Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

One Republican’s Mea Culpa: Yes, I Am To Blame For The Collapse Of ObamaCare

November 15, 2013

I watch Fox News at home, and every time the subject of the failure of ObamaCare came up, I would hear liberals such as Juan Williams make it his primary point that Republicans always wanted ObamaCare to fail to begin with.  Which [of course] obviously made it our fault that it is failing.  When I am at my gym, I am invariably forced (deservedly, I’m sure) to watch MSNBC.  And of course I am told repeatedly that Republicans always wanted ObamaCare to fail and that [obviously] its failure is therefore our fault.

I see articles like this one in the Washington Post demanding to know “Who are the make-Obamacare-fail dead-enders, anyway?

Who are we, indeed?  Or, to put it in liberal-blame terms, “Just who the hell do we think we are?

I, as a representative Republican conservative, take it upon myself to accept the blame that liberals demand I wear around my neck albatross-fashion: I am responsible for ObamaCare and its failure.

It took me a while to figure out just HOW I was to blame, given that I never wanted the damn demonic law to begin with, but I think I finally understand.

You see, Democrats and liberals are people with pathologically inferior minds.  They are morally depraved, lesser beings.  And what happened is that the negative energy of my clearly superior conservative brain somehow affected the cud-chewing Democrat brain, such that my negative energy further retarded them and made them stupid.

So how could the ObamaCare web site designers hope to succeed?  Even when they spent $634 million to build a website that four million small porn sites somehow built for pennies on the dollar???

The problem, of course, is that “Glitch Girl” just didn’t stimulate the way that all those porn site girls did.  I guess at least the porn girls presumably got paid for what they sell.  But that is my fault, too.

The Face of ObamaCare herself never enrolled in this turd a.k.a. “The Affordable Care Act.”  The smiling face of ObamaCare bliss was all just an illusion as it was all just a delusion.  But that is my fault.

How could the product of such pathologically inferior minds possibly get off the ground with my superior brain waves influencing all and everything around me???  It’s my fault.

Can I be like a liberal here and beg forgiveness on the basis of my good intentions?  How could I know that my mind was so superior and that the minds of Democrats were so inferior that my negative brain energy would dominate all the liberals around me and make them so stupid and so incompetent that their “signature legislative accomplishment” would blow up like the Hindenburg???

But I realize that isn’t fair: only liberals can cite their good intentions to excuse themselves for the failures of their actions, of course.  Republicans – due to their superior minds – are expected to understand all the consequences of their actions and must therefore always be held responsible and criminalized wherever possible.

So there it is.  Pass it around.  Unlike Obama, I fully accept responsibility.  It was because of me that liberals and Democrats wanted this stupid thing, wrote this stupid thing, voted for this stupid thing and implemented this stupid thing.  And even though liberals did it all by themselves, my  negative brain waves were insidiously affecting them at every step of the way.

Now, for those conservatives who would still stubbornly insist that they bear no responsibility for the failure of ObamaCare, I make one further comparison to expose your guilt: to Elizabeth Smart.

Yes, just like Elizabeth Smart, conservatives like myself were forcibly abducted from our health care system that we preferred.  We had no say-so.  We didn’t vote for the damn thing.  We didn’t get to participate in it in any way, any shape or any form.  We had nothing to do with its implementation or the stupid website or the 18,000 pages of regulations that Obama wrote after the law was passed.

Yes, just like Elizabeth Smart, we were forced to participate in this system whether we wanted it or not.  We didn’t get to issue waivers to ourselves the way Obama issued waivers to all his union and corporate cronies.  I recall just a few weeks ago during the fury of the government shut down that Republicans just wanted to delay ObamaCare for a year, but they were told what?  How DARE you!  ObamaCare was passed by Congress, signed into law by the president, and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  Just like the Defense of Marriage Act, but that’s another story.  What right did Republicans have to change it or alter it in any way?  Only Obama - by unconstitutionally exercising powers that were solely reserved to Congress – had the right to repeatedly change the law.  Praise him!  Hail him!  For only he is worthy!

Obama provided a football analogy and said yesterday that he fumbled the ObamaCare football.  He also moved the goal posts and completely changed the rules of the game while the game was being played.  But all that’s beside the point.

But that’s besides the point, you see: because in spite of the fact that Elizabeth Smart was abducted, in spite of the fact that she was forced to take part in a “relationship” she never wanted, in spite of the fact that she was repeatedly raped, HAD SHE JUST WANTED IT, THE RELATIONSHIP WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED.

If Elizabeth Smart had just accepted her new status and desired to be raped, everything would have been good.  But to her great blame, there remained some part of her that didn’t want any of it.  That poisoned the relationship.

It was Elizabeth Smart’s fault her relationship with her rapist abductor failed, you see.  At least in the minds of the Democrats who abducted Republicans and forced them to participate in the sick, twisted “relationship” otherwise known as the ObamaCare mandate.

Look, all Democrats want from us is this: when we’re getting butt-raped (by the “condom-protected,” of course) phallus of ObamaCare, all they ask is that we moan in ecstasy and push our eager rectums against our attacker as we accept his government thrusts into our lives.  That’s all they’ve asked us for regarding the assault of ObamaCare.  And as we listen to the diatribes of the left who point out that we were always opposed to our rape, is it really so much for them to demand that we just sit back and enjoy it???

Accept your blame, ye rape-hating Republicans.  The failure of ObamaCare is truly all your fault.  How dare you never have wanted it to begin with.  How dare you.

Barack Obama And His Democrat Party: The Most Documented Liars In The Entire History Of The Human Race

November 5, 2013

Barack Obama has a record that can only be broken by the Antichrist (whose useful idiot Obama is): Barack Hussein Obama is THE most thoroughly documented liar in the entire history of the human race.  And to paraphrase Obama, “Period.”

Regarding ObamaCare, which isn’t some inconsequential or tangential piece of legislation for Obama, but is his “signature legislative accomplishment,” Obama said stuff like this over and over and over and over again:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

It is now a conformed, documented fact that every single thing Obama said about his socialist health care hijack was a pure, distilled, unadulterated, total lie from hell.

Yesterday Obama came out and “modified” his story to say this:

“If you had or have one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was, you could keep it if hasn’t changed since the law’s passed,” added Obama.

Let’s go back to the instant replay:

“If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period. End of Story.”

That is NOT what you said, Obama, you wicked liar.  Not even CLOSE.

I want you to note that that last quote was cited in a National Review article dated July 21, 2009.  And even THEN they were saying Obama was lying through his teeth.  That article cited facts why it was a lie, and then added immediately after quoting Obama above, “But what the president forgot to tell you is that his assertion is only true if the story were fiction.”

And a little more:

A recent NBC investigation found, “buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, ‘40 to 67 percent’ of customers will not be able to keep their policy.”

 But as recently as the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama was telling voters they could keep their plans.

We now know OFFICIALLY that senior White House officials KNEW that what Obama was saying over and over and over again about keeping your insurance was a lie.  And he kept saying it anyway.

And Obama has added lies to his lies, as an example lying about being able to call the phone number or fill out paperwork to get around the failed website – when BOTH merely kicked directly back to the failed website.

Like I have been saying all along, this demon-possessed man is a pathological liar without shame, without honor, without virtue and without integrity of any kind whatsoever.  Period.  End of story.

Even the überliberal Washington Post was forced to give Obama four Pinocchios on a scale of one to four Pinocchios.  Barack Obama lied to the American people.  Period.  And No Democrat will take it away.  No matter what.

But it actually gets even worse: Obama and his minions are STILL LYING.  As the (above-linked) WaPo fact check points out:

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

The Obama White House knew as early as July of 2010 that every single thing Obama had said about ObamaCare - AND CONTINUED TO SAY – was a lie, and that upwards of 80% of people with individual health insurance would have their policies cancelled because of ObamaCare requirements:

“Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you  can keep it,” Stewart wrote, the Post reported. “He promised that if you like  your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”

Yet the NBC report  said the government knew that wasn’t true, saying that buried in regulations  from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the  individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to  keep their policy.

And because many policies will have been changed  since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing  grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people  in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the  rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy  and Strategy Associates, told NBC.

He estimated 80 percent of those in  the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will  have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally  requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

Most analysts expect to see 15 million Americans’ health plans cancelled.  And they AREN’T being cancelled because insurance companies are greedy or evil, but rather because Barack Obama and Democrats in their sweeping takeover of the health care industry were greedy and evil in their tyrannous overreach.  They are being cancelled because older people had been allowed to buy policies that addressed their individual needs; now Obama is forcing everyone to have, for example, maternity coverage, even if they are elderly and well beyond their child bearing years.  The policies that do not have such coverage (and many other types of coverage as well) are FORCED to cancel them.

Democrats scoffed at 15 million people as a “mere five percent.”  But let’s remember that these demon-possessed liars imposed ObamaCare on us to provide insurance for only THIRTY million people who were uninsured.

Now, according to what we know, ObamaCare won’t actually help the people who were uninsured.  When ObamaCare is fully implemented, there will STILL be 30 million people uninsured.  ObamaCare did nothing for the people it most promised to help.  But now add to that 15 million who just got kicked off the insurance they HAD because of the devil’s little helper Obama.

And it is simply a FACT (as the liberal WaPo points out) that ObamaCare from the very outset was depending on people paying considerably higher premiums to subsidize the uninsurable and the uninsured who would also be forced into the market by government dictate.  Obama is subsidizing these people at the cost of forcing most Americans to pay far more for their health care than they had previously.

But it gets so much worse its unreal.  And remember, Obama promised over and over again, swore to the American people time and time again, that if you liked your insurance you would be able to keep it, no ifs ands or buts.

Try this on for size:

Expert: At least 129 million will ‘not be able to keep’ health care plan if Obamacare fully implemented
12:45 AM 11/04/2013

If Obamacare is fully implemented, 68 percent of Americans with private health insurance will not be able to keep their plan, according to health care economist Christopher Conover.

Conover is a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview with The Daily Caller, he laid out what he estimates the consequences of Obamacare’s implementation will ultimately be.

“Bottom line: of the 189 million Americans with private health insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014,” he said in an email. ”But of these, ‘only’ the 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.”

If you are lucky enough to keep your insurance and not just have it cancelled outright from under your feet, you will be paying a whole lot more for it and probably getting a higher deductible to go with fewer doctors and options in whatever network you get stuck on.

The New York Times can’t bring themselves to say that their messiah whom they endorsed and voted for and worship lied.  Instead, he “misspoke” when he said something that was absolutely false.  These people are liars who lied for these last several years while the cancer of ObamaCare metasticized and now they’re lying about all the lies they told to sell us their lies.

The New York Times editorial smarmily lectures us in the following way:

Many higher-income people who won’t qualify for subsidies, however, will have to buy policies providing more benefits than they want. Maternity care for those who will not have children is one sore point. But that is one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits.

Tell you what: I want women to be forced to cover prostate exams and see how they feel about the shockingly higher cost of their health care premiums.  I think that my erection is a matter that every single woman in America should be forced to concern herself with and pay for – so I demand every woman be required to pay for my damn Viagra pills so Mister Happy can be happy again.  And just remember, women, that your higher premiums is just “one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits.”

People by the MILLIONS are going to be dumped off their health insurance plans that they paid for and were happy with because Obama doesn’t think they provide enough left-wing goodies.

Allow me to paraphrase some lines from the Clint Eastwood classic “Unforgiven”:

Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man’s health insurance plan. Take away all the health care he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.

The Schofield Obama: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

We’ve all got it coming in the Obama States of America.

God judges a nation for the wickedness of its king.  And we’ve elected ourselves a most wicked king, indeed.  Believe me, we’ve got it coming.

Obama and his lying minions are similarly claiming that all of the people who are being cancelled are having their plans cancelled because they are substandard and a burden on the taxpayers because they don’t provide adequate coverage.  This is also a lie, as is documented in the case of a California woman with “world class insurance” who is losing her coverage.

Barack Obama will be guilty of this woman’s murder (note the subtitle):

You Also Can’t Keep Your Doctor
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I’ll live.
By Edie Littlefield Sundby
Nov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don’t have a clue how to best proceed.

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).

So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.

What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

Again, Ms. Sundby - may God heal her because Barack Obama will surely callously murder that woman – is (still) living proof that everything Obama and Democrats have said and are now saying about ObamaCare and about insurance companies were diseased lies from the most rabies-ridden depths of hell.  This woman did NOT have a “substandard” plan; she had an excellent plan.  The insurance company was NOT “greedy” or “evil”; it had paid out over a million dollars to keep this woman alive in a fight that Barack Obama just surrendered for her on her behalf.

On this blog, I have been consistently saying that ObamaCare was truly evil.  And I say it more loudly and with more evidence to support my cries today than I have ever had.  And if this demonic takeover of health care continues, I guarantee you I will have even MORE evidence because this thing is as catastrophic of a failure as it is an evil takeover of what had been the best health care on the planet such that world leaders came HERE when they faced serious illnesses.

I think of Republicans who tried in vain to stand against ObamaCare - only to get excoriated by a demonic Nazi Joseph Goebbels media just a few weeks ago.  Just realize: they TRIED to do what was right for the American people, but the American people would have none of it.  And so when you lose your insurance, Democrat, independent, or Republican RINO who wouldn’t stand with Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz, just remember that you deserve it.

I submit for the record that Edie Littlefield Sundby’s sin was what she expressed in her second sentence: “My grievance is not political.”  Because it damn well SHOULD have been if she wanted to live.

If you want to live, you’d better be out in the street demanding that Barack Obama be forcibly impeached and removed from office and put on trial for his crimes.  And you had better be demanding that the Democrat Party be criminalized and that every single Democrat be hunted down with dogs and burned alive lest they inflict an even worse evil upon what is left of this nation.

Under Barack Obama, in these days before the Antichrist whose useful idiot Obama has been and continues to be, things are going to get increasingly ugly.

And this nation, this “one nation, under Obama” richly deserves it.

Let’s remember to say our pledge of allegiance as messiah leads us into hell:

[In unison]: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Obama States of America, and to the Messiah for which it stands, one Nation divided by race, class and gender, with redistribution and Marxist fairness for all.”

And don’t forget to praise the Antichrist and get ready to accept the mark of the coming ultimate big government tyrant.

Hillary Clinton’s Hypcritical Bubble Dream World

October 22, 2013

Some of what Hillary said at a speech (I love the absolutely propagandistic way the reporter framed the story in the bold-faced heading, too):

She wasn’t afraid to jab Republicans, however gently

Clinton stayed mostly positive, but she didn’t shy away from taking a few shots at Republicans, albeit not by name.

Talking about the political gridlock on Capitol Hill that led to a 16-day government shutdown this month, she said that “we have seen examples of the wrong kind of leadership” in recent days, an unmistakable poke at House Republicans.

“Politicians choose scorched-earth over common ground,” she continued. “They operate in what I called the evidence-free-zone, with ideology trumping everything else,” she said, before listing the consequences of the shutdown, such as furloughed workers and “children thrown out of Head Start.”

Clinton also made sure to highlight Republican efforts to enforce stricter abortion regulations in Virginia. McAuliffe, she said, would “stand up against attempts to restrict women’s health choices.”

Rounding out her speech, Clinton alluded to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French writer who described Americans as having “habits of the heart” when he traveled to the U.S. nearly 200 years ago.

But Clinton warned that such a spirit is under threat.

“We cannot let those who do not believe in America’s progress hijack this great experiment, and substitute for the habits of the heart suspicion, hatred, anger, anxiety. That’s not as a people who we are.”

That’s “gently”???  “The wrong kind of leadership,” “scorched earth over common ground,” “evidence-free zone, with ideology trumping everything else,” “children thrown out of Head Start,” “hatred, anger, anxiety.”  Yeah, that’s gentle.

Whoever wrote this story up thinks that the tea party (the people with no arrests who left every protest sight cleaner than they found it) were ugly and that the Occupy Movement with 7.765 criminal arrests for stuff including RAPE (and terrorism), and toxic protest sites were just wonderful.  Because we’ve got propagandists where objective JOURNALISTS ought to be.  But that’s another discussion, I suppose.

It’s also another discussion to see Hillary Stumping for a candidate after her husband Bill’s adventure in stumping for one of the most twisted men of the century.  Now, Bob Filner is a man who knew how to “stand up for women,” too.  As long as he was standing up to grope them.

Let’s focus on Hillary Clinton, the shrill, hateful woman who once blamed “a vast, right wing conspiracy” for forcing her husband to insert his penis into the mouth of one of his young interns.  But just remember while you’re damning the GOP for what Bill Clinton did with his penis that “It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”

Do you want to know what “the wrong kind of leadership” apparently DOES NOT look like?  It looks like saying 250 times that you can’t remember something that would convict you criminally if you COULD remember.  Kind of like this crap:

As part of that investigation, the prosecutors have been examining the legal work Mrs. Clinton did for Madison and related land deals, including a project known as Castle Grande. Officials of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have told the Little Rock grand jury in recent months that a document drafted by Mrs. Clinton in 1986 was used “to deceive regulators” about the financing of Castle Grande.

The officials had originally concluded that Mrs. Clinton did little work for Madison or Castle Grande. But they changed their view after seeing her billing records, which disappeared for several years before turning up in the White House residence in 1996. Mrs. Clinton has said she does not remember drafting the document or performing other work on Castle Grande.

“The right kind of leadership” is not being able to remember one damn thing about all the fraud and crime you committed, isn’t it, Hillary?

But it was the line about “the habits of the heart suspicion, hatred, anger, anxiety. That’s not as a people who we are” that made me snort up my corn flakes.

As for “anxiety,” I’d like to know how many American presidents literally tried to demonize their own stock market because they wanted the economy to tank so they could blame the other party for it the way Obama did:

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

I’ll bet you can’t even COUNT how many dozens of times Obama fearmongered the word “default” in describing the debt ceiling debate.  Which is weird given the fact that the United States takes in at least ten times in tax revenue what it would have had to pay out in interest to service the debt, and the ONLY possible way America could ever have “defaulted” was if Obama refused to make the payments that the Constitution’s clause regarding “the full faith and credit of the United States” mandate that he make.

So, with no due respect, Hillary, “anxiety” is ALL ABOUT who as a people YOU ARE, you “vast right wing conspiracy” fascist.

Hillary Talked about “anger.”  I wonder how many American presidents have ever said -

We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us

- regarding roughly half of his own fellow AMERICAN PEOPLE????

You want to talk about “anger”???

Let’s take a LOOK at the face of “anger.”

Here’s “anger.”

Here’s some “anger” for you.

And here’s some more anger.

I’m kind of like that little kid in the movie who saw dead people, only I see “angry” people.

Yeah, I see “anger,” all right.

I see an incredibly angry man.

I see a man who seriously needs to blow off some of his anger and hate the way a train blows off steam.

A whole lotta anger on that man, judging by the pictures.

That’s EXACTLY the kind of people you are, Hillary.

As to “hate,” the WORST kind of hate is when you lie about your opponents and twist them the way your party’s own twisted soul is twisted.

Hillary Clinton, the vile, slandering, dishonest, demagogic liar that she is, talked about “children thrown out of Head Start.”

WHO THREW THOSE CHILDREN OUT OF HEAD START, HILLARY, YOU WICKED LIAR?

Headline:

House Passes Bill to Fund Head Start

As in “GOP House,” Hillary, you liar.

Here’s the opening line of another article for you to correct your slanderous hate, Hillary:

When CBS reporter Mark Knoller asked President Barack Obama why he refused to “go along” with any of the House bills to fund programs like Head Start or veterans benefits during the government shutdown, the commander-in-chief was blunt in his response.

Let’s consider which party really hates children, Hillary, you wicked, demon-possessed liar without shame, honor or integrity:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn’t try to help “one child who has cancer” by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: “Why would we want to do that?”

Do you want to know what “hatred” looks like?  It looks just like using the Internal Revenue Service as an ideological weapon to attack your political opponents.  Kind of like “punishing your enemies,” you know.  That ought to be pretty obvious given the fact that just two days after Obama met with his own IRS appointee William Wilkins, Wilkins chanted the IRS mission from collecting taxes to punishing Obama’s enemies for “anti-Obama rhetoric.”

When we talk about “hate” or “anger” or “anxiety,” just remember: WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS WHO SHAMELESSLY ADD “HYPOCRITE” TO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY DO.

One of the things Alexis de Tocqueville said was, “America is great because she is good.  If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”  And America has very definitely ceased to be good under Democrats and their baby-murdering, sodomy-worshiping ways.  de Tocqueville also said, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” But Democrats have virtually murdered the spirit of God or religion in America.

When I consider the actions of Hillary Rodham Clinton before, during and after the debacle of Benghazi where Hillary Clinton’s incompetent bungling basically murdered the first American ambassador since Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency before blaming it on some stupid video that had nothing to do with anything, I realize that as unbelievable as it may seem, there actually IS a president who could be more wicked and more incompetent and more demon-possessed than the one we’ve got now.

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I've been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary's job - and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor's salary - is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are "suckers" as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let's leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor - IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here - they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read "Democrat"] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

If Nation Defaults, It Is ENTIRELY Obama’s Fault

October 7, 2013

Today Obama went to FEMA to thank them for working without pay.  That was his pretense, anyway.  Actually, he went to get in front of a microphone and demonize Republicans some more.

Here’s a short article that sums up the situation quite nicely:

Obama thanks FEMA for work during shutdown
Posted: Oct 07, 2013 9:51 AM PDT Updated: Oct 07, 2013 9:52 AM PDT
By JOSH LEDERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is thanking workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency for doing their jobs under “less than optimal circumstances” during the government shutdown.

Obama made an unannounced visit to FEMA Monday as the shutdown neared the one-week mark. Some furloughed employees at the agency were recalled last week and worked without pay to help prepare for Tropical Storm Karen.

The president said FEMA employees remain ready to respond when needed, but their jobs have been “made more difficult.” He says the shutdown may actually end up costing taxpayers more money.

Funding for FEMA was among the series of piecemeal spending bills passed by the House last week. The White House has threatened to veto the measures, saying the government should not be reopened one agency at a time.

Do you get that, stupid universe?  FEMA isn’t shut down because Republicans shut them down; because REPUBLICANS FUNDED FEMA and a lot of the rest of the government.  No, FEMA is shut down because Democrats who control the Senate won’t allow the House-passed bill to go forward, and because if anybody tries to fund FEMA and pay those workers, BARACK OBAMA WILL VETO IT.

THAT’S why FEMA is on furlough.

But we live in an age just before Obama implodes America, sends the world into depression and the beast of the Book of Revelation comes.  And so the truth has largely been replaced by demon-possessed lies.

Here’s another reason that Obama rabidly refuses to negotiate or compromise in any way, any shape or any form as we approach a debt default:

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Obama and Charlie Sheen have something in common: they’re not bi-polar; they are BI-WINNING.

That and the fact that they are both demonic people who have a truly psychotic worldview.

Obama has been shutting down things left and right for the sole purpose of making the shutdown as painful for as many people as he can.  He’s shut down WWII memorials and things like the Lincoln Memorial that have NEVER been closed during ANY of our previous government shutdowns:

The Park Service appears to be closing  streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist  destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’  Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national  memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the  lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park  Service ranger in Washington says  of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we  can. It’s disgusting.”

“We’ve been told – by OBAMA through his federal government demon-possessed bureaucrats – to make life as difficult for people as they possibly can.”  Quote.  And you’re damn right it’s absolutely disgusting.

Do you know that at all of these memorials that Obama has shut down for no other reason that to be petty and vindictive is that he’s using more security guards to keep the American people OUT of their monuments than were being used to just keep them open???

That was what Sen Rand Paul was mocking when he tweeted:

@BarackObama sent 7 security guards to this AM to keep out our vets. Sadly, that is 2 more than were present in Benghazi.

Obama tried to shut down the Army-Navy football game – again, for the first time EVER during one of our many government shutdowns - just because he’s a petty tyrant and that’s the kind of cheap trick that a petty tyrant does:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. –  On a beautiful fall day, the parking lot at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium was filled with fans and tailgate parties. A record crowd of 38,225 showed up Saturday for the football game between Navy and Air Force.

Navy athletic director Chet Gladchuk looked at the activity around him and smiled. After tumultuous week, he was right where he was supposed to be Saturday.

The Air Force-Navy game was in serious jeopardy on Tuesday, when the Department of Defense suspended athletic competition at the nation’s service academies because of the U.S. government shutdown. At that point, Gladchuk took action to convince the DOD that the game should be played because it was funded by non-appropriated money.

His effort paid off. Late Wednesday night, the DOD relented. [...]

“There was some concern, but I was hopeful it would happen because they’ve never canceled a Navy football game during a government shutdown,” Lang said.

“Navy athletics is privately funded,” Miles said. “The idea of them trying to cancel a game between two service academies is appalling.”

There’s another word to use to describe Obama’s thug tactics in addition to “disgusting”: “appalling.”

Obama the thug has his White House thugs and federal government thugs frantically trying to close down absolutely everything they can possibly close down just to hurt as many people as they can.  EVEN WHEN FEDERAL FUNDS AREN’T EVEN BEING USED.  Just so Obama can falsely blame Republicans even though the only part of government they basically HAVEN’T funded is demonic ObamaCare fiasco.

I recently pointed out a few other examples of just how positively VILE Obama and his Democrat stooge-thugs have been during this period.

But here’s another one that is just so utterly beyond “appalling” or “disgusting” that “vile” hardly is enough to describe it: Obama closed down the Amber alert system created to find kidnapped children before a pedophile can rape them.

And if it comes to it, believe me, Obama is thug enough and petty enough to order this, too, joke or no joke.  He’s just that demonic.

But you still haven’t grasped the true, genuine evil that is Barack Obama.  He’s actively trying to sabotage our economy just so he can blame the other party for what HE did.  Democrats are accusing Republicans of being “economic terrorists.”  But let’s take a look at our “Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF”:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.

Obama said he was “exasperated” by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.

The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money’s ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.

But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.

Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

This is the bottom line: in a couple of weeks, America faces a debt ceiling issue.

Keep in mind that if Republicans act like Obama, they will vote against EVER raising the damn debt ceiling.  Remember what Obama said when he was a Senator to demonize George W. Bush???

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

And:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

That was when it was $9 trillion.  IT’S VERY NEARLY DOUBLE THAT NOW, THANKS TO OBAMA’S UTTER DEPRAVITY.

HOW WAS IT “IRRESPONSIBLE” AND “UNPATRIOTIC” TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN IT WAS $9 TRILLION BUT NOT SO NOW WHEN THE DEBT IS 17 TRILLION???  Other than that it isn’t fascist when Obama does it???

You need to realize something: the real crisis of this debt ceiling impasse is that America could find itself unable to make the interest payments on the debt – which would be a default on America’s perfect credit.

Do you know why that could happen?  Do you know who would be entirely to blame if that does happen?

Barack Hussein Obama, thug, liar and traitor, that’s who.

Our interest payments on the debt amount to about $25 billion a month.  That sounds like a lot, but during any shutdown or debt ceiling impasse, the United States still raises far more in taxes every single month.  And it would just be a matter of arranging to prioritize the payments on the debt and to assure the credit markets that we will be doing so in order to maintain confidence.

But Obama doesn’t want that.  He wants to create as much pain and misery and destruction as he can.  Because he wants to trot out to every single dishonest propagandist mainstream media microphone and slander the Republican Party for doing what OBAMA DID.

There is absolutely no chance of a true default if Obama does what any leader who isn’t completely morally insane would do.  It is entirely under Obama’s authority to make those interest payments.  And to complete the picture, the Republicans have already approved this and other payments.  Absolutely nobody but Obama would be to blame.

If the United States defaults on its interest payments and creates a market meltdown, it is because Obama – who could easily avoid that merely by making the interest payments that are his authority to make – wants to create a market meltdown.

And the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is an evil enough man to make that happen.

Barack Obama has rabidly refused to negotiate.  Literally, he is the first president in the history of the republic to refuse to negotiate – in spite of his many lies to the contrary.  In fact, the debt ceiling has been raised 63 times since 1979 – and fully 27 of those times, the debt ceiling was directly linked to other issues.  For instance, in 1973, Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale – both top national Democrats – attempted to link the debt ceiling to campaign finance reform.

And in every single case up to now, the president was enough of a grown-up to NEGOTIATE AND BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE.

I am so sick of Obama’s and his administration’s constant spewing of outright lies.

If the Republicans follow the example set by the president, they will likewise refuse to negotiate and allow the country to slide off a cliff.

The Sheer Hypocritical, Cynical VILENESS Of The Democrat Party On Display In The Government Shutdown

October 3, 2013

As we speak, the polls show that people blame Republicans more than Democrats for “shutting down the government.”

The people believe a lie: Republicans are shutting down OBAMACARE; it is the DEMOCRATS who are shutting down EVERY OTHER PART OF GOVERNMENT.  As I will document below.

But first let me talk a little about “the people” and “the polls.”

Founding Father John Adams put it thus:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I have long given up on the American people as a good or decent people.  We have crossed the moral Rubicon and we are going down.  That is why we are following the world – and particularly socialist nations/regions such as Europe has been – rather than following our Constitution.  And we are going to pay for our national wickedness.  The Bible doesn’t mention the United States in the last days because America will either have become so diminished it no longer matters, or because it will soon outright collapse as a viable nation.

That’s why the polls are pretty much irrelevant to me these days.  Bad people believe lies and want bad things and vote for bad things and bad people ultimately perish because of all the bad things that they have surrounded themselves with.  That’s why we can point to all the cultures and nations that have risen to glory and perished ignominiously throughout history  as their people “fundamentally transformed” into BAD people.  Today we have a media that is so propagandist and so ideologically biased that it is beyond unreal who outright lie to the American people, and we have an American people who are becoming – if they have not already become – a bad people who prefer lies to the truth.

So if the polls say that people blame Republicans more than Democrats or Obama for the government shutdown, I couldn’t care less.  Because these are the same sort of people who were once screaming, “Give us Barabbas!” (Luke 23:18), and “Crucify Him!” (Luke 23:20) when Jesus was offered to them by a feckless Pontius Pilate and his big government who were desperate to appease the days’ “Occupy” mob.

I couldn’t care less about the opinion of such people.  And while it may shock me as much today that the people have become so toxic just as it would have shocked me in Jesus’ day that the people had become so toxic, I care about TRUTH and the FACTS.

So let’s consider the facts as to how the Democrats are conducting themselves.

First, let’s consider Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who demonized Republicans as killing children with cancer because the NIH was going to have to shutdown services.  But then the TRUTH comes out that Republicans were only too-willing to fund the NIH BUT THAT IT IS HARRY REID WHO IS KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO HE CAN ACCUSE REPUBLICANS OF KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn’t try to help “one child who has cancer” by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: “Why would we want to do that?”

Consider this exchange between Harry Reid and CNN correspondent  Dana Bash:

“If you can help one child, why won’t you do it?” asked CNN reporter Dana Bash.

“Why, why, why would we want to do that?” countered Reid.

“I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home,” because of government employee furloughs, he told Bash and a roomful of other journalists. “They have – they have a few problems of their own.”

“This is – to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you’re as irresponsible and reckless.”

The CNN correspondent had challenged Senate Democrats’ earlier lament that clinical trials for pediatric cancer therapies were among government services cut off Monday at midnight. The two houses of Congress, run by opposite parties, were unable to agree on the terms of a continuing resolution to fund the government in its new fiscal year.

“You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials,” she began. “The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?”

House Republicans have pressed forward with a collection of six legislative proposals to independently fund specific portions of the federal government through the length of the shutdown.

Why are 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base siting at home?  Republicans have offered to fund the Air Force.  The fact of the matter is, those 1100 people are sitting at home because Democrats refuse to ALLOW them to go back to work.  Just so they can demonize the Republicans for keeping them sitting at home.

But of course that’s not anywhere near the worst of Harry Reid’s dishonesty: Democrats are so vile that they accuse Republicans of killing children when DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO THEY CAN SLANDER AND DEMONIZE THE GOP.  And when one correspondent had the guts to challenge the Democrats about their lies, well, they treated her like she was some hybrid between Fox News and the GOP (more on Democrats’ unhinged demonic slandering of their opponents later).

Democrats are terrible, wicked, evil, demon-possessed human beings.  And those are facts.

In the same way, Republicans are perfectly willing to fund things like the World War II monument.  And do you know that such monuments have NEVER BEFORE been targets in ANY of the previous seventeen government shutdowns before?  Take for example the Lincoln Monument; it has NEVER been shut down before because we’ve never had a “president” so cynical and so demonic that he would be so deliberately vindictive.  But that’s what we have now.  That’s because Democrats have never been so willing to sink so low in their effort to hurt as many people as possible just so they could blame Republicans for the damage that DEMOCRATS are causing.

Don’t believe me?  Believe the Washington Times:

The Park Service appears to be closing  streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist  destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’  Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national  memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the  lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park  Service ranger in Washington says  of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we  can. It’s disgusting.”

Yeah.  Democrats are DISGUSTING.  Because it is Obama and Democrats who ordered those park rangers to close down everything they possibly could and make life as difficult as they could for as many Americans as they could.  Just to bring the shutdown home as much as they could so they could demonize Republicans as much as they could.

Obama and Democrats are putting up “Barrycades” to stick it to as many Americans as they possibly can.  And even though Republicans have voted to fund all this stuff it’s supposed to be all their fault because not supporting ObamaCare and taking the mark of Obama on your right hand or forehead is somehow numerically equivalent with wanting ALL of government shut down like the Democrats are doing.

Republicans are saying something that is morally obvious to any decent person: if we can’t reach any compromise (because Democrats refuse to negotiate) on what we can’t agree upon, THEN WHY DON’T WE AT LEAST AGREE ON WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON AND FUND THOSE THINGS???  But Democrats say that Republicans are “terrorists” and “jihadists” because they’re “holding ObamaCare hostage” WHEN DEMOCRAT JIHADIST TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING EVERY POPULAR PIECE OF GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE unless they get their beloved ObamaCare without ANY change or ANY delay (let’s not mention that Obama has himself abrogated the law and the Constitution by delaying a full THIRD of ObamaCare out of cynical political calculations).

WWII veterans – who frankly may die before they have another chance to see their monument – broke down the barricades that Obama put up to stop them.

And so Republicans voted to fund “spending for veterans, the District of Columbia and the Park Service.”

The RNC said it would pay for half of the WWII memorial to remain open out of their own budget if the Democrats National Committee would pay half.  Democrats basically said, “We are the Party of exploiting OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.  We won’t use our OWN money to help the veterans of the greatest generation of Americans.”

Democrats and their media propagandist tools despicably accused Republicans of “grandstanding” and “politicizing” because Republicans tried to do something THAT ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET WOULD AGREE IS A GOOD THING TO DO.

WHO is trying to fund the WWII memorial and the rest of the National Park Service???  Republicans.  WHO is refusing to fund those things???  The same Democrats who are demonizing Republicans for what DEMOCRATS are actually doing.

But it actually gets worse.

Democrats are accusing Republicans of being “economic terrorists.”  But let’s take a look at our “Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF”:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.

Obama said he was “exasperated” by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.

The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money’s ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.

But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.

Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

During the first day of the government shutdown, the market actually went UP.  What was good for America wasn’t good for Obama, who as a fascist needs to fearmonger a crisis, though.  Obama needs financial chaos and calamity for his plan to create suffering so he can blame his enemies for it.

So Obama deliberately roils the markets and of course they are plunging after Obama’s fearmongering.

So now he can blame Republicans for the financial disaster that HE wants to create so he can blame Republicans.

But – and this is frankly incredible - the sheer Democrat VILENESS actually gets even WORSE.

Again, Obama and his DEMOnic bureauCRATS want to foment and fearmonger a crisis so they can blame Republicans for the crisis they created.  So Obama sends out his chief intelligence stooge who fomented a national intelligence crisis:

Did anyone take the nation’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) seriously when he told Congress this week that the government shutdown will put the country in danger, cause “insidious” damage and risk spy missions?

What about the part where he said financial stress—presumably created by not getting paid—could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bought off by foreign spies? It’s almost comical though it sounds really dramatic and quite distressing. Could it be true or was James Clapper putting on a show for lawmakers this week?

“The risk is 75 percent more than it was yesterday,” Clapper told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The danger here… will accumulate over time. The damage will be insidious so each day that goes by, the jeopardy increases.” This is due to all that valuable intelligence that’s being lost because there are fewer workers to track targets, according to a news report of the hearing. Before anyone loses any sleep, the DNI chief assured that he’s keeping enough employees on the payroll to guard against “imminent threats to life or property.”

Then he upped the ante by insinuating that financial stress could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bribed by enemy governments. “This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence service to recruit, particularly as our employees already, many of whom subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, are going to have, I believe, even greater financial challenges,” Clapper said.

Look, if we’ve got a national intelligence crisis, PLEASE ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO FUND OUR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES!!!  But no way.  Democrats and Obama hope there’s a terrorist attack so they can blame Republicans for it EVEN THOUGH THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE ON THE HOUSE BILL TO FUND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OR PRETTY MUCH ANY OF THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

That is about as evil as it gets.  Democrats remind me of the Arab states following the 1948 war in which Israel miraculously successfully fought for its right to exist.  Thousands of Palestinian refugees were created, but the Arab states refused to take them into their own countries or take care of them in any way.  No, because they wanted to be able to point a finger of blame at Israel and say, “Look at what Israel did to these poor people!”  And of course that is still the situation to this very day.  Israel has brought in Jews from all over the world while Arab states won’t even allow Arabs in from next door just so they can blame Israel for the plight of the poor Palestinian refugees.

The Democrat Party is the party of genuine evil in America today.  It is the Party of Romans chapter one and the wrath of God that follows.  It is the party of sodomy worship and baby murder.  And it is the party of lies and deceit.

Obama has been all-too willing to negotiate and compromise with America’s worst enemies and with the terrorists who would joyfully murder us all.  He’s been willing to negotiate and be “more flexible” with the Russians (and see here) who have been America’s chief enemy for the last sixty freaking years.  He’s been willing to negotiate with and compromise with the Syrians after they murdered over a hundred thousand of their own people and repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction.  He’s now willing to be the first president since the failed Jimmy Carter years to negotiate with and compromise with the Iranians who seek to get nuclear missiles and launch Armageddon.

But he won’t BUDGE and WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH OR COMPROMISE WITH anyone who loves America.

So he announces repeatedly that HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE with Republicans even as he accuses them of not being willing to compromise and blames them for everything under the sun.  Democrats of course used to blame George Bush for everything under the sun even though Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate just because a Republican was president.  But now the last man on earth who can be blamed for ANYTHING is the Democrat President who has been nothing short of a coward and a fascist thug since the day he took office.

So Obama calls for a meeting with Republicans at the White House to negotiate while saying HE won’t in any way, shape or form negotiate.  Why?  So he can dishonestly and deceitfully present himself as the one who was willing to do what he himself said he WON’T do:

The White House says President Barack Obama has told congressional leaders he still won’t negotiate over re-opening the government or raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

Obama and top lawmakers met for more than an hour at the White House on Wednesday, the second day of a partial government shut down. The leaders emerged to say no progress had been made.

I mean, what a surprise after the president says he won’t budge a nanometer that the leaders would come out of such a charade meeting to say no progress was made.

Let me close this up by pointing out all the incredibly demonic slandering rhetoric coming from Democrats as they get shriller and shriller and more and more hateful.  Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and jihadists and anarchists with bombs strapped to their chests and accused them of being “legislative arsonists” (Nancy Pelosi) and blackmailers and extortionists (Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney) and – as I cited above at the beginning of this article – literally child murderers (Harry Reid).  Oh, and Obama accused them of holding the nation for ransom, which I believe would be a prosecutable crime.  Hateful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Think about the Democrats’ position: unless the Republicans fund EVERYTHING they will fund NOTHING and shut the whole nation down.  Unless the Republicans fund ObamaCare Democrats will cut off the funding for veteran’s benefits.  And Republicans are supposed to be the “terrorists.”

What is most ironic about that is the second worst domestic terrorist attack in American history was committed by a Muslim terrorist named Major Nidal Hassan.  This terrorist – who carried business cards that announced himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and shouted “Allah Akbar!” as he gunned down fourteen American servicemen and wounded another thirty-two; who had been in email contact with al Qaeda, etc., etc., – COULDN’T BE CALLED A TERRORIST, said the Obama administration.  Nope.  it was just a case of “workplace violence.”

Democrats reserve the title of “terrorist” and “jihadist” for Republicans, rather than actual TERRORISTS.  Democrats refuse to call people who murder American servicemen while screaming “Allah Akbar!” terrorists, but they will call Republicans who are guilty of the crime of using their constitutional powers terrorists with rabid spittle dripping from their poisonous socialist fangs.

These are wicked people.  And if a nation is wicked enough to support them, then let that nation say, “Let it be on our heads and on the heads of our children!” as they shouted once before.

Update, 4 Oct 2013: If you want to know how Obama REALLY thinks about this, consider the following acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal by a SENIOR Obama official:]

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Wait a minute….. WHO’S “winning”???  I want Obama to identify the average Americans who are “winning” right now the way his rabid inner circle says THEY’RE winning.

I’ll be replaying this line again and again if the nation goes off the debt ceiling cliff and America defaults on its debt.  I’m thinking this Obama official is like Charlie Sheen in the sense of “not bi-polar, but bi-WINNING.”

Imagine if the government shut down under George W. Bush, and people weren’t getting the services they needed and couldn’t go to the jobs they and their families depended upon.  Oh, and children were dying of cancer and the nation was no longer safe from terrorist attack and all that stuff because of the shutdown that Bush was presiding over.  And some high-ranking Bush official turkey had been quoted as saying, “It doesn’t matter because it’s all about us and it’s all about our partisan politics and woo-hoo we’re winning.”  Imagine the screams of outrage that would have resounded throughout the mainstream media and the Democrat Party talking points then.  But the mainstream media are as hypocritical and as dishonest as the Democrat Party, and so the absence of any moral outrage is treasonous.

It’s just a game to Obama and his minions.  And they don’t give a flying damn who gets hurt or how many get hurt.  In fact, the more  who are hurt, the better to them.  And like the fascists they are, they are willing to fight to the last dead citizen to get their way.

You want more?  How about this: just LISTEN TO ONE OF OBAMA’S DEMONIC SPEECHES.  He’s giving speech after speech just flat-out DEMONIZING John Boehner and the GOP.  You listen to one and you find JUST ONE WORD of a real leader trying in any way, shape or form to reach out to the other side, to reach some kind of agreementNothing.  Just the rabid ideological partisan rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hate from our “president.”  Why?  Because Obama doesn’t WANT a deal on the government shutdown or the debt ceiling or anything else.  No.  He wants an issue to demonize the Republicans on in the 2014 elections.  He wants the same dictatorial political tyranny that he enjoyed for the first two years of his tyrant presidency.  He WANTS the government to shut down; he WANTS America to default on the debt; he WANTS as much harm and misery and damage to the U.S. economy as he can foment SO HE CAN BLAME THE GOP and run against them in 2014.  Is that the mark of a real leader?  Even the Los Angeles Times says it is the exact OPPOSITE of what a leader who isn’t demon-possessed would do.

Probation Officers’ Union Chief Demands Officers Do Their Surprise Visits To Criminals Without Guns. Officers Say Are You CRAZY?

August 22, 2013

Here’s an interesting story.  Basically, the chief of the probation officers’ union in Los Angeles County expects parole officers to do surprise visits of the 10,000 inmates that liberals released because liberals are evil and liberalism is the most suicidal worldview in the history of the world.  And he wants them to conduct these surprise visits unarmed.

Well, the parole officers don’t say no.  They say HELL no.  They say that would be incredibly dangerous and they don’t remember signing any suicide pacts.

What do you think?  Should they do these visits unarmed, or should they be allowed to be armed?

I’ll post the article in its entirety and give you my conclusion at the end.  First the article:

Probation officers clash with chief over monitoring ex-inmates
Probation officers’ union is fighting an order that officers should not be armed during unannounced checks on inmates released under prison realignment.
By Abby Sewell
August 21, 2013, 8:39 p.m.

Los Angeles County probation officers are at loggerheads with their chief over the way he wants them to monitor lower-level felons who have become the county’s responsibility as a result of state prison realignment.

The officers’ union is complaining that Chief Jerry Powers wants members to make unannounced visits to the homes of probationers, but without carrying weapons. Union leaders say that’s too dangerous and are threatening to sue.

The issue is the latest in a series of snags in implementing AB 109, the realignment law that took effect in October 2011 to comply with a court order to relieve state prison overcrowding.

Under the rules, some lower-level felons — generally, those whose most recent offense is nonviolent and nonsexual — are now sentenced to county jail instead of prison, and those paroled from prison are supervised by the county rather than state officers.

The Los Angeles County Probation Department oversees about 10,000 ex-state prisoners, although at any given time, 2,000 or so have fled from supervision. The department has hired 220 additional probation officers to handle those cases and is hiring an additional 143 — a process that the chief said was slowed by labor requirements to try to fill the positions internally but that the union said was slowed by the chief being too particular about whom he would promote.

Most of those officers are not permitted to carry arms. The department has 46 officers who carry guns and plans to eventually raise the number to 100, spokeswoman Carol Lin said.

The probation officers’ union cites a June incident in which a probation officer was grazed by a bullet and a Los Angeles Police Department officer was shot in the face while searching a house during a probation check in unincorporated South Los Angeles. A man hiding in the attic opened fire on them, marking the first time in the county department’s history that a probation officer had been shot on the job.

“We don’t want to go in to do an unannounced check and someone pops up with an AK-47,” said Sue Cline, second vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 685, which represents most probation officers. “What are we supposed to do, throw a BlackBerry at them?”

The union sent a “cease and desist” letter to the department in response to a training memo in late July. Those instructions said that after conducting an initial visit to a felon’s home accompanied by an armed officer, probation officers would be required to periodically make unannounced visits. During those first visits, officers were to walk through and draw a diagram of the home, and if necessary, handcuff residents or make them leave until the work was done.

A second memo issued last week clarified that the home visits should not entail handcuffing residents or searching the home, but still said probation officers would be required to return for unannounced visits “regularly without armed assistance.” The mind-set during the visits should be “engaging rather than enforcing/intimating/confrontational,” the memo said.

In response to the union complaints, Probation Assistant Chief Margarita Perez announced that she would get fitted for a safety vest and begin making unaccompanied home visits herself. And at Tuesday’s weekly meeting of the county Board of Supervisors, Powers fired back at the union.

“Field supervision is a core component of being a deputy probation officer,” he said. “You’re a peace officer. You don’t get peace officer status to sit behind a desk…. We need to get out, we need to engage. We will have a better success rate with our offenders.”

He said officers could always ask to be accompanied by one of the department’s armed officers or by an armed officer from another police agency — assuming someone was available.

In an interview, Powers said that in reviewing some of the high-profile crimes committed by AB 109 probationers after their release into county custody — including the recent fatal stabbing of a woman by a panhandler in Hollywood — the department found “missed opportunities” to connect with offenders before they committed a new crime.

Although the probation department is the lead agency in implementing realignment, other law enforcement agencies have been handling the bulk of so-called compliance checks, more invasive operations that may involve searching a parolee’s home for contraband such as weapons or drugs.

But that approach has occasionally created its own set of problems.

Some treatment programs and group homes for ex-offenders have complained repeatedly that the LAPD has conducted armed, SWAT-style compliance checks, often with several squad cars unaccompanied by a county probation officer.

A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a South Los Angeles home for women coming out of prison, brought up the issue publicly more than a year ago, and LAPD representatives attended community meetings to address the concerns, but A New Way of Life Executive Director Susan Burton said the practice has continued and even increased in recent months.

Burton said her residents have to comply with their probation or parole terms to stay at the home, and that the practice is disruptive to women who are trying to turn their lives around.

“The women have served their time in custody, and this is a time for rebuilding,” she said.

Resident Rasheena Buchanan, 30, said she was alarmed when an LAPD officer came to her room with a gun drawn at 7:30 a.m. during a compliance check in late June.

“That took me back to a place I really didn’t want to go. This was like my safe haven, and I felt like they violated that,” said Buchanan, who is on parole after serving 61/2 years for second-degree robbery.

Capt. Phil Tingirides of the LAPD’s Southeast Division said officers get a list of names and addresses of AB 109 offenders who are released, and have to check on all of them without the more in-depth knowledge of their background and risk levels that probation or parole officers would have. Given the officers’ limited knowledge and the violent situations that have erupted during some checks, he said, police have to treat all the ex-offenders as a potential threat.

“It just creates a very difficult situation for us,” he said. “…Trust me, we would prefer that [parole or probation officers] do it. It’s really not our thing. This is a community relations nightmare for us.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was present at one of the compliance checks last year at A New Way of Life, said the continuing complaints fed his concerns that monitoring offenders is not as well-coordinated as it could be.

“Probation made a big push to be on the front line in terms of AB 109, so if compliance checks are such a huge issue …who’s supposed to be responsible for making sure it’s being done correctly?” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. In a separate interview, he said, “Frankly, all of them are supposed to be working collaboratively to make sure AB 109 works. If productive programs are being disrupted, then AB 109 is not working as it should.”

Okay, if you’re here, you either read the article or you just wanted to see what I’d say about it.  So here’s my wisdom of Solomon.

Ordinarily, I would be knee-jerk on the side of the probation officers being armed in these inspections.

But keep in mind this is the probation officers UNION.  And unions, as we know, nearly always support Democrats and likely gave money to Obama so he could be our fuehrer messiah.

Anyway, if it turns out that the probation officers union in Los Angeles gave its campaign money to Democrats, they want to take OUR guns away even if we’re law abiding citizens who just want to have the right to defend ourselves against the same predatory scumbags that the probation officers are living in fear of right now.  So in that case, let them be unarmed, and yes, they DID sign a suicide pact when they decided to support Democrats.

Now, if they at least stayed the hell out of politics, or better yet, gave their money to the political party that DIDN’T want to disarm Americans, then hell yeah they should be able to do those visits armed.

And what’s the story?  Well, it’s not easy to find out who gave what, but I did find this:

Los Angeles County Democratic Party: A Reliable Campaign Conduit

The Los Angeles County Democrat Party proved to be a reliable conduit for special interest contributions. Within days of accepting $137,250 in campaign contributions from seven special interest groups, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party distributed $127,200, or 93 percent of these received contributions, to Quirk-Silva’s campaign.

On October 10, the L.A. County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685, contributed $10,000 to the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. One week later, the Los Angeles County central committee contributed $11,700 to Quirk-Silva’s campaign in Orange County.

[For the factual record, Quirk-Silva is a Democrat]

So there you have it: Democrat hypocrites.  What I demand for thee does not work out very well for me.  So we should get an exemption or a waiver for what we forced YOU to do.  Which is Democrats’ stand on everything from ObamaCare to guns to everything else under the sun.

These union types ought to go into those criminals’ homes the way they want me to be in my home: completely helpless, defenseless and hoping nobody tries to attack me.

Hey, let’s disarm our police officers the way England has.  Let ‘em ALL try to do their jobs without the guns that the rest of us are told we don’t need.  It would take about two seconds to turn all those law enforcement unions conservative Republican rather than the liberal fascists they are now, wouldn’t it?

What’s good for thee doesn’t work for me has got to end because America is about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Saluting A Hero: A Black Tea Party Group Founder

August 14, 2013

It’s easy to just give up on a community when so many members of that community are toxic.  But as Christians, and as people who want to avoid the depths of cynicism and pessimism, we just don’t have that option.

So I read the paper this morning and saw this piece on a good and courageous man, and I just wanted to take my hat off to him.

Patt Morrison Asks
Jesse Lee Peterson, tea’d off in South L.A.
Founder of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the black holiday Kwanzaa. And that’s just for starters.
Patt Morrison
August 14, 2013

 Jesse Lee Peterson

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, at his studio.  (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / August 7, 2013)

It’s not a typo: The South Central L.A. Tea Party exists, and Jesse Lee Peterson takes a bow for founding it. He’s also president and founder of the 23-year-old black bootstraps group Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND, and serves as pastor for a nondenominational congregation at its headquarters. As his public pronouncements make clear, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the California-born black holiday Kwanzaa. He used to hold a “national day of repudiation” against Jesse Jackson; he has his doubts about women in high places. He is in demand as a black voice in conservative media, and his voice was still a little scratchy back home in L.A. after yet another speaking gig in the East.

Why did you form BOND?

I realized most black Americans are suffering not because of racism but lack of moral character. We need to rebuild the [black] family. Fathers and mothers should get married before having children. They will turn away from the so-called black leadership — Jesse Jackson, NAACP, Urban League — and think for themselves, as they did prior to the civil rights movement. There’s a problem when black children are born out of wedlock, with no shame, and you don’t worry because the government will take care of them. In the entertainment industry, it’s common — they do it like 90 going north, and proud of it.

“90 going north”?

When the slaves would sneak away from the plantation, they were going so fast we made a joke of it — they’re doing 90 going north, trying to get away.

You were once a Democrat; what changed your mind?

I believed the lie that because I was black, I wasn’t going to be able to make it because of the white man. When I came here [from his native Alabama], I was listening to people like Jackson and Louis Farrakhan — he used to come to the Forum in Inglewood. He talked about the blue-eyed devil, and I believed him. I started hating white people. You become like what you hate. My life went to hell. I ended up doing different kinds of drugs because I had so much guilt from the hatred. I ended up on welfare; they paid my rent, gave me food stamps, healthcare. But I got worse instead of better.

Once God changed my heart, I could no longer identify with the Democratic platform. It is anti-God, anti-family, anti-military, anti-anything that’s good. I switched parties.

Yours may be the only black-led tea party group in California. Why did you start it?

I realized the tea party movement was being lied about to black people. They were saying it’s a racist organization. That isn’t true. I’ve spoken at rallies around the country. I know they’re good folks. I want to educate blacks and Hispanics to what the tea party is about: less government, freedom, lower taxes, fewer regulations, God and country. The black community and part of the Hispanic community have been so brainwashed and dumbed-down and lied to, they don’t tend to look for information for themselves.

It’s been a little tough, but it’s starting to change. We had a 2nd Amendment rally in Westwood last year and we had a load of folks show up.

Young black men kill others with guns at a devastating rate. How does the 2nd Amendment solve that?

Blacks killing each other in Chicago and Detroit — that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but everything to do with the destruction of the family. You could take away all the guns and they’ll find something else to kill each other with. It’s lack of family, lack of character.

Some tea party members split with the leadership over immigration reform. What’s your take?

Amnesty for illegal aliens would be devastating to our country and especially the black community. At BOND, we help guys find jobs, and many do day labor and construction work. It was easier to get those jobs 23 years ago. It’s nearly impossible now. Illegal aliens are able to do those jobs for little or nothing and many get paid under the table, so big businesses are for illegal aliens. And the Democratic Party is trying to get the Hispanic votes, that’s why they want amnesty.

How well do you think the GOP is making its case to black voters?

Not at all. They’re giving into the fear of being called racists. They’re afraid of saying the wrong thing. I’ve always thought they should have town hall meetings in the community, leave the [black] leadership out of it. Let [blacks] see for themselves what the Republican Party is all about. But they’re afraid to do that for fear of being called racist. They’ve really given up on the blacks.

You say it’s hard to find black Americans who aren’t angry and racist toward whites. Don’t they have something to be angry about, like the enduring legacy of slavery?

None of them were enslaved. We did far better living and working, more united as families [50 years ago] than blacks are doing today.

What is your family’s story?

My mother was dating my father when she was 16 or 17. She got pregnant with me. He denied it: “Oh, that’s not my child.” She became very angry at him; she stayed mad at him for a long time. She ended up marrying my stepfather before I was born because it was an embarrassment to have a child out of wedlock. He was a good man, but I never accepted him. I had a yearning for my father — that’s inside every child. I overcame my anger for my mother and encouraged her to forgive my father. Once I forgave my mother and God forgave me, I felt 100% better. I realized from that what was wrong with black Americans — most of them are filled with anger and it’s holding them back.

Growing up you worked the same land where your ancestors were once enslaved. Didn’t you experience racism there?

I did — colored-only signs, white-only signs. In the movie theater, blacks had to sit in the balcony. I was fine with that because we had a better view! I saw they were wrong, but we were taught not to hate. And we knew white people who weren’t doing those things.

Now, not all but most black people are so racist toward white people. And white Americans are afraid if they say the wrong thing, they’ll be accused of being racist.

The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.

At one point there was definitely racism from white America, but that started to change over the last 40 or 50 years. White people realized, yeah, this did exist, we’re sorry, we’re going to [institute] stuff to help blacks get themselves together. They passed laws against white racism, but the problem is they have not had an honest dialogue about black racism.

Wasn’t the Civil Rights Act the right thing to do?

If they had just changed it so the same laws that protected white folks would protect black people and left us alone, things would be much better today. Change the law, then get out of the way of people coming together.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote controversially about the tangle of pathologies in black America.

He was 100% right. Had [society] listened to him, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation today. [Welfare] was a dumb idea; they believed it was better to get a government paycheck than have a man in the house — not all black families, but too many.

So-called civil rights leaders and the Democratic Party knew if they could get blacks to rely on government, they would hold them for generations, and that’s exactly what happened.

Welfare makes a person lazy, and you pass it on to the next generation. It took away their self-esteem. It really has been devastating to the black community.

Do you think that welfare influenced the high imprisonment rate for black men?

[Welfare] took the authority figure out of the home. When the father is not there to discipline and guide the children, kids don’t normally listen to mothers after a certain age. She tries to force her way on them and then they become angry. When fathers were there, fathers and mothers worked together. The family has been broken. The father is the spiritual head as well as the provider, and the mother and children respect that because it’s from God

What programs do you advocate for black Americans?

I would teach them trades. We’re starting a leadership academy for boys; when they finish high school, if they don’t want to go to college, at least they can know how to work for themselves.

You endorse marriage. Gays have fought for marriage.

Same-sex marriage doesn’t exist; there’s no such thing in God’s eyes. So-called same-sex marriage would destabilize society. Homosexuality is not about love or family or civil rights; it’s about sex.

What do you say to gay people you counsel?

I tell them they were not born that way, that a spirit has made a home inside of them that came from some sort of trauma — maybe they were molested at an early age or had angry parents — and that if they were to forgive their parents, then God will forgive them and remove that identity from them and they will be free.

What do you think of President Obama?

I think he’s the worst thing to ever happen to this country. He doesn’t care about black people. He’s selling them out for Hispanic votes. He cares more about homosexuals than he does about blacks. In healthcare and education — illegals have overpopulated public schools in South Central, and blacks are feeling pushed aside. They voted for Obama thinking he would be for them, and he’s not.

The Internet is full of stuff about Obama growing watermelons on the White House lawn, or Michelle Obama posing for National Geographic. Isn’t that racist?

It depends on the heart of the person doing it. If they’re just doing it to have some fun, I don’t see anything wrong with it. They did the same thing to Bush.

They didn’t make fun of him because of his race.

They aren’t making fun of Barack for being black either. It’s known that — not all — but black people love watermelons. It’s not a put-down. [Although] I’m sure you can find racists like the KKK who hate black people and will use something like that.

Do you use the term “African American”?

No. If you’re born in this country, you’re not an African American, you’re an American. It’s just foolish, another thing set up by the so-called civil rights leaders to divide blacks from whites. Booker T. Washington said “American.” And they hated Booker. If he were around today, they’d hate him as much as they hate me. They’d call him an Uncle Tom, a sellout. They want to give the impression that if you’re a black person who thinks for himself, you must be an Uncle Tom.

Let me say that Jesse Lee Patterson and I are brothers in a way that transcends the pigment of our skin.  We are brothers in our Christian faith.  We are brothers in our worldview.  We are brothers in our beliefs in terms of the real crises facing America and what to do about those crises.

I do want to correct one thing regarding the discussion following the Patt Morrison question, “The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.”  Allow me to present THE TRUTH:

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation.  There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787.  What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America.  First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes.  Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation?  THE SLAVERY SIDE.   The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population of the nation, so that they could have more seats in the Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The northern states, on the other hand, were against including slaves in the population for the fear of increased Congressional seats in the southern states.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation.  In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War - CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years.  Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

Our founding fathers were truly good and miraculously visionary men who had to make certain compromises in order to establish a more perfect union.  They wanted slavery to end, but if they had tried to end it in their lifetimes the United States would never have been allowed to get off the ground in the first place – and slavery would have continued for centuries longer than it did.

Other than that, I wish to thank Patt Morrison for his objective piece, and I wish to honor Jesse Lee Peterson for his incredibly courageous and incredibly honorable stand against a liberal-dominated world that pathologically hates him as a living embodiment refuting everything that liberals stand for.

Democrat Claims That Former Obama Chief Of Staff Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Police Into Racist Death Squad In Obama’s Home City

August 1, 2013

We’ve got the smoking gun now.  Democrats are pure, unadulterated evil.  They are so evil, in fact, that they have created a death squad within the Chicago Police Department that is systematically and intentionally murdering black children.  And our source for that is none other than a Democrat whistle blower:

Friday, July 19, 2013
State Rep. Monique Davis: “Maybe police are killing some of these [Chicago] kids”

CHICAGO – State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) told a Detroit radio station that police in Chicago might be killing black kids. Her explanation for the 996 people who have been short (228 homocides) in Chicago since January.

“I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children,” Davis said.

“There’s some suspicion – and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing – they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.”

When WBBM asked Davis if she thinks it’s possible that police are killing children, she said, “I don’t know. I don’t know that they are, and I don’t know that they aren’t, since no one’s been arrested. We don’t know who’s doing it.”

The audio is HERE

For the record, Chicago is and has been a bastion of the Democrat Party for decades.  For the record, the mayor who has apparently called for this racist death squad is none other than Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, Rham Emanuel.

At least the truth is out now.  At last black people can know for a fact that liberalism is the most racist ideology since anything that spewed out of the mouth of Hilter.  And at last we can finally begin holding the Democrat Party that formed the Klu Klux Klan responsible for its holocaust of black people.

This is what Democrats are reduced to.  It’s either the above, or Democrats and the blacks who live and work on the DNC plantation must explain why 90% of black people are murdered by other black people in the age where the “civil rights community” has made their entire case about that evil “white Hispanic” a.k.a. George Zimmerman.  And by the way, if you add the abortion statistics (black “mothers” murder nearly 2/3rds of their babies) to the murder rate, blacks murder about 99.999999 percent of their children.   But let’s blame whitey for that tiny fraction of one percent (even if we have to invent the previously nearly entirely unknown category of “white Hispanic” in order to do it.  Let’s blame Bush.

Liberalism is never having to take responsibility for the horror that liberal policies have created.

We add Chicago (the worst murder rate on the damn planet) to Detroit (the worst economic hellhole on the damn planet) to the Democrat Party tally.  These are both cities that have been entirely owned by Democrats and Democrat policies for at least sixty years – and to quote a certain racist “reverend” whose church Obama attended for more than twenty years, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

No group of people has EVER been more OWNED by a political party than black people have allowed themselves to be owned by the Democrat Party.  Whether you consider abortion, or out-of-control sexuality that demeans women, or the destruction of families, or permissive attitudes toward crime, or drugs, or failed liberal education policies, or imposing police procedures that prevent law enforcement from doing its job, or welfare, or the complete abandonment of ANY personal responsibility, or permanent dependency on any of the hundreds of government programs that entices and encourages a life of failure and a life of abject government dependency, we can readily see that no group of people have EVER drank the Democrat Party Kool-Aid more deeply than black people have drank it.  And what do they want?  More of the hair of the dog that rabidly bit them and continues to bite them and WILL CONTINUE to bite them forever, that’s what.  And that’s why the black community is in ruins today.

Liberalism is like Marxism in virtually every significant way.  But most of all, it is an ideology that promises the world, but only succeeds in delivering hell by way of the crushing of the human spirit.

Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

July 31, 2013

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant - and oh, yeah, misandrist - liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers