which is why he fascistically and rabidly keeps sticking to his lies even when it is beyond obvious that they are lies.

The Big Lie is how Obama has governed.  It is his ONLY “leadership technique.”  And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.

Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.”  Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”

Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.

Obama is the man who has so much rabid hate for “the other” in his heart that as far as he is concerned, Republicans are people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Autism and Down Syndrome.

Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.”  It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate.  If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”

Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.

And again, Obama is the worst kind of self-righteous liar without shame who says one thing and then proves that he’s a hater according to his own dishonest standard with the next thing that comes out of his mouth.  And again – that is part and parcel of the leftist tradition.

I’ve been saying it and saying it.  The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible.  He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God.  He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).

Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere.  It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.

It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.

And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.

Update, 4/7/14: Well, it doesn’t take very long for liberals to prove even further that they are true fascists, does it.  Yes, we just had a liberal UC Santa Barbara professor described above inciting violence against someone for the crime of peacefully holding a viewpoint different from hers.  We just had the same uberliberal UC Santa Barbara student body demonstrate that under the leadership of such “professors,” they are rabidly intolerant of any ideas that they don’t like and demand that they should never have to listen to anything that disagrees with their preconceived liberal fascism.  And being liberals and being fascist, they just got through documenting that they are as violent as hell: 100 young liberal fascists were arrested for rioting.

And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma.  So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.

 

 

 

 

If You Want To Know Who’s To Blame Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision, Blame OBAMA And Blame The Left. Here’s Why.

April 4, 2014

The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution.  I think both sides amply attest to that.

Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”?  It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean.  And nothing more.  That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.

If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose.  I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).

I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare.  And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.

I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”  These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution.  It is completely besides the point to them.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter.  They do what the hell they want.

And they want hell.  Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever.  And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can.  It’s their gift to Satan.

I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.”  That is simply asinine.

As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes).  Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough?  As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):

Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party.  As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler.  – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87

So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him?  According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”

And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.”  He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.”  Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too.  So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.”  Just like Führer Obama.

Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood.  I guess that must make the guy “normal.”

Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG.  And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.

So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition.  Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).

Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”

Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?

For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 - so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history.  A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Hmmm.  1976.  How many decades ago was that?  Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep.  It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.

And:

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds.  Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise?  Try NOT.  He lied.  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie.  He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).

And:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

I pointed out in that 2008 article:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.

Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.”  Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?

The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O.  Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.

No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O.  There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.

Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

I link to and cite an article that documents that Obama had held more fundraisers as president than the previous FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And this one:

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

And then a little later this one:

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???

Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.

Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history.  Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008.  He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived.  You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.

Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds.  I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.

Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth.  Because they are fascist hypocrites.

Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun.  He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king.  He has perverted health care.  He has perverted immigration.  He has perverted foreign policy.  And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.

You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats.  You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.

But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”

As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.

And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.

Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it?  People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.

And so I pointed out:

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

Let me expand on that slightly.  I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes.  Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things.  So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything.  Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes.  If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund???  Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do???  This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do.  And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do  – such as worship God???

I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist.  Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this.  Do you know what that was?  It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict.  Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television.  You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land.  Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.  And then what did Obama do?  Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered.  He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.

If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate.  And impeach your fascist monster.  And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.

Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists.  And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers