Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Obama’s Border Crisis Makes Bush’s Hurricane Katrina Actually Look Like A Heckuva Job, Brownie, Indeed. And It Makes Democrats Look Positively EVIL.

July 11, 2014

Do you remember that line from George Bush: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”???  Thanks to the mainstream media machine, that quote became immortalized as an out of touch president who looked out of an airplane to see the world from far below.

Too bad that media died and they decided to utterly abandon all journalistic principles to worship their messiah instead of reporting the damn news.

Otherwise they would see a president who can’t even be bothered to fly over the damn disaster zone that is our border with Mexico as tens of thousands and growing into hundreds of thousands of children come pouring across the border driven by the FACT that Barack Obama has abrogated all border enforcement and basically won’t deport ANYBODY.

I tell you the truth: one day, soon, at the very rock bottom of hell will be the reporters who abandoned their constitutional responsibility and instead published their ideology rather than the truth.  And standing on their shoulders will be the liberal progressive Democrats who stood on the shoulders of these dishonest propagandist shills throughout their political careers.

WHERE is the media publishing the damn photo of Obama looking out of his plane while on his way to a damn FUNDRAISER when at least Bush had the courtesy to fly over the disaster zone???

And of course they’re nowhere, just as the president who voted “present” more times than all the presidents in the entire history of our republic COMBINED ever voted “present” is nowhere to be found, that’s where.

Barack Obama is a truly evil man, a profoundly wicked man, a political ideologue, BY HIS OWN DEMONIC AND DEMAGOGIC STANDARD.

Listen to Barack Obama demonize George Bush for his “Katrina flyover”:

OBAMA:  “When the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there.  When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky.  When the winds blew and the floodwaters came, we learned that for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America.  We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should.  We can talk about levees that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that’s seen as not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane.”

Now it is official: George W. Bush – even at his very worst moment – was still about a trillion times more of a freaking man than Barack Obama ever has been or ever WILL be.  Because, to put it in Obama’s own slander, Obama is such a pathologically worthless sack of stink that he won’t even bother to “see the people from the window of an airplane.”

What a loathsome, uncaring, cynical, depraved piece of work our Coyote-in-Chief is to dare to say that about Bush and then not even be able to come CLOSE to manning up himself to GO TO THE DAMN BORDER AND PERSONALLY SEE THE DISASTER HE CAUSED.

What is Obama saying now?  This:

OBAMA:  “There’s nothing that has taken place down there that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on.  This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  And those who say I should visit the border, when you ask ‘em what should we be doing, they’re giving us suggestions that are embodied in legislation that I’ve already sent to Congress.”

Let me ask you a question, liberal hypocrite: what if George Bush had pointed out that maybe he wasn’t all that interested in photo-ops, either.  For the record, he would be a few trillion times more honest than Obama – the first “selfie president” – is about not loving “photo-ops” whenever they suit his demonic agenda.

What would you craven, demon-worshiping hypocrites have said if George W. Bush had arrogantly said, “There’s nothing that has taken place down there [in that hurricane disaster zone] that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on”????  Tell me that you wouldn’t have held a national – hell, GLOBAL freak-out that would have lasted the rest of your worthless lives.

Obama now says, “This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.”

Very well, you future residents of hell, tell me NOW that Hurricane Katrina – unlike the Obama border fiasco – was just “theater” to you.  Tell me it actually WASN’T a “problem” such that the George W. Bush whom Barack Obama demonized should have and could have just done one fundraiser after another instead.

And tell me how it would have played with you vermin liberals had George Bush said, “This isn’t a theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  So instead of going to the hurricane disaster zone like an actual LEADER, I’m instead going to demonize my political opponents and do NOTHING… well, except a damn freaking buttload of FUNDRAISERS”????

Do you Democrats have any concept whatsoever how EVIL you are???  And I don’t mean by MY standards; I mean by YOUR OWN as expressed by your pharaoh god-king, Emperor Obama???

Liberals make me want to puke until there’s nothing left and I dematerialize with their endless abject HYPOCRISY.

If you want to blame Bush as a failed president, fine.  But if you can’t recognize how failed Obama is BY THE VERY SAME STANDARDS YOU CONDEMNED BUSH, there is something so broken and so twisted and so vile it is simply beyond unreal.

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite slime who says Bush is to blame for 9/11.  It doesn’t matter that ALL the damn terrorists entered the United States and largely completed their training while Bill Clinton was in office AFTER YEARS OF WEAK INACTION, just as it doesn’t matter to them that Bill Clinton had gutted both our intelligence and our military such that we were both weak and blind or that it was because of Bill Clinton’s pathetic weakness that an emboldened terrorist named Osama bin Laden started calling Americans “paper tigers.”

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite without any virtue or honor who says Bush is to blame for the 2008 economic crash.  It doesn’t matter at ALL to you that Bill Clinton was JUST as to blame for the Dotcom Bubble collapse that led to a giant recession that was very close to being every bit as bad as what happened in 2008.  As George W. Bush assumed office, the nation was officially in RECESSION.

I know you don’t believe me, liberal.  After all, Clinton paved the streets with gold in your mythologies.  But Bloomberg reported this:

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy slipped into recession during Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency rather than under President George W. Bush, the group that officially sets the timing of the country’s business cycles may decide.

The seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research may change its determination that the recession started in March 2001 to reflect recent revisions to government growth statistics, committee members, including Victor Zarnowitz, said.

“We are discussing it now, and in my opinion it should be changed,” Zarnowitz, a senior fellow at the Conference Board in New York, said in an interview. “In my opinion, the recession started in December 2000.”

Such a change might help Republicans deflect a principal criticism of Democrats seeking to unseat Bush in this year’s presidential election. Bush took office in January 2001.

And CNN reported the FACTS albeit sadly AFTER the fact when the facts would have actually made more of a difference:

John Kerry declared, “[George Bush] inherited the strongest economy in the world – and brought it to its knees.” There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession. Did the recession begin in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush’s inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate. According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that. For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 – at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 – more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact “on the front end of a recession,” as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000. Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that “the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.”

So given the FACT that Bush and Clinton basically ended up with the same economic performance – with both presidents averaging 5.2% unemployment during their presidencies – the ONLY difference between Bush and Clinton was that Clinton’s recession blew up in Bush’s face as Clinton left office and Bush’s recession also blew up in Bush’s face before Bush left office.

The DotCom bubble burst was a HUGE recession, comparable to our so-called “Great Recession.”  It vaporized 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, which is the measure of tech stocks.  And it caused a massive $7.1 TRILLION loss for the U.S. economy.  And frankly the ONLY reason more people don’t remember that massive economic hit was because Bill Clinton let those pesky terrorists come into America to attack us.

The amazing thing is that had Clinton not left us vulnerable to the 9/11 attack, he would have received more of the blame due to him over the massive recession that began under his watch.  Instead, given the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the openly-liberal mainstream media, he was largely let off the hook for BOTH disasters.

But, yeah, to be a Democrat is to be the kind of personally dishonest hypocrite who blames Bush for Clinton’s economy, then blames Bush for Bush’s economy and then blames Bush for Obama’s economy EVEN SIX YEARS AFTER OBAMA TOOK DAMN OFFICE.

Getting back to this border meltdown, we’ve got to acknowledge something called a FACT: for all of Bush’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush did not cause the giant waves to wash over Louisiana.  You know, unlike Barack Obama, who sure as poop stinks DID cause the flood of immigrant children to wash over America.

Do you remember Lucifer Obama and his lieutenant Beelzebub Holder SUING Jan Brewer and declaring that ONLY the federal government had any right to enforce our border???  Do you remember how they falsely declared how secure the border was???

Do you remember Obama just flat-out demonically lying when he claimed over and over and over again that he was doing more deporting than any president when in FACT he was doing the LEAST???

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.

Do you remember this story:

DHS document: 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions released in 2013
By Alexander Bolton – 03/31/14 05:45 AM EDT

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, undercutting Democratic claims that President Obama has strictly enforced immigration laws.

An internal Department of Homeland Security document compiling statistics on arrests and deportations in 2013 showed that ICE agents encountered 193,357 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions but issued charging documents for only 125,478. More than 67,800 were released.

The data came from an end-of-year “Weekly Departures and Detention Report.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, a research group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws, estimates ICE agents released more than a third of illegal immigrants with criminal records they detained.

“ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion policies,” Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in a memo summarizing the DHS document.

ICE classifies illegal immigrants as criminal if they have been convicted of a crime, not including traffic offense, Vaughn noted.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, blasted the administration’s record.

“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed. Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis,” he said in a statement Sunday.

“Secretary Johnson must reject the president’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law — not break it,” he added in reference to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

A spokeswoman for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the immigration debate have fired salvos back and forth over Obama’s track record enforcing the law.

Republicans say they cannot trust Obama to enforce the law, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cited that as an obstacle to passing immigration reform through the House.

Pro-immigrant groups argue Obama has enforced the law too zealously.

Janet Murguía, the president of the National Council of La Raza, called Obama the “deporter in chief” earlier this month.

Senate Democrats like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have called on Obama to halt the deportations of illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that ICE officials moved to deport 28 percent fewer illegal immigrants from the interior of the country in 2013 than in 2012.

The group obtained the law enforcement records through a lawsuit.

They obtained the records through a lawsuit because Obama’s is the LEAST most transparent and the MOST dishonest administration in the entire history of the republic.  Because these shenanigans keep going on over and over and over again, whether it’s the fiasco of Benghazi and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the IRS and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the VA and Obama’s lies and cover ups.

Do you remember this story from well over a YEAR ago?

President Barack Obama and his administration appear to care about satisfying “special interest groups” within the Democratic base more than protecting the lives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, the ICE union boss told lawmakers Tuesday.

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on,” Chris Crane, president the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, told the House Judiciary Committee.

He went on: “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

Watch a portion of Crane’s testimony below:

Crane said ICE agents have been “essentially prohibited” from enforcing U.S. immigration law. He said agents are unable to arrest illegal aliens who are in the country illegally or immigrants who have overstayed their visas. “It’s basically not illegal anymore, generally speaking, not unless the alien has been convicted of a criminal offense.”

He said ICE agents are being forced to accept any illegal alien’s claim as to whether he or she graduated or is attending high school or college, thus qualifying them for Obama’s “deferred action for childhood arrivals” (DACA) privileges. Agents are “powerless” in requiring illegal aliens to prove they actually qualify.

“Death or serious injury to ICE officers and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS, and Administration leadership, than the public complaints that would be lodged by special interest groups representing illegal aliens,” Crane said, according to a report by the Washington Examiner.

Several ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over policies that prevent immigration officials from enforcing federal immigration law.

Let’s go over the ICE union head’s testimony again:

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on.” …    “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

That was in February of 2013, nearly a year and a damn half ago.

Democrat, if you want to claim that Obama isn’t one-trillion percent responsible for this total anarchy and collapse on our border, you have that right as a future eternal resident of the fire of hell.  But I’m going to point out the fact that you are psychologically sick and you are morally evil.

Democrats are telling us that the border meltdown is the result of a 2008 law.  Fine.  And I’ll believe it when I see that there were hundreds of thousands of children streaming across our border beginning in 2008.  Only that isn’t TRUE.  It didn’t begin until Obama declared a de facto AMNESTY and basically assured his liberal voting bloc of Hispanics that he would never bother to enforce the law beyond his bogus dishonest application of pseudo statistics.

Even NOW Democrats are continuing to prove that they are so radically disassociated with reality that they belong in rubber rooms.  Because they’re saying that the reports that the Central American families are hearing – that if their children come to the US they will be able to stay here – aren’t true.  But they ARE true.  As Obama is proving by serving as their Coyote-in-Chief as he buses and flies these children all over America.  And then tells them to report to an INS facility when it is simply a FACT that 90% of them will NEVER report.

I now state it as a documented FACT that Brownie DID do a heck of a job during Hurricane Katrina.  Because we now see what a truly CRAPPY job really looks like.

 

 

 

 

Hey Unions, SHUT UP: Messiah Obama Just Gave WalMart Divine Absolution. So Begone, Ye Racist Paupers!

May 9, 2014

Unions are more than slightly upset that Barack Obama is spurning them to be the whore of the environmentalists.  But they probably should have read the fine print before supporting the Whore-in-Chief.

Note to liberals: what’s good for the goose is just as good for the gander: unions only oppose Obama because unions are racist:

Flanked by bargain-priced displays of women’s wear and patio lighting, President Barack Obama came to a Wal-Mart store in Silicon Valley on Friday to praise new steps by businesses and communities to deploy solar energy.

The President was showcasing efforts to combat climate change that don’t rely on a disinclined Congress.

But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama also triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say low wages paid by Wal-Mart fly in the face of Obama’s vaunted push on pay equity.

President Barack Obama poses for a photo after speaking at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California on Friday

‘What numbskull in the White House arranged this?’ former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said on Facebook.

Obama said more than 300 companies and state and local governments have pledged to use solar technology, and he unveiled his own executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency with a goal of reducing U.S. reliance on carbon fuels.

The two tracks underscored Obama’s strategy of sidestepping Congress to advance his own agenda, but they also illustrated the limits of his reach in a bitterly divided government.

‘The commitments we’re announcing today prove that there are cost-effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at the same time,’ Obama said at a sprawling Wal-Mart store in Mountain View.

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

 

The solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes, the White House said, while Obama’s administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.

The White House also announced that long-delayed energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers have finally been completed.

Ticking off a list of economic and environmental benefits he attributed to solar technology, Obama cast the commitments as part of a broader campaign to reduce American energy dependence, create jobs in renewable energy and lower heat-trapping emissions blamed for global warming.

‘This is what you call a win-win-win,’ Obama told about 250 store employees as he wrapped up a three-day swing through California focused heavily on raising money for Democrats in advance of November’s midterm elections.

Obama announced new steps by companies, local governments and his own administration to deploy solar technology

 

Tweaking the mostly Republican opponents of his energy policies in Congress, Obama lamented that lawmakers have ‘not always been as visionary on these issues as we would like.’

That’s why he’s seizing opportunities this year to act unilaterally to advance those goals, Obama said.

‘Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we still have some climate deniers who shout loud,’ Obama said. ‘But they’re wasting people’s time on a settled debate.’

His policies unable to generate momentum in Congress, Obama has increasingly gone outside the federal government to press his agenda.

He has won commitments from colleges and universities to expand access to more students; he has created innovation hubs that link businesses and education institutions; and he has drawn attention to companies and state and local governments that have increased pay for workers.

President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the Walmart store

 

Still, that choice of tactics has severely limited what Obama may be able to accomplish, a reality the president acknowledged the night before as he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in La Jolla benefiting House Democrats.

‘Regardless of how hard I push, regardless of how many administrative actions I take, we’re not going to be able to go where we need to go, and can go, and should go unless I’ve got a Congress that’s willing to work with me,’ Obama said.

The White House said it chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers.

The Wal-Mart location he visited gets about 15 percent of its power from solar panels.

Wal-Mart’s president, Bill Simon, said. Obama is the first president to visit one of the chain’s warehouse stores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624149/At-Wal-Mart-Obama-praises-steps-solar-power.html#ixzz31Fi78NuT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sorry your messiah betrayed you, unions.

Now please shop at WalMart.  Otherwise you’re a racist (or the rhetoric of liberalism is pure demagogic slander).

Boy, this is probably the biggest leftist betrayal of leftist since Hitler started murdering the homosexuals who had brought him to power

Nearly HALF Of All Small Businesses Have Curbed Their Hiring As A Result Of ObamaCare

April 28, 2014

This is the economic equivalent of getting in a fight for your life against a guy with a sword who cuts off your right arm.  And you’re thinking, “Damn, I really needed that arm.”  Only it’s the economy fighting to live and Obama’s socialist takeover of health care is the sword.

The 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey Finds The ACA Is Causing Employers To Cut Staff And Reduce New Hires

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Jenna Weisbord, 202-662-0766
jweisbord@franchise.org
WASHINGTON, April 24-Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that the 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that, “In January, nearly half of small-business owners with at least five employees, or 45% of those polled, said they had had to curb their hiring plans because of the health law, and almost a third – 29% – said they had been forced to make staff cuts, according to a U.S. Bancorp survey of 3,173 owners with less than $10 million in annual revenue that will be released Thursday.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)

This research aligns with a November 2013 study conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the International Franchise Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which found that 31 percent of franchise businesses have already reduced worker hours.

Both pieces of research support bi-partisan efforts to return to the traditional definition of full-time employment under the ACA. This month the House of Representatives passed the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).

Below are highlights of the study:
U.S. Bank Small Business Survey Finds “Owners Remain Skeptical Of The Long-Term Impact Of The Affordable Care Act On Their Business” With More Than 60 Percent Saying It Will Be Negative For Their Business. “The 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that “slightly more than six in 10 owners now say the long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act will be negative on their business.” (2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey, U.S. Bank, 4/24/14)

Additional Findings:

Nearly half of businesses with at least five employees (45%) say it has forced them to decrease forecasted new hires and almost one-third report it has led to cuts in staff (29%).

Larger businesses are more likely to have cut employee benefits or shifted the cost burden of higher benefits to employees as a result of the legislation.

The smaller the business the more likely they say the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has caused them to postpone or cancel planned investments in their business.

At least three out of five owners with a minimum of $1 million in revenue or five employees say the new healthcare law has resulted in higher premiums for their business.

Local Business Owner Tim Cain Argues That The Health Law Raises Operating Costs And “The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse.” “…if the number of enrollees in his health plans increases to 70 percent of his workforce, Mr. Cain estimates his costs could swell to more than $500,000. That might force him to raise prices, he says, at a time when the impact of this year’s harsh winter—and an extended drought in California—is already pushing up costs for fruit and vegetables. ‘The timing couldn’t be worse, really,’ he says.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)
This survey echoes previous research conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

According To A Public Opinion Strategies Survey, 31 Percent Of Franchise Businesses Have Already Reduced Worker Hours To Cope With Health Law. “Additionally, 27 percent of franchise and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)

Further, The POS Survey Found That More Than Half Of Businesses With 40 To 70 Employees Plan To Make Personnel Changes To Mitigate The Impact Of ACA. “Among businesses with 40 to 70 employees, 59 percent of franchise and 52 percent of non-franchise businesses plan to make personnel changes to stay below the 50 full time equivalent employee threshold. This accounts for 23 percent of all franchise and 10 percent of all non-franchise decision-makers surveyed.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)
###

About the International Franchise Association
The International Franchise Association is the world’s oldest and largest organization representing franchising worldwide. Celebrating over 50 years of excellence, education and advocacy, IFA works through its government relations and public policy, media relations and educational programs to protect, enhance and promote franchising. Through its media awareness campaign highlighting the theme, Franchising: Building Local Businesses, One Opportunity at a Time, IFA promotes the economic impact of the more than 825,000 franchise establishments, which support nearly 18 million jobs and $2.1 trillion of economic output for the U.S. economy. IFA members include franchise companies in over 300 different business format categories, individual franchisees and companies that support the industry in marketing, law and business development.

ObamaCare is evil.  It is simply evil.  And evil laws have evil consequences.

Obama keeps assuring us that his fascist takeover of health care has reduced costs.  His evidence?  An idiot study by the CBO that revised a previous idiot study.  (Let’s conveniently forget the fact that the CBO said costs would be lower than previously projected because people will get FAR crappier “health care” under ObamaCare than they had thought).  The problem is that the real world doesn’t march to the goose step of either Obama or the idiots at the CBO.  And actual businesses with actual employees who are on the verge of actually gutting their workforce to pay for this demonic law are screaming as their costs “necessarily skyrocket.”

Democrats are whining about a “war on women” – forget the fact that by their own rationale Obama is warring on women as his own administration pays women cents on the dollar earned by men - to distract people from their party’s WAR ON JOBS.

Obama has created a holocaust on jobs, which is why our labor participation rate – measuring the percentage of working-age adults who actually have a damn job in America – is at a historic low under his regime.  It now stands as the worst it has been in 37 years.  And Obama’s response is that it’s somehow Bush’s fault because it’s racist to hold him responsible.

The liars who gave us ObamaCare lied about EVERYTHING.  Obama lied when he assured us it would get more popular over time; it has become LESS popular.  He lied when he said it would bend the cost curve down (which he’s STILL falsely claiming); ObamaCare is MASSIVELY adding to the cost of healthcare – which is why businesses are faced with cutting hiring to pay the huge costs of this socialist mess.  He lied when he said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor.  And he lied when he said if you already had health insurance and you liked your plan you would be able to keep your plan rather than be forced to accept Obama’s damn plan.

This country is going down the toilet.  The liberal socialist elites – who preach “redistribution of wealth” but mean, “redistribute THE PEOPLE’S wealth to US” by means of manipulating markets, interest rates, federal reserve policies and government regulatory burdens – are ensuring it.

 

 

 

Unions Are Simply Evil: Union Forces School To Rehire Teacher Who Watched Porn In Classroom. Oh, And He Gets $200,000 Too.

April 23, 2014

This is so evil only liberals and unions could possibly do it:

Union gets teacher, fired for watching porn in class, his job back
By Dan Calabrese (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, January 23, 2014

This is the sort of thing you can imagine, at some point, conservatives might have imagined half-seriously that a teachers’ union would do, only to provoke dismissive scoffs from union defenders who would point to the claim as evidence conservatives just hated teachers and would say anything to slander the union.

Fast-forward to the present, and the unions not only do it, but do it with no apparent sense of shame.

Andrew Harris was previously a seventh-grade science teacher at Glacier Creek Middle School in Wisconsin’s Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District. He was fired when it was discovered he had spent quite a bit of time, in class mind you, watching porn on his computer. Even a teachers’ union wouldn’t contest that firing, right?

Wrong.

Watchdog.org reports:

The district’s school board Monday voted in a special closed session to comply with an arbitrator’s 60-page order that demands Harris be reinstated. He was fired in 2010 after receiving and viewing multiple pornographic and sexually inappropriate images and videos, according to a complaint.

To add insult to the district’s injury, taxpayers will have to pay Harris nearly $200,000 in back pay. In total the district will spend nearly $1 million on the case, the brunt of which went to legally defending its position that the firing was fair.

The district’s admission of defeat in the case comes with a decision to offer Harris a job teaching seventh-grade science at another middle school. So in the end, the taxpayers lay out $1 million, and not only are they still stuck with the teacher who watches porn in class, but the porn-watching teacher himself loses nothing as he even ends up getting paid for the three years in which he was not working.

A bunch of other teachers were nabbed along with Harris receiving inappropriate material on their computers, but the school district says its investigation shows Harris was the only one actually viewing the material on his classroom computer.

A district spokesman lays it out: “A lot of people are wondering how? Why? Really? Is this really something as an organization they want to stand for? My wife’s a teacher, so I understand they (the union) feel the need to defend their membership. I also hope they would understand why we would feel this isn’t the right decision.”

Exactly. Everyone understands that it’s the function of a union to defend its members. But do unions care nothing at all for the actual result of the actions they take? What do you do if you’re the parent of a seventh-grader who finds out that your son or daughter ends up in this guy’s class? Do you request a different teacher? What if he’s the only seventh-grade science teacher the school has, which is certainly going to be the case at a lot of middle schools?

The problem when you unionize any sort of workforce is that the rules that are established often leave no room whatsoever for common sense. If a teacher is viewing porn on his school computer, the teacher needs to be fired. Period. That’s not even a question. Or it shouldn’t be. But once you get a union involved, with union rules and union-mandated processes, the firing can’t go forward unless every i is dotted and every t is crossed, and the unions make it their business to make it as difficult as possible for all that to happen.

And this is what you end up with. Yeah. Andrew Harris’s “rights” are protected. And now kids are stuck learning science from a guy who watches porn in the classroom, and no one can do anything about it.

Democrats don’t give one flying damn about children.  Not one flying damn.

Liberalism is an extortion racket, pure and simple.

It’s loyalty to the Party rather than loyalty to the children.

They don’t want poor kids to be able to go to excellent schools; they want to force them to go to government schools where they will receive inferior educations but “excellent” propaganda.  That’s why they so adamantly oppose vouchers and aid for poor families desperate to give their kids an actual education as opposed to a liberal indoctrination.

Democrats protect unions and unions protect government bureaucrats a.k.a. “teachers”.  And both of them prey on children to get what they want.

In this case, what they want is porn.  On public school property.  Using public school resources.  And on public school time.

Any decent human being would want a cockroach like Harris gone.  But Democrats and unions are NOT decent people.

 

Liberals To Veterans: ‘You’ve Served Us Well, Troops. But Unfortunately Now We’ll Have To Euthanize You Because You’re Dangerous.’

April 22, 2014

I just want to point out that if I were a parakeet and my humans lined my birdcage with the New York Slimes, I would call the ASPCA and file a cruelty to animals lawsuit.

This worthless load of equine manure is the latest example of the true moral disease of the soul that is liberalism (my comment on this filth is below):

Veterans and White Supremacy
By KATHLEEN BELEW APRIL 15, 2014

EVANSTON, Ill. — WHEN Frazier Glenn Miller shot and killed three people in Overland Park, Kan., on Sunday, he did so as a soldier of the white power movement: a groundswell that united Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other fringe elements after the Vietnam War, crested with the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, and remains a diminished but potent threat today.

Mr. Miller, the 73-year-old man charged in the killings, had been outspoken about his hatred of Jews, blacks, Communists and immigrants, but it would be a mistake to dismiss him as a crazed outlier. The shootings were consistent with his three decades of participation in organized hate groups. His violence was framed by a clear worldview.

You can’t predict whether any one person will commit violence, but it would be hard to think of someone more befitting of law enforcement scrutiny than Mr. Miller (who also goes by the name Frazier Glenn Cross). I’ve been studying the white radical right since 2006. In my review of tens of thousands of pages of once classified federal records, as well as newly available archives of Klan and neo-Nazi publications, Mr. Miller appears as a central figure of the white power movement.

The number of Vietnam veterans in that movement was small — a tiny proportion of those who served — but Vietnam veterans forged the first links between Klansmen and Nazis since World War II. They were central in leading Klan and neo-Nazi groups past the anti-civil rights backlash of the 1960s and toward paramilitary violence. The white power movement they forged had strongholds not only in the South, but also in the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, California and Pennsylvania. Its members carried weapons like those they had used in Vietnam, and used boot-camp rhetoric to frame their pursuit of domestic enemies. They condoned violence against innocent people and, eventually, the state itself.

Before his 1979 discharge for distributing racist literature, Mr. Miller served for 20 years in the Army, including two tours in Vietnam and service as a Green Beret. Later that year he took part (but was not charged) in a deadly shooting of Communist protesters in Greensboro, N.C.

In 1980, Mr. Miller formed a Klan-affiliated organization in North Carolina that eventually was known as the White Patriot Party. He outfitted members in camouflage fatigues. He paraded his neo-Nazis, in uniform and bearing arms, up and down streets. They patrolled schools and polling places, supposedly to protect whites from harassment. F.B.I. documents show that they also burned crosses. By 1986, Mr. Miller’s group claimed 2,500 members in five southern states.

The archives also show that Mr. Miller received large sums of money from The Order, a white power group in the Pacific Northwest, to buy land and weapons to put his followers through paramilitary training. Mr. Miller’s group paid $50,000 for weapons and matériel stolen from the armory at Fort Bragg, N.C., including anti-tank rockets, mines and plastic explosives. He targeted active-duty troops for recruitment and hired them to conduct training exercises.

Mr. Miller’s downfall came after the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of black North Carolinians; as part of a settlement in 1985, he agreed to stop operating a paramilitary organization. In 1987, a federal judge found that Mr. Miller had violated the agreement, and barred him from contacting others in the white power movement. Outraged, and anticipating criminal charges regarding the stolen military weapons, Mr. Miller briefly went underground. He would write in a self-published autobiography, “Since they wouldn’t allow me to fight them legally above ground, then I’d resort to the only means left, armed revolution.” He was later caught with a small arsenal, but he began cooperating with prosecutors, testifying against other white supremacists in exchange for a reduced sentence. He was released in 1990, after serving three years.

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a nine-page report detailing the threat of domestic terrorism by the white power movement. This short document outlined no specific threats, but rather a set of historical factors that had predicted white-supremacist activity in the past — like economic pressure, opposition to immigration and gun-control legislation — and a new factor, the election of a black president.

The report singled out one factor that has fueled every surge in Ku Klux Klan membership in American history, from the 1860s to the present: war. The return of veterans from combat appears to correlate more closely with Klan membership than any other historical factor. “Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists carrying out violent attacks,” the report warned. The agency was “concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

The report raised intense blowback from the American Legion, Fox News and conservative members of Congress. They demanded an apology and denounced the idea that any veteran could commit an act of domestic terrorism. The department shelved the report, removing it from its website. The threat, however, proved real.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

Mr. Miller obviously represents an extreme, both in his politics and in his violence. A vast majority of veterans are neither violent nor mentally ill. When they turn violent, they often harm themselves, by committing suicide. But it would be irresponsible to overlook the high rates of combat trauma among the 2.4 million Americans who have served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the full impact of which has not yet materialized. Veterans of those conflicts represent just 10 percent of those getting mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the overwhelming majority of those in treatment are still Vietnam veterans.

During Mr. Miller’s long membership in the white power movement, its leaders have robbed armored cars, engaged in counterfeiting and the large-scale theft of military weapons, and carried out or planned killings. The bombing by Timothy J. McVeigh, an Army veteran, of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, which killed 168 people, was only the most dramatic of these crimes. When we interpret shootings like the one on Sunday as acts of mad, lone-wolf gunmen, we fail to see white power as an organized — and deadly — social movement.

That Mr. Miller was able to carry out an act of domestic terror at two locations despite his history of violent behavior should alarm anyone concerned about public safety. Would he have received greater scrutiny had he been a Muslim, a foreigner, not white, not a veteran? The answer is clear, and alarming.

Kathleen Belew, a postdoctoral fellow in history at Northwestern University, is at work on a book on Vietnam veterans and the radical right.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 16, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Veterans and White Supremacy.

First of all, the FACT of the matter is that the Ku Klux Klan was the product of the DEMOCRAT PARTY:

As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

So if this liberal pseudo-intellectual fraud had a shred of integrity or honesty, she would be pointing out that there is a FAR higher percentage of DEMOCRATS who are Klan members than the 22-plus million VETERANS who served their country rather than parasitically leaching off of it as have Democrats.

We’ve got over twenty-two million veterans in America.  And how many of them are guilty of this kind of viciousness?  Belew lists two out of twenty-plus million?  It’s hard to decide if this woman is more insane than evil or more evil than insane (that’s always my problem when I’m trying to understand liberals).

I see, furthermore, that Kathleen Belew conveniently forgot to mention that black leaders have long lamented the over-representation of blacks drafted for the Vietnam War - and therefore (according to this harebrained theory of Belew’s) the vicious racist hate of black service members that are clearly threatening America.  Basically, she doesn’t have to explain why this military veteran = violence crap theory doesn’t apply to blacks because she is a mindless hypocrite lacking a shred of honor or credibility.

I mean, I remember an example that Belew conveniently forgot: John Allen Muhammad.  Here’s a black guy who served in the military.  And here’s a black guy that turned into a sniper hunting humans.  In fact:

“Muhammad’s goal in Phase One was to kill six white people a day for 30 days.”

Military veteran, check.  Racist, check, murderer, check.  Only the veteran was the wrong skin color for Belew.

Given the sheer number of white veterans relative to the number of black veterans in the United States military (about 80 percent of all U.S. veterans are white), and given the fact that I just (off the top of my head) produced half as many examples – we should be writing the story “Veterans and Black Supremacy” if we were going to deal with the facts.

How many black Vietnam veterans joined the racist Black Panthers or some other black race-based group???

The old Black Panthers as well as numerous other racist black groups tried to initiate a race war.  The NEW Black Panthers are trying to initiate a race war.  And I don’t even think these turds are veterans, which is another way of saying that being a veteran has NOTHING to do with the vile crap that this vile pseudo-intellectual attributes to them.

If we talk about “minority veterans” the last TWO mass shootings by veterans at Fort Hood were BOTH “minorities” and therefore it seems that we ought to be looking at the minority veterans with “Are you about to go postal?” suspicions, shouldn’t we?  And that actually has me providing MORE minority examples of dangerous psycho veterans than Belew does white veterans.

But who the hell needs to think or reflect on actual facts when you’re a liberal?

When you are a liberal you are immune to reality.  It’s almost like it’s a sci-fi-movie extra dimension that liberals cannot see or experience or have any contact with.

Then there’s the Homeland Security Report that Belew cites: she fails to mention that the stuff she recites was WITHDRAWN when it was shown that it had no basis in fact but was basically The Democrats exercising their “loathing the military” demons.  In fact, it was so baseless and so utterly without merit that it was withdrawn within a matter of HOURS after it was issued.

This is “scholarship” with rabies.  It is diseased, frothing-at-the-mouth madness masquerading as “academia.”

But that said, let’s assume her point is valid and there is something about serving in the armed forces – especially in combat – that makes one go psycho racist.

What do we do about it?

Perhaps liberals want us to simply disband our military and preemptively surrender right now to Russia.  Just surrender.  Tell Putin that we will gladly be his slaves and work to death in his forced labor camps in Siberia scraping coal out of the ground with our bare hands.  Hell, that would make America even better at liberalism than France and France is pretty damn good at being gutless coward liberals.

The only other alternative is to just treat our veterans the way we used to treat war dogs.  The idea was that war dogs – having been turned vicious by combat – could never be reintegrated into society.  So they had to be euthanized when they came home.  You know, “Good job, Fido!  Attaboy!  But now we’ve got to put you down.”

The truly evil, violent and diseased people in America are liberals and members of liberal groups.  If anyone needs to be “put down,” it’s Kathleen Belew and her ilk.

If you agree with Kathleen Belew, then have the decency to give up your freedom and become the slave you ought to be.  Because without our veterans a slave is precisely what the hell you would BE.  Otherwise realize that it is LIBERALS who are a true danger to both sanity and freedom.

For liberal Democrats to cast this kind of hate on the people who defend our freedom is so sickening and so beneath contempt I just want to vomit.

 

 

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.”

 

 

The Pope Vs. Obama: One Of These Men Is A Liar Without Shame (Dishonest Liberal Pseudo-Journalism Completely Ignores Story)

March 28, 2014

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk.  One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit.  So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican,  and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting.  If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened.  There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity.  And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 27, 2014

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician????  Hmmmm.  Boy is that one ever a head scratcher.  Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

It is also worth considering that Barack Obama, with his incessant lie caught on video at LEAST 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.  Adolf Freaking Hitler was not caught in so many lies as Obama has been caught in.

So if you have any decency, you know which of these men is lying.

The problem is that if you have any decency, you have NOTHING to do with the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has murdered well over 55 innocent million human beings.  Democrats are now more than five times more murderous than the Nazis – who “only” murdered 11 million in the Holocaust.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Wrath of God according to Romans Chapter One.  Their worship of homosexual sodomy is the complete destruction of America, plain and simple.

Democrats Have Already Largely Seized Your Rights With Their Twisted, Hypocritical Rationales

March 24, 2014

If you want to know the point of this article in a nutshell it is this: liberals LOVE to call conservatives “fascists” because they are shameless liars.  The truth is brutally simple: fascism is impossible in any society where there is an armed citizenry free to resist it.  Fascism becomes inevitable ONLY when the wicked get their way and abolish the people’s ability to resist fascism.  And if you want to understand where liberals got their trick, turn in your Bible to the place where Jesus’ enemies accused Him of getting His power from Satan rather than from God.  The liberals tactic is as old as the devil.  Did Hitler want an armed people capable of resisting his small, limited government or did Hitler want a giant all-powerful State ruling supreme over a disarmed people?  The founding fathers made the armed people the champions and the government that wanted to take away their arms the oppressor; liberals twist it around to make the government that wants to disarm the people the champion and the armed people the oppressor.

We’re rapidly heading for a truly fascist America, and the people who are taking us there are doing so by twisted, hypocritical rhetoric.

Let me give you some examples.

Blackstone’s formulation put it this way:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

TalkLeft found this quote regarding the fundamental presumption of innocence of an American citizen in our system:

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law

Okay.  That’s been the principle around which the liberal ACLU has represented pure, unadulterated scumbags.  Liberals LOVE enabling crime and thereby undermining society by wrapping themselves in a sacred principle only to pervert that principle.

But let’s see if these same liberals are consistent when we attempt to apply this reasoning to another fundamental constitutional principle, such as the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That’s the guarantee.  It’s better that ten people with nefarious intent get guns in their hands than that one innocent American lose his right to keep and bear arms in a free nation.

Now, I’ve never been convicted of a single crime.  In fact, I’ve never even been CHARGED or ACCUSED OF committing a single crime.  But when it comes to my ability to actually exercise my constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, well, let’s just throw that “presumption of innocence” liberals claim to love out the window.  Because there AINT any.  I am presumed to be a potential mass-murdering psychopath who needs to have my rights stripped away for the good of the people.  The presumption of guilt is mine.  And liberals will not even LET me prove my innocence.

It’s the Constitution that liberals ultimately presume is truly guilty.  And where the Nazis failed trying to destroy it from outside, fascist liberals have largely succeeded by destroying it from within.

A rape victim - after literally being berated by a Democrat for her audacity in thinking she should have a right to protect herself with a gun – put it this way:

“How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”

For all their “war on women” bullcrap, Democrats presume women who have been violently raped to be guilty and to be unworthy of having one of the most central rights that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed: the right to keep and bear arms, to defend yourself and your property, without being infringed upon by the State.

The very last thing the Democrat Party wants is for a woman who is about to be raped shoot her would-be rapist.  They would MUCH prefer that she be raped and then become a whiny pathetic victim demanding that other women be raped by taking away their rights to defend themselves and prevent their rapes.

The Democrat Party IS the party of fascism.  They’ll talk about people’s “rights” to take sodomy up their rear ends and to murder their babies and to be a welfare parasite for life.  But they don’t give one flying DAMN about your actual rights guaranteed by the Constitution such as your gun rights and your religious freedom.  Far from it.  They want to take your actual constitutional rights away and give you their sodomy rights right up your ass whether you like it or not.

When you read the writings of the founding fathers, there is absolutely no question in the mind of anyone with the IQ of at least a ripe tomato that they intended the 2nd Amendment to be the people’s protection against government tyranny.  And you demon-possessed liberals read those quotes from our founding fathers and try to argue that they were on the side of those who wanted to take guns away from the American people.

But Democrats have been insidiously usurping our rights to have guns in every way imaginable.  Most of us have no idea how Democrats have already largely taken away your gun rights.

Here’s another example: wind turbines kill about 40 million birds - including endangered birds - every year.  Democrats don’t mind that one bit; it’s the small price of their insane “green” hatred of fossil fuels – and they frankly don’t care how many human beings they hurt with high energy prices any more than they give a damn about the millions of birds they kill.  But when a few birds die because they ate a carcass that had been killed with a lead bullet, well, we just have to take away your right to use bullets, don’t we???  It doesn’t matter how expensive it is or how hard it is to get the bullets they allow you to have.  The harder and the more expensive it is, in fact, the better.

I used to reload ammunition to cut down on costs.  I have a press and a number of dies to reload various cartridges.  They are nearly useless now, thanks to Democrats following the pattern of the Nazis to strip away guns and the ability to actually use them.

In order to buy just four ounces of gun powder (not very much, I assure you!) I have to fill out a form with the ATF in Democrat-owned California.  I have to state why I need gun powder and describe which guns I need gun powder for.  And then I have to wait for (at least!) twenty days.  And I have to do that every single time rather than just once and have my paperwork on file.

That’s a giant roadblock.  But there’s another, even bigger problem: I can’t even GET primers any more (see here too).  You just can’t buy them.  Anywhere.

And if you don’t reload, not only has your ammunition gone up massively in price, but try to even find it.  It’s like ObamaCare where you pay more and more to get less and less.  And I’m not talking about “dangerous” handgun or assault weapon ammunition: I’m talking about stuff like .22 plinking ammunition or – because Democrats have assured me that they’re not trying to take away my right to hunt – 30/30 Winchester (which has taken down more deer than any cartridge in America) ammunition.

Go to a store and try to buy it.  Good luck.  Hunting ammunition.  Again, even .22 ammo!  Democrats have so regulated it and so undermined ammunition in so many ways that you just can’t get it.  I spent six months in vain trying to buy 30/30 ammo at Wal-Mart and finally managed to snag three boxes.  As I was leaving, a guy went to the counter and asked if there was any 30/30 ammo.  And I heard the clerk say that guy just bought the last one.  And every single time I’d been in Wal-Mart for the previous six plus months I’d gone to that ammo shelf and looked for it in vain.

It’s not that you can’t buy it.  It’s just that it’s ALWAYSout of stock” in Obama’s God damn America.  Which is another way of saying “you can’t buy it.”  Not in Obama’s God damn America.

Democrats’ hypocrisy is simply stunning.

Fascists are always hypocrites.  The two go together hand in steel government gauntlet.

In effect Democrats are saying, “You have a right to your gun – as long as your gun is nothing more than a paper weight.  At least until we can take your paper weight gun away from you, too.”

Think about that logic: if I take away your cell phone carrier but allow you to keep your phone knowing full damn well your phone is USELESS, have I not taken away your cell phone???  You’re damn right I took it away when your phone is nothing more than a paper weight like people’s guns are these days.

Again, where’s my damn presumption of innocence that ought to allow me to exercise my constitutional rights in peace, you know, without being “infringed.”  Democrat fascists took it away from me.

To be a Democrat is to be a DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT, I keep saying.  And here’s your hypocrite-without-shame-without-honor-without-decency-without-integrity-without-honesty-and-without-virtue-of-any-kind alert: let’s consider another example of Democrats blatantly contradicting themselves by their own twisted rationales with the right to vote.

Democrats tell me that to require ANY form of ID or ANY limitation whatsoever that would restrict people from voting such that only people who are lawfully registered to vote can vote ONCE is somehow a violation of the Constitution.  They tell me that ANY RESTRICTION AT ALL is a barrier to people’s constitutional rights.  You can’t ask for ID; that would be immoral.  You can’t require a voter ID card that has any cost to it even if you have subsidize the price of the card for the poor; that would be evil.

Apply that to my constitutional right to keep and bear my arms and try to stop laughing at the massive hypocrisy.   In order for me to even have a CHANCE at exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I have to pass so many ID checks I feel like Big Brother lives with me and then I have to pay right out my ass for the privilege of his constant companionship.

The right to vote is actually a dangerous thing: the NAZI Party was ELECTED.  You get more death and more evil electing evil leaders than you will EVER get with people being allowed to defend themselves.  The communists murdered more than 100 million people in peacetime.  The Democrats have so far murdered more than 55 million innocent babies by applying the same moral “logic” that the Nazis used to murder Jews and the Democrats leading up to the Civil War used to enslave blacks (they’re not really “human” so we can do what we like with them).

Do you know why Democrats cited that principle about preferring the guilty to go free rather than have one innocent person punished by the system?  It wasn’t that they give one flying damn about protecting the rights of the innocent – far from it as I have just PROVED.  It was rather that they wanted to create a crisis so they could “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  They wanted to deliberately destabilize the system (see here and here for examples).  They wanted to inflict America with millions of guilty people who would turn the nation upside down so that they could exploit the chaos and unrest created by the guilty to seize more and more power for their beloved fascist State.  In the same way that they want to inflict millions of illegal immigrants on America to overwhelm our system, to inflict millions of welfare parasites on our social support system, to inflict millions of sick people who won’t pay for their health care on our health system.  That’s all they wanted.  It was like ObamaCare: they wanted “to control the people.” Period.  Or to put it in Obama’s dishonest terms when he promised that you could keep your health plan and/or your doctor, “I guarantee it.”  “Period.  End of story.”

It takes integrity to be consistent.  And Democrats just don’t have any of either.

So they’ll implement their fascism in one area with one rationale.  And then they’ll implement their fascism in another area with a different rationale that blatantly contradicts the first rationale.  And they’ll do it over and over and over again until they have all the power and all the guns and the people have no power and no guns to resist them.  Because that’s who they are.

Democrats have been building toward a plan and a purpose for decades now: they want the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast and they won’t be satisfied until they get the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast.  They want a big-government liar who will literally be worshipped and they want a fascist State that is so powerful that it can literally take over complete control of all purchases such that no man or woman can buy ANYTHING unless that person has been approved by the State.

We may win in 2014.  I hope – but doubt – that we may actually get our way in the next presidential election as the sheer horror of the Democrat’s fascism begins to be felt (at least the parts that Obama hasn’t waived and waived again to try to cynically protect Democrats from the consequences of their policies on millions of Americans as they lose their health care, get dumped into inferior ObamaCare, and pay huge premiums and suffer amazingly high deductibles for the privilege.  But the same Bible that doesn’t mention America in prophecy because we’ve economically and militarily and politically imploded due to Obama’s incompetent fascism also assures us that the beast is coming and Democrats will deliriously cheer him and receive his mark.  They will ultimately get their way – and they will burn in hell for it.

And thanks to Democrats, you won’t have any guns or ammunition to protect yourself from his tyranny with when he comes.

Elijah Cummings’ (Incredibly Hypocritical) Rant And What It Means Post-Obama. It Means The Beast Is Coming.

March 6, 2014

Listen to what Cummings says when Lois Lerner documented that she is a criminal who knows she is a criminal and would be prosecuted as a criminal if she told what happened when she was at the IRS obeying Obama’s orders to use the agency to target nearly 300 conservative organizations:

 “For the past year, the central Republican accusation,” Rep. Elijah Cummings said just before his microphone was cut. “This investigation has been a political collusion directed against the White House.”  When Rep. Darrell Issa got up to leave, Rep. Elijah Cummings exploded.

“If you would sit down and allow me to ask a question,” Rep Elijah Cummings said.  “I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America. I am tired of this. We have members over here each who [sic] represents seven hundred thousand people. You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that and it’s absolutely un-American.”

Well, dude, I’d say you WERE entitled to some kind of right to speak as a United States Congressman.  I’d say you DID have a right to something that wasn’t totally “one-sided.”  But that was before Obama.  Now, because of YOUR party, the Democrats, it most certainly is not true now and will almost certainly never be true again.

Hey, did the Democrats allow Republican representation in a health care law that essentially amounted to a hostile takeover of the government and therefore the private sector by socialists who were hell bent on “controlling the people” and ramming their takeover through with only Democrat votes and using all the procedural gimmickry and by just one (bought) vote if necessary?  How about “not”?

NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLCIAN IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE VOTED FOR OBAMACARE.  Democrats shoved it down Republicans’ throats.   All of their concerns were ignored.  All of their suggestions were ignored.  The only people Democrats bargained with were a) other Democrats who had to be bribed to vote for the godawful bill; b) unions; and c) the health industry in order to either get their cooperation or stifle their complaints.  Republicans were entirely left out.  Just as YOU should be left out now, Elijah Cummings.

How about Obama’s massive $862 billion stimulus package that only “stimulated” the massive expansion and power of socialist government rather than the economy?  How many Republicans voted for that vile piece of legislation in your House again, Elijah?  What’s that?  Could you say that louder, please?  That’s right, ZERO.

You rammed that garbage down our throats and you didn’t give one lousy damn if it bothered us, either.

And Obama told so many damn lies to pimp that bill that it is downright demonic.

I have seen in Barack Obama the very worst demagogue in all of American history, easily dwarfing McCarthy and his “McCarthyism.”  And I tell you that Obama has spent more time demonizing Republicans than McCarthy ever did demonizing communists.

Oh, but now suddenly it’s “un-American” to treat Democrats the way Democrats have been treating Republicans since Obama took office and began destroying America.  It certainly isn’t “un-American” to take over the nation’s entire health care system on a giant lie, though.  Because that would make YOU and all your Democrats “un-American,” wouldn’t it, Elijah???

Barack Obama has so divided and fractured this nation with his über-hard-core fascist socialism and his radical moral perversion that he will leave a ruthless battlefield that will never be anything but an increasingly vicious nation at one another’s throats.  And it’s about time Republicans understood that.

Following Obama’s fascist hijacking of America as even LIBERAL legal analysts are now openly screaming about as they warn us where Obama has taken America, the presidency is a zero-sum game.  Congress no longer matters, because the president can literally invent laws out of thin air by himself or abrogate laws that were passed by Congress and signed into law.

Politics will never be the same in America again.

And you can thank Obama, the man who also was THE first candidate in history to refuse the matching funds system that exploded the race for president into such a huge-spending money pit.

You can thank Obama, the man who was THE first president in history to actually use the IRS to TARGET his political opponents.  Nixon only talked about the possibility of doing what Obama DID.

And so here is Elijah Cummings, a transparent hypocrite who actually has the balls to be angry that the spirit of his party’s hate and anger would come back at him like a boomerang.

Get used to it.  Because thanks to the Democrat Party and thanks particularly to Barack Obama, Americans are going to be at each other’s throats until we implode and collapse under the weight of our debt and our unsustainable socialism.

And then the beast will come, and Democrats will worship him and take his mark.

The War On Women And The Demon-Possessed Dishonesty Of The Democrat Party

February 28, 2014

There really is a war on women in the world.  But is there any justifiable reason to demonize the Republican Party for it?

Absolutely NOT.

Let’s see if there’s a war on women going on in one the most leftist and most socialist places on earth – the People’s Republic of China.  And you’ll find that holy crap, that George Bush is EVERYWHERE:

China’s women begin to confront blatant workplace bias
Chinese women tired of men-only wanted ads and workplace abuses push regulators and courts to act. A recent case ends with a historic win.
By Julie Makinen
February 28, 2014, 4:00 a.m.

BEIJING— Fresh out of college and facing a mountain of debt, the 21-year-old woman was searching online for jobs when she hit upon a listing that sounded perfect: administrative assistant at a tutoring school in Beijing. She sent in her resume, then reread the ad and noticed that only men were asked to apply for the position.

“I got no response, so I called and asked: If I’m qualified but I’m not male, will I still be considered? The woman who answered said if the ad says men only, it’s men only,” she recalled.

“I really wanted the job. It was already July, past the peak job-finding season, and I had loans to pay.”

Through a nonprofit social justice and public health group, she connected with a lawyer and, after a battle lasting more than a year and a half, won China’s first gender employment discrimination case.

In December, Juren Academy’s principal apologized in court for the men-only ad, and the school agreed to pay about $5,000 in compensation to the woman, who adopted the pseudonym Cao Ju during the high-profile proceedings to shield herself from possible negative fallout.

China’s constitution says all citizens are equal, and the country has laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of gender. In practice, though, regulations are often flouted, enforcement by regulators is lax, and until now courts have been unwilling to take up workplace gender bias cases.

But Cao, her attorney and many other young women like them have started pushing back, challenging blatant discrimination and demanding action from companies, government officials and courts. They are increasingly organizing through nonprofits, professional associations and educational networks; Beijing recently even got its own chapter of the Lean In organization, inspired by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg.

“A lot of women are now taking a tougher stand; they are no longer willing to tolerate routine abuses and discrimination that have been going on for decades in the workplace,” said Geoffrey Crothall of China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong-based advocacy group. “Increasingly, they’re backed by civil society organizations … not only to file legal proceedings but to do publicity and use social media and traditional media to publicize the individual cases and the wider issues they address.”

Beijing’s Working Committee on Women and Children, a government panel, reported in a 2011 study that more than 61% of women said they suffered discrimination in the job search process.

Hurdles faced by women in China’s employment market, even for government jobs, might come as a surprise to foreigners. Female applicants are often asked whether they have a boyfriend or plan to have a baby soon. Female university graduates taking the nation’s civil service exam are questioned about the details of their menstrual cycles, including the age when they got their first period.

“What does it have to do with work?” one woman complained in an interview with the state-run publication China Youth Daily. “Do they think someone whose period starts on the first is more capable for this job than someone whose period starts on the 10th?”

A 2012 study on gender discrimination in employment ads in China looked at more than 1 million online postings and found that more than 10% expressed a preference for male or female applicants. Ads seeking men were more likely to request older, experienced workers, and ads seeking women frequently specified tall, attractive applicants no older than 25, researchers Peter Kuhn of UC Santa Barbara and Kailing Shen of Xiamen University said.

Last winter, a group of women in eight cities complained about such sex-specific ads posted by 267 employers on a popular job website called Zhaopin. The website quickly removed all the postings.

Many women still feel uncomfortable raising their voices individually about discrimination and say they don’t know where to turn for support. In a survey last fall of more than 400 women, Lean In Beijing found that 44% had experienced gender discrimination on the job and that 91% had never heard of an organization devoted to women’s professional development.

The Sunflower Women Workers Center, a nonprofit in the southern city of Guangzhou, found in a fall survey of female factory employees that 70% of respondents said they had been sexually harassed at work and that more than 15% had quit jobs because of harassment. None had sought help from a trade union or women’s group.

[....]

White men rule the world.  Especially in communist China, it seems.  At least if you are morally stupid enough to believe the Democrat Party’s vile propaganda campaign.

One of the worst sexual predators in American history was a white man, all right.  But unfortunately for the Democrat Party lie machine, he was not only a Democrat, but the co-founder of the Progressive Caucus along with Nancy Pelosi.  And of course the most egregious case of sexual predation in the White House in the entirety of American history turns out to be none other than Slick Willie Clinton, DEMOCRAT.  And yeah, for that reason and many others, every single decent American is ashamed of the Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton had to be a truly and rabidly vicious shrew to protect her husband’s predation on women in order to protect her own truly selfish interests.  So she had an enemies list, just as ALL Stalinists have.  And on that list was none other than fellow Democrat Claire McCaskill for pointing out that “I don’t want my daughter near him [Bill Clinton].”

What, you say?  That’s ancient history?  Oh, I understand: when you brought up the fact that Mitt Romney may have bullied a kid when he was like nine years old, THAT wasn’t ancient.  When you teed off on George W. Bush with bogus phony documents purporting to make him a draft dodger (ahem, Bill Clinton REALLY IS a draft dodger!!!) back in the Vietnam War THAT wasn’t ancient.  But being true hypocrites without any shame or any decency, the facts surrounding the Clintons are somehow just old and stale and irrelevant.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a lying weasel.

But let’s get more recent.  Let’s talk about Barack Obama.

Right away, a few, a very few, noted that Barack Obama’s cabinet was “shaping up to be a boys’ club.”  He rekindled the truth in that story after publicly commenting on the hotness of a female attorney general.  And then we have a book come out that really just blew the lid off of the fact that Barack Obama had his own personal war on women – with the very few women Obama allowed in his women haters’ club acknowledging how “excluded and ignored” Obama had made them feel:

In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Now, are there Republicans who’ve done this crap?  Of course there are.  But if you are saying that Republicans are worse at this than Democrats, you can be described in one word: DISHONEST.

Jesus said, “Let the one among you who has never sinned cast the first stone,” but as we know Democrats literally PISS on Jesus.  And that’s a fact they STILL celebrate.  Barack Obama is a horrible human being who couldn’t care LESS than about either the truth or about not blaming his enemies for what HE HIMSELF IS DOING.

It’s frankly rather stunningly amazing.  The Democrat Party – the epicenter to any actual “war on women” – actually had the chutzpah to claim that Republicans had a war on women because they were against murdering little [GIRL] babies.

But that’s just they did.  Because they are demon-possessed evil.

As anyone who isn’t a fool (i.e., anyone who isn’t a Democrat) knows, sex-selective abortions are only too grave of a problem in abortion.  If I have the right to abort my baby, I have the right to abort my FEMALE baby.  And that is happening so many times on this planet and even in America that we are actually “fundamentally transforming” the healthy ratio between males and females.  There are at least 100 million “missing females” because of this barbaric practice called abortion.

Oh, by the way, you can learn about “sex-selective abortion” and at the very top of the list are those damn leftist socialist in the People’s Republic of China again.

Who wants to stop it?  Republicans.  Who wants to keep murdering girl babies?  Democrats who want to protect a “woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby for ANY reason under the sun.

But because we want to stop the immoral killing of girls, we have a “war on women” according to demon-possessed cockroaches.

The other thing is, I know quite a few pro-lifers.  And the very most ARDENT of them are invariably female.  Especially those who have had children and simply cannot fathom the view that their babies could ever have been considered as non-human goop that could have been callously killed and tossed away like garbage (as Democrats of course believe).

We’ve got Planned Parenthood – as Democrat Party of an organization as there is – exposed as being FINE with sex-selective abortions targeting female babies as well as the ugliest kind of racism.  And yes, the Democrats at Planned Parenthood were documented to be all to willing to help the sexual exploitation of girls industry by helping pimps get their brothels.  Democrats are truly awful and vile human beings in public; how much MORE are they as depraved and wicked as depraved and wicked can get in private.

And of course we have Democrats convicted of murder for their depraved abortion “treatment.”  Let’s call it the Democrat Party “horror show.”

Right now, as we speak, Democrats in Massachusetts are being so awful to a girl and her family it is beyond monstrous.  Liberals literally stole a girl from her parents.  A liberal judge issued a gag order forbidding the parents from having any right to speak out against the crimes that were being committed against their daughter.  This 14-year old girl was FINE until the liberal fascist State took her away.  Now she is so sick she is in a wheelchair and if that isn’t insane enough she has been denied two-years’ of education as your Democrats never allowed her to have a teacher.  Or a pastor or priest, in violation of her religious freedoms.

That is what ObamaCare looks like.  Just wait for it to hit you and your family.

When I say that Democrats are evil, I’m not just providing my opinion, I’m telling you a FACT.

But it doesn’t matter.  To be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of hypocrite that there has ever been.

So the GOP is the Party of “war on women” because unlike Democrats we think that not only babies, but FEMALE babies, have a right to live.

And is spite of all their documented crimes against women, the Democrat Party gets to be the one who makes this charge against the Party of life.  Because the mainstream media is if anything even MORE evil than the Democrat Party they protect.

That’s how you can know that the beast is coming.  Because truth simply has no place for our “modern society.”  We have become a people who are more exposed to lies and more deeply imbibe lies than any people who ever lived.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers