Department of ‘Justice’ Attack On AP And Now Fox News Reveals Obama Fascism Is Widespread

I’ve written it again and again before it was cool: Barack Obama was, is and will continue to be a FASCIST (see here and here and here).  It is more abundant now than it has ever been in American history that a fascist is our president.

As I write, the Obama administration is bogged down in three major scandals.  They tried to cover-up their failure in competency and ideology in Benghazi by covering-up who attacked America (terrorists, not “spontaneous protesters) and why THOSE TERRORISTS attacked America.  They have clearly used the IRS as a weapon against their political enemies by denying hundreds of conservative groups 501c4 tax exempt status (while not denying progressive groups).  It was a clear and obvious double standard and it was a clear and obvious politically motivated attack.  In the same way, the Obama IRS used “retaliatory audits” to punish and intimidate conservative groups.  Conservatives have horror stories as to how they were politically targeted by Obama for exercising their 1st Amendment freedoms which was followed by retaliatory audits from the IRS.  In fact, not just the IRS but NUMEROUS federal government agencies under Obama have engaged in a pattern of brutal government intimidation and suppression reminiscent of the days of Stalin.  In a clearly coordinated attack and rather like a pack of wolves, the IRS, the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF systematically targeted a woman named Catherine Engelbrecht whose crime was filing under our constitutional freedoms of speech to form a tax-exempt organization.  That is just one appalling case in a systematic pattern as some 500 organizations were specifically targeted by the Obama Chicago thug regime out of naked political bias.  The list of organizations that are finding out that Obama targeted them, also, is growing on a basically daily basis.  This same thug regime also illegally released the confidential federal tax records of American citizens to progressive groups that politically exploited the information that was illegal for them to have or use.

And they have began a war against the free press that is simply unprecedented.  As in never attempted before even by the likes of Nixon.

The Obama IRS targeting of conservative groups such as the Tea Party also included attacking Christian and Jewish groups as well as reporters who didn’t tow the Obama line.

Of that last story we began when Obama’s DoJ broke the law to seize the records of the leader in wire service reporting, the Associated Press.  Nearly two dozen phone lines involving some 100 reporters had their calls monitored without the legal requirement to inform the press of such intrusive and frankly UNPRECEDENTED monitoring having been met.

Eric Holder came out with this:

When asked if he understood why members of the media would find the records seizure “troubling,” Holder replied that the leak they are trying to plug was “very, very serious.”

“I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious – it’s in the top two or three – most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen,” Holder added. “It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole.”

Fascists always seize on a “crisis” in order to justify the seizure of more power.  It is simply what fascists have always done.

We immediately began to learn that what Eric Holder said claimed was a lie.  He claimed that the risk to national security was so serious that the Obama Injustice Department had to act in such a massive and unprecedented way.  But that was never true.  For one thing, the AP voluntarily delayed publishing the story in question until the federal government not only said it was okay, but until the federal government said that IT was going to go public with the story:

“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” AP President Gary Pruitt said in a written response to the Justice Department’s claims.

A report from The Washington Post appeared to give more weight to the AP’s claims.

According to the Post, the AP had been sitting on a scoop about a failed Al Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials for five days. The morning they were supposed to release the story, journalists were asked by government officials to wait another day, citing safety concerns.

However, the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day, according to The Post report.

But now we have another proof that Eric Holder is a liar without shame, without honor and without integrity.  We now know that, rather than unleash this kind of Stalinist surveillance monster for ONE media outlet in ONE circumstance that was “in the top two or three – most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen”, this Stalinism toward the media is an event that has occurred ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

It happened to Fox News, too, involving a different story.  Which means so much for the magnitude of the AP leak justifying the Stalinist means.

Report: Three Fox News Staffers Targeted By Justice Department
by John Nolte 20 May 2013, 10:20 AM PDT

Fox News reports that three Fox staffers, two reporters and one producer, were targeted by Barack Obama’s Justice Department. Fox doesn’t have all the details yet on reporter William La Jeunesse and producer Mike Levine, but their emails showed up in a IG report regarding Fast and Furious. Either their emails were leaked by the Justice Department officials they were sent to, or the email accounts of both were subpoenaed and invaded by government investigators.

The IG report does say that subpoenas were issued to obtain emails. Whose email was targeted is not yet known.

The third staffer is reporter James Rosen. The Washington Post‘s story behind that is downright chilling. What we have here is a case of the Obama Administration criminalizing reporting.

In June of 2009, James Rosen of Fox News reported that North Korea might respond to an increase in United Nations sanctions with even more nuclear tests. Rosen added that the CIA had learned this information from their sources within North Korea.

According to the Washington Post, upon hearing learning of Rosen’s report, the White House launched what many believe is an unprecedented leak probe that went so far as to criminalize standard news-gathering.

Because the Justice Department believes the source of the leak to Rosen was Jin-Woo Kim, a government adviser, he is facing federal charges that could land him a 10-year prison sentence.

But in their zeal to dig into reporter Rosen’s part in this (and supposedly firm up their case against Kim), the Post reports that FBI agent Regineld Reyes claimed there was “evidence Rosen had broken the law, ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.’”

After building their case against Kim, the Obama administration then went after Rosen, using his badge to trace his whereabouts in the State Department. But they also wanted Rosen’s emails. The Post writes that in order to do this, because of legal protections offered the media, the case had to be made that Rosen was a co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to leak national security secrets:

Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter’s work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant — agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Rosen said the government never contacted him.

The thing you have to keep in mind here is that if Kim and Rosen did what the Obama administration says they did — it is something that happens almost every day between reporters and their sources. It is called everyday journalism; and the Obama administration is attempting to criminalize everyday journalism.

If sources are not leaking information to journalists, what is the alternative? Well, the only alternative is that the media write what the government tells them to write.

[Update: May 22, 2013]: And we can already see that this Obama Department of Injustice already has more proof of contempt for the Constitution and the laws that govern a nation.  It wasn’t just one rare case, it was a widespread thug political tactic to intimidate and suppress the free press.  Now we’re learning that it wasn’t just the 100 Associated Press reporters who used those 20 phone lines Obama bugged; we’re learning that it wasn’t just those 100 AP reporters plus Fox News correspondent James Rosen.  The Obama thug FBI commit slander against Rosen in an affidavit in order to see to it that only Obama’s lawyers could be present when they illegally wiretapped a JOURNALIST but bugged his parents, too.  Along with an as yet unknown number of Fox News reporters and journalists.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama went further in sliming and demonizing the role of the reporter than anything that has ever been seen in American history.  They literally said in the case of Fox News staffer James Rosen that the constitutional role of the media to serve as a check and balance against an out-of-control federal government is a crime.  They had to accuse the normal act of covering a news story as a CRIME in order to justify their Stalinist fishing expedition into a formerly free press.

Stop and think back to the bizarre wave of leaks that clearly came from the White House in order to spin the news in a way that would favor Obama.  It didn’t matter how many secrets and how many lives were at risk, then.  And then compare the same president who leaked all kinds of secrets when it was convenient for him to suddenly show his Stalinist fangs when the leaks didn’t politically benefit him.

Again, Barack Obama is the worst fascist who has ever contaminated the White House and tyrannized the American people.

And this nation will suffer for its sin in giving America a truly demon-possessed president.

Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Scandal Far, FAR Worse Than Nixon’s Watergate Cover-Up EVER Was.

First of all, do you know what the Watergate cover-up was about?

You probably don’t.

Most people – misinformed as they are by a mainstream media propaganda operation that is second only to the Nazi’s Ministry of Propaganda – believe that Nixon’s infamous “Plumbers” Unit was sent into the Watergate Hotel to look for information that would help his re-election campaign.  That is simply false.

So what were Nixon’s “Plumbers” looking for?

Late June-July 1971: Nixon Authorizes ‘Plumbers,’ Orders Media Leaks to Smear Ellsberg

 

President Nixon authorizes the creation of a “special investigations unit,” later nicknamed the “Plumbers,” to root out and seal media leaks. The first target is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press (see June 13, 1971); the team will burglarize the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in hopes of securing information that the White House can use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility (see September 9, 1971). Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervises the “Plumbers,” will later say that the Ellsberg burglary is “the seminal Watergate episode.” Author Barry Werth will later write, “[L]ike all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.” During the upcoming court battle over the documents, Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.” Whatever damaging information the “Plumbers” can find on Ellsberg will be itself leaked to the press, Nixon says. “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges (see June 28, 1971) ]. Just get everything out. Try him in the press… leak it out.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 84-87]

The Plumbers were looking for dirt to smear Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Here’s the thing: what did the Pentagon Papers reveal?  Who – or perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, which administration – did the Pentagon Papers indict?  The boldfaced type provides the answer:

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the “Pentagon Papers.” The papers comprised the U.S. military’s account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration’s preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House “Plumbers” group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

The simple fact of history – despite all the lies that the liberal ideologues have told masquerading as “journalists” – is that Richard Nixon was watching a liberal media campaign based on anonymous leaks erode and undermine U.S. foreign policy that had been approved by successive DEMOCRAT administrations (i.e., both the Kennedy and the Johnson administrations).  Barack Obama notwithstanding, American presidents have the duty to GOVERN and LEAD based on actual REALITY.  Both Republican and DEMOCRAT presidents who had sat in the Oval Office had made the tough calls based on the best intelligence ANY American will ever have access to.  And Nixon was watching the mainstream media communist fascists undermine that policy with a campaign of illegal leaks to selectively embarrass and ultimately undermine and cause the military defeat of the United States of America.

The Pentagon Papers documented that the DEMOCRAT LBJ administration had done some despicable things in their conduct of carrying out the Vietnam War.  They did NOT indict the Nixon administration:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

The Nixon presidency did not begin until 1969.

It’s amazing how history damns Democrats again and again and again.  The Civil War was waged against the United States by DEMOCRATS.  The Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the DEMOCRAT Party.  Prior to the Vietnam War – which had “DEMOCRAT” written all over it – Harry Truman’s incompetence and stupidity literally caused the Korean War in which nearly 60,000 Americans miserably perished.  History reveals that Harry Truman first refused to give weapons to the South Korean government, which emboldened the communist North which was armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated Soviet and Chinese weaponry:

Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments, but the United States refused to give South Korea any heavy weapons in order to ensure that its military could only be used for preserving internal order and self-defense. By contrast, Pyongyang was well-equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks.

History reveals that Harry Truman then proceeded to massively screw up by failing to list South Korea in their zone of protection which gave North Korea, the USSR and China the green light to attack the South:

But just because he did not include South Korea as part of his “defensive perimeter,” it was said later on that such omission had served to give the communists “the green light” to try to overrun Korea.

Emboldened by the exclusion of South Korea from the American defense line in the Pacific zone in the so-called Acheson Declaration, Kim Il-sung decided to launch an outright invasion of the South

Just as history also reveals that Harry Truman – in a pattern that has characterized Democrat administrations for decade after decade – disarmed and weakened America so that we were in no shape to fight anybody anywhere which further emboldened our enemies.

All that the Democrat fiasco in Vietnam was was a longstanding continuation of Democrat fiascos that ultimately included Bill Clinton disarming America and inviting the 9/11 attacks before Bush prior to Obama baring America’s throat to terrorist attacks after Bush.

As much as you want to dump your hate on Richard Nixon, his crime was that he was trying to protect a Democrat administration in order to protect American foreign policy.  And he was trying to expose a dishonest and corrupt media propaganda operation.  And he himself used corrupt and dishonest tactics to accomplish those goals.  And he got busted.  By the very liberal communist fascist rat bastard pseudo-”journalists” who were selectively illegally leaking classified government documents in order to bring about America’s defeat in the Vietnam War.

We now know that Barack Obama is the kind of Chicago thug who criminally used the IRS to target his political opponents.  The word “Nixonian” doesn’t begin to do Obama’s thug tactics justice.  You have to call it “Obamian.”  And if the crap that Obama is pulling doesn’t qualify as “enemies list” garbage, then NOTHING does.

We also know that Obama has his lapdog Kathleen Sabelius ILLEGALLY shaking down businesses to coerce them to give money for ObamaCare (see also here).  It is specifically illegal for someone in such an official capacity to strongarm businesses that you are regulating and asking them for money.  Democrats were besides themselves with frothing rage when Reagan did something like this to get around specific Congressional refusal to fund a program during Iran-Contra.  And they passed a law to criminalize it.  Just as they passed laws criminalizing the Watergate crap that Obama just pulled.  Again, this is Obamaian – because it goes beyond “Nixonian.”

This thug Obama is a demon-possessed criminal who has contaminated the White House beyond repair.  He is the epitome of what his cockroach pastor for 23 years railed when he said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!”

But let’s get back to Benghazi.  We now know that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, incompetent failure before the 9/11 (2012) attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, cowardly failure during the attack to bring any U.S. assets to bear to help the Americans – including the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the failed Carter years – who ultimately perished during the attack.  And we most certainly know that they tried to cover-up the crystal-clear connection to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Obama claims that he called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the next day.  Bullcrap.

Obama supporters (read, “dishonest lying weasels”) claim that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Right. And I called Obama an honest man and a good leader. Obama had just referred to the 9/11/2001 attacks – which even Obama would call “acts of terror” – immediately prior to his statement that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” There is absolutely NO reason – grammatical or logical – to believe that Obama was referring to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with that reference. And Obama went on to PROVE that he wasn’t referring to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” by going out and repeatedly claiming that it was NOT an act of terror, but a mob protest gone bad over a Youtube video. Which it was NOT.

Here’s the thing: the very same NIGHT that Obama gave that speech above – at an event memorializing the 9/11/2001 attacks – he gave an interview to 60 minutes.  Let’s look at a snippet from that interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

So CBS stated as a FACT that Obama “went out of his way to avoid the use of the word terrorism” and Obama clearly continued to avoid using the word “terrorism.”  And if “it was still too early to tell” if it was an act of terror” the night AFTER he gave the speech in which he now claims that he claimed that it WAS an act of terror, well, you see the pretzel Obama twisted the truth in.  Which pretty much proves that when Obama later said he DID call it “terrorism” was a lie.  A lie from a serial liar.  And what we have had was a cover-up by the Obama administration from the very start. 

And why did Obama attempt this cover-up?  Was it for the sake of the previous Republican administration the way Nixon tried to protect the previous Democrat administration?  Nope.  Obama has demonstrated that he is a vicious partisan ideologue who would NEVER lift a finger to ever do anything but demonize and slander the Bush administration.  Was it to protect U.S. foreign policy?  Nope.  Obama was two months from an election and the only thing he was trying to protect was his own scrawny political neck.

Republicans pointed out the TRUTH from the outset. They said the very DAY that Susan Rice went out on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly lied to the American people that “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration.”  Which was obvious to anyone who wasn’t a demon-possessed Obama ideologue.

But as a whole, we know that the Chicago thug Obama administration and the mainstream media thug propaganda were on the same damn page.

The funny thing is that the Chicago thug Obama administration, the Democrat Party propaganda machine and the mainstream media cockroaches are all frantically claiming that there’s nothing to see in any Benghazi investigation because the Republicans are trying to politicize it.  Here’s the thing: these Democrat roaches have just been caught RED-HANDED “politicizing” Benghazi from the very first moments:

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

Which is to say that the Obama State Department falsified the truth and engaged in the very FIRST act of “politicizing.”  They literally admit here to altering the facts so their opponents won’t be able to point out that they were incompetent fools.  Which the facts now prove that they very clearly were.

Obama had a completely bogus narrative that, because he had been the president when we got Osama bin Laden, that somehow he had decimated al Qaeda and the War on Terror was over.  Obama stated that as a fact again and again and again prior to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi planned and carried out to correspond with the anniversary of the 9/11 attack against America in 2001.

The official liar of the Obama Administration, Press Secretary Jay Carney, had told the American people this:

“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” Mr. Carney said on Nov. 28.

We now know that like everything ELSE the most dishonest administration in American history has claimed, that this was a pure lie.  We now know that the talking points went through a DOZEN revisions in order to falsely scrub any connection to al Qaeda or terrorism in order to “support” the Obama lie that the attack was a protest over a video gone bad.  We now know that CIA director (and war hero) David Petraeus was “frustrated” and “surprised” by Obama’s whitewash and distortion of the Benghazi talking points.  Just as the number two man in Libya who clearly KNEW what had actually happened said “my jaw hit the floor” when he heard Susan Rice repeatedly report the Obama lie again and again and again and again and again five days after the attack.

We now know that – contrary to the Barack Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department official lies – that the intelligence IMMEDIATELY claimed that the Benghazi attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.  And we now know that Obama and Clinton deliberately falsified the intelligence and lied to the American people to cover their own incompetence and their own political aspirations.

Obama lied, Americans died.  Clinton lied, Americans died.  Unlike anything that happened during Watergate. Pat Smith, whose son Sean was murdered, is furious because Hillary Clinton looked her right in the eye and lied to her.  She now says, “She has her child.  I don’t have mine because of her.”  Americans died for Obama’s and Clinton’s sins.

But let’s forget all about Pat Smith’s pain.  After all, as Jay Carney claimed, “It happened a long time ago” (after eight months of delay and cover-ups).  And of course Hillary Clinton exlaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?” 

Susan Rice and Jay Carney need to go to prison – along with these IRS thugs - for their official lies and participation in an obvious cover-up.  Barack Obama needs to be impeached for his high crimes.  And Hillary Clinton needs to never show her face in public again.

Why I’m Done Watching Professional Sports. Period.

I’m through.

Back in 2009 I said I was through with the NFL after it basically said that forcing dogs to fight each other in bloody matches and then viciously killing the ones that weren’t vicious enough was fine.  And the only unpardonable sin in their eyes was being a political conservative.  And I’ve made good on my word; the only football I’ve watched since has been college.

And, of course, I still had my basketball and my hockey, right?

Well, wrong as of recently.

First the NHL all but bent over so the first openly gay hockey player could sodomize the whole league.  And then we had our first male openly homosexual player celebrated for issuing a statement that he likes it in the rear.

Me, I just wanted to watch sports.  I didn’t want to get lectured about accepting, embracing and celebrating homosexuality.

I looked in vain through the rule books of all the major sports.  There was NOTHING about that garbage in any of them.

But boy – as in “gay boys in bondage” – have professional sports ever changed since I was a kid.

My first thought when Jason Collins “came out” was that at least he didn’t play for any of the teams I root for (I couldn’t care less about the Washington Wizards and I utterly despise the Boston Celtics).  But Kobe Bryant blew that up.  The man who most represents the heart and the soul of the Los Angeles Lakers – my favorite team since Jerry West was a guard rather than the NBA logo – tweeted the following:

Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don’t suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU

“The ignorance of others”??? 

Does God know He’s “ignorant”???

I suppose I’m supposed to forget that Bryant was once accused of rape.  I suppose that I’m supposed to forget that he cheated on his wife and that he revealed his own latent homosexuality by sodomizing the woman he cheated on his wife with.  And having forgotten all that I’m supposed to regard Kobe Bryant as a moral authority.

I mean, if the perp says I’m ignorant, then I’m clearly ignorant.

I wonder if Tiger Woods – whose behavior was recently endorsed by President Obama – has offered his own support of Collins’ homosexuality?  You KNOW if he hasn’t the only reason is because his publicist advised him to stay on the down-low on this one.

Professional sports is now like Nazi Germany – the first culture to warp sports into depraved political statements celebrating warped ideologies – you just can’t get away from the crap they’re pimping.

It’s kind of funny, if by “funny” you mean “twisted and warped”; a couple of years ago sports writers were questioning Tim Tebow and asking the question for our consideration:  “Should Tebow be so flamboyant about his faith? Should Americans keep their religious beliefs to themselves?”

CHRISTIANS are “flamboyant”???  Seriously?  I mean, dang, if you even like to SAY the word “flamboyant” there’s a pretty good chance you’re a homosexual.

And in today’s culture, it is a no-no to talk about your Christian faith.  You should keep embarrasing junk like that to yourself.  But if you want to come out and tell the world you love to be sodomized by another man after sucking his weenie for him first, well, expect a call from the president of the United States congratulating you.  And expect to be praised and celebrated by pretty much anybody who is anybody in today’s depraved culture.

I’m done with sports.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times that like most Los Angeles Times articles was so full of crap the paper ought to just be printed on dung.  The print version title was “2 views of gay NBA player.”

Make it ONE view that homosexuality is just neat and one utter mischaracterization of the despised view that it’s even possible there could be anything wrong with it.

Anyway, the two quotes from this piece of propaganda gibberish representing the “two views” are as follows:

“We have a lot less tolerance for people who make reactionary statements like Mr. Broussard,” Hilliard said, referring to ESPN television commentator Chris Broussard, who said Monday that, because of his religious beliefs, he did not condone homosexuality.

And let’s not omit the “Christian” view (at least “Christian” according to the Los Angeles Times:

All but one player agreed. “I’m a Christian,” said 17-year-old Jordan Bryant. “But I also feel that God created you to be what you can be. If He created you with an intent to like another male, then that is what you were created to be.”

Well, let’s first think about what Hilliard said.  If you have religious beliefs that in any way prevent you from celebrating sodomy, you are making “reactionary statements.”

Since when?  You know, given the fact that there was not ONE SINGLE CIVILIZATION IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY that embraced homosexuality.  You know, given the entirety of Western Civilization, upon which our own culture comes from, which specifically CONDEMNS homosexuality.  And, you know, given the thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition that our society is similarly based upon.

When did it become cool to describe Moses and St. Paul as “reactionary”???

How did the militant homosexual agenda that has been gaining ground for something like the last twenty years suddenly erase all previous human history???

And how did the militant homosexual agenda somehow sneak past even the Darwinian evolutionary view that homosexuality represents a complete dead-end for any species which embraces it???

It is frankly amazing.

And now let me turn to the words of this idiot named Jordan Bryant who has the moral idiocy to say “I’m a Christian” followed by a sentiment that comes right out of the place that God famously vaporized for wickedness.

When did what the Bible clearly and emphatically states become irrelevant to “Christianity”???

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Famed pastor John MacArthur has publicly declared that Romans chapter one is the official platform of the Democratic Party.  But just to make sure there is no place one can go to get away from it, it is also the official platform of most newspapers, most TV stations, Hollywood, and now all the professional sports leagues.

I’m going to be – in Kobe Bryant’s words – “ignorant” on this subject.  I’m going to side with God and let the rest of culture be damned.

What is the saddest thing of all is that most people who call themselves “Christians” are nearly as ignorant – and they truly ARE “ignorant” – as that 17-year-old Jordan Bryant idiot.  The Bible tells us NOT to participate in the world, the flesh and the devil.  But we’ve dived in and immersed ourselves in it.

We ought to be BOYCOTTING it.

Instead, the only ones who do any actual boycotting are the left who boycott anything that DOESN’T represent the world, the flesh and the devil.

As for me, I am done watching professional sports. ALL of them.

This is the culture just before the coming of the beast.  Soon, the world will be worshiping him and accepting his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

And I’ll be in heaven with my “ignorant” Savior watching the world descend into literal hell on earth before the REAL hell comes upon them.

Train Wreck Time Coming: Obama Is About To Do To America’s Education System What He Did To America’s Health Care System

Nancy Pelosi expressed the essence of ObamaCare marvelously when she said, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

What was in it was an unmitigated disaster.  What was in it was the complete socialism of a system that was already reeling under the giant millstone of socialism.  What was in it was the mass retirement of physicians.  What was in it was the grand bait and switch as Obama decided that nurses and pharmacists and other lesser trained and less competent medical practitioners were every bit as competent to treat you as any highly skilled medical doctor.  What was in it was the robbery of $716 billion dollars from Medicare - which was already well on the way to bankruptcy.  What was in it was hell – the hell that the American people richly deserve for not only electing but foolishly re-electing this wicked man.

And what was in it, as a key Democrat Senator recently expressed, was “a huge train wreck coming down”:

“I am very concerned that not enough is being done so far—very concerned. When I’m home, small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect, they don’t know what affordability rules are, they don’t know what penalties may apply…

A lot of people have no idea about all of this.… I just see a huge train wreck coming down, and you and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see any results yet.”  — Senator Max Baucus, Democrat

But allow me to quote Obama’s failed Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton (who was speaking about the Obama administration refusing to accept responsibility for any of the lies it directed its underlings to tell the American people when it was attempting to cover up the Benghazi fiasco before the election):

“What difference at this point does it make?”

I loved Rush Limbaugh suggesting that as the title of Hillary’s new book to correspond with her run for president in 2016 so she could complete the destruction of America just in case Obama isn’t able to pull it off.

And of course, it doesn’t make any difference if ObamaCare results in the deaths of millions of Americans any more than it didn’t make any difference that Obama callously allowed the first U.S. Ambassador since the failed Carter years to be murdered under his own failed leadership.

While Obama tries to hamstring America’s ability to defend itself, he has the confidence of knowing that he was the greatest and most powerful propaganda arsenal ever assembled.  He knows that the mainstream media will tell any lie and ignore any fact in order to defend their messiah and undermine their political enemies (otherwise known as “Republicans”).

He knows that he can lie over and over and over again and never be held accountable.

And so Obama knows that, in his “fundamental transformation of America” from a successful nation to a third world Marxist banana republic, he was to throw his monkey wrenches into far more than just the health care system.

Read what Obama has done to ruin America’s public education system (even more than liberals had already ruined it).  And I want you to note that the description of the coming train wreck that Obama will create for our education system comes from one of the most liberal editorial boards in the entire nation:

A curriculum crunch for California
The new Common Core State Standards are supposed to be implemented in schools in 2014. But the state is far from ready.
April 22, 2013|By The Times editorial board

While education reformers in Sacramento continue to obsess about how easy it should be to fire teachers and how important tests should be in evaluating their performance, almost no one is talking about the central issue of what students are supposed to be learning in the near future.

A sea change is coming to schools in California, one of the 45 states that have adopted what are known as the Common Core State Standards. The idea of the new standards is to bring some consistency to education from state to state, and to better prepare students for the work they’ll be expected to do in college and their jobs. Though the Obama administration couldn’t legally force new standards on states, it threatened to deny grant money under the federal Race to the Top program if they didn’t create and adopt common standards.

The standards are designed to push students to deeper levels of understanding and analysis. They call on teachers to cover fewer topics but to delve into each more thoroughly, and they discourage rote learning in favor of fuller understanding of the material. In math, for example, it might be less important for students to give the correct answer to a problem than to be able to describe the best process for reaching the solution. In California, the curriculum standards and the new tests that go with them are supposed to be implemented in the 2014-15 school year.

That’s soon, and at the rate California is going, it won’t be ready. The core curriculum standards lay out extensive guidelines about the knowledge and skills that students should master in each grade of public school, in both reading and math. But there are many complicated steps involved in turning those guidelines into a day-to-day educational plan for California schools, and the state isn’t even close to halfway through them. It hasn’t figured out how to go about training teachers, and won’t begin to adopt new textbooks — a slow and politically rancorous process — for at least two years.

What’s more, common core is expensive, requiring extensive new training for teachers, new textbooks and computers on which the new tests must be taken. It’s unclear where the state will find the money.

At the rate the state is going, teachers will end up being trained before the English curriculum is even in place, and instruction would start before the new textbooks are in anyone’s hands. Yet if the school reform movement has its way, teachers will be evaluated in part based on how well their students do on the very different standardized tests that go with the new curriculum. Reflecting the concern that teachers throughout the state have been expressing, one California teacher recently tweeted that within a couple of years, “we start testing on standards we’re not teaching with curriculum we don’t have on computers that don’t exist.”

Teachers justifiably fret that they’re being set up for failure. Schools worry about finding the money to make all this happen.

The situation led Arun Ramanathan, director of the reform organization Education Trust-West, to write a recent commentary for an education website saying: “Is this the best time for reformers to focus so much attention in Sacramento on teacher evaluation legislation incorporating student growth? Or should we be working to focus policymakers on the investments necessary to prepare all teachers to successfully teach the new standards in order to accelerate student growth?” Considering that one of Education Trust-West’s major objectives has been to include test scores in teacher evaluations, these are remarkable — and crucially important — questions.

Experts are divided over the value of the new curriculum standards, which might or might not lead students to the deeper reading, reasoning and writing skills that were intended. But on this much they agree: The curriculum will fail if it isn’t carefully implemented with meaningful tests that are aligned with what the students are supposed to learn. Legislators and education leaders should be putting more emphasis on helping teachers get ready for common core and giving them a significant voice in how it is implemented. And if the state can’t get the right elements in place to do that by 2014, it would be better off delaying the new curriculum a couple of years and doing it right, rather than allowing common core to become yet another educational flash in the pan that never lives up to its promise.

Education is health care, part deux.  Obama is destroying America, entire institutions at a time.

Obama has destroyed America’s economy: thanks to him, we now have the lowest labor participation rate in more than 34 years (again, since the failed Carter years):

And Obama has given us a labor participation rate that is so completely godawful that if we used the same labor participation rate as that which Bush handed over to Obama, unemployment would be measured at about 14% right now.

The labor participation rate measures the percentage of working-age Americans who are employed. And there is no question when one considers it that Obama has destroyed the American job engine (that existed in the private sector until he killed it) with his socialism, his big government crony capitalist fascist state, his war on business.

Again, I talked about that when I pleaded with the American people to NOT choose stupidity and suicide in the 2012 election:

In 2010 – and this was AFTER we supposedly were out of the recession in Obama’s “wreckovery” – the labor participation rate was 64.5%, which was at a 25-year low (i.e., lower than it had EVER been under Bush).

In 2011, the labor participation rate dropped to 63.9%, the lowest level in 27 years.

Last year in 2012 under Obama’s failed policies it fell to the lowest level in 30 years.

And here we are today. You’ve got to go back to the dismal failure of the Carter era in the late 1970s to get such an awful participation rate. It’s now the worst its been in 34 years.

Stupid people can’t see it, I know, but THERE’S A REALLY BAD TREND going on under this demonic administration.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has cursed America with the lowest labor participation rate in American history – because in the 1970s, the labor force largely consisted of men with women largely running the households and raising the next generation.  It is actually FAR worse than it was in 1979.

Obama doesn’t need intelligent, educated children.  The only way he would need that would be if he were creating jobs for those children to fill.  Instead, what Obama needs is more welfare dependency.  Because the more America is dependent on the State, the more it will vote for Obama and traitors like him.

We need to be even MORE stupid to keep voting for the hell that we’ve voted for over the last two presidential elections.  And Obama is delivering on that vapid stupidity by destroying what little “edukashun” that liberal teachers unions and Democrats hadn’t already ruined.

The beast is coming.  And the same Democrats who have worshiped Obama will worship the Antichrist and take the mark of the final big-government liberal who will complete the State’s takeover of the economy.  Only the most wicked and most ignorant generation in history would vote for such a thing.  Which is why we need these liberal education “reforms.”

Following Obama Into Hell: California Leads The Nation In Taxing Both Its Citizens And Itself Into Mediocrity

Liberalism and the Democrat Party that stands for secular progressive liberalism NEVER fails to deliver failure; just as they never fail to deliver on demagoguery to blame others for their failure.

That has been the one constant thing about Obama’s God damn America that his spiritual mentor and “reverend” prophesied.

Want stifling regulations?  Vote Democrat.  ObamaCare was a cancer surgically inserted into the bowels of America’s health care system.  It was designed to kill that system and leave nothing behind but socialism.  In terms of regulations, the 2,700 pages of “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” ObamaCare have so far equalled more than 20,000 pages of sweeping new regulations.  US News & World Report told us that just six pages of ObamaCare equaled 429 pages of regulations.

And it’s supposed to be some kind of mystery that Senator Max Baucus - one of the top Democrat Senators who created this monster in the first place – is now warning that the unmitigated disaster of ObamaCare is going to be a train wreck if there ever was one.

But don’t worry, liberals.  Because Democrats – the most dishonest and hypocritical people in the entire history of the world – are already hard at work blaming Republicans for the abject failure of ObamaCare.

Obama’s regulations have been a nightmare that have added up to well over $2 trillion in hidden taxes.  And small businesses have been driven OUT of business trying to comply with the burdens Obama keeps piling on their backs.

Our economy is in a shambles.  This is THE worst “recovery” in history under Obama.  The man who looked a nation in the eye and deceitfully claimed that his stimulus would create millions of “shovel-ready jobs” – only later to joke that  ”Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected” –  later acknowledged in spite of his lies that there never WERE any shovel-ready jobs to begin with.

It didn’t matter.  America is like Nazi Germany now.  It doesn’t matter how many lies our Führer tells us; we still want to worship him so badly it hurts (literally!).  And so as big of a big lie as “shovel-ready” was, it was a huge buzzword for him that struck political gold.  He never had to answer for his lies because he kept shifting the blame for his promises and demagoguing somebody else.  And the liberal mainstream media eagerly participated in the lie to cover up for Obama’s past lies.

The fact of the matter is that Obama’s “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” aka “the Stimulus” actually RAISED the unemployment rate.  The stimulus was a failure that cost America not a mere $862 billion but actually more like $3.27 TRILLION.  But after so many trillions of dollars pissed away from America’s grandchildren, who is even counting?  Or as Hillary Clinton said – in dismissing yet another Obama scandal and debacle – “what difference at this point does it make?“

And the answer, of course, is none at all.  Truth is irrelevant and facts don’t matter in God damn America.  That’s why we’re going to go down harder than any nation in history has EVER gone down.

I am reminded of the similarity between Obama and FDR that liberals themselves made in Newseek Magazine when Obama took office.  I am reminded that FDR prolonged the Great Depression by seven miserable years with all of his liberal social re-engineering and his massive government takeover of the economy.  And I am reminded that FDR was an evil man who is burning in hell right now.

Just like Obama will be.  And just like California arguably already IS (and see here).

Look over this list of taxes that secular humanist government worshipers have inflicted on the residents of California.  See how many of them are going to hit the little guy – unless little guys don’t buy cars and never buy gasoline to put in those cars – and then think of Obama promising that your taxes wouldn’t go up one DIME only to lie to you like the liar he is.

Soaking California taxpayers, again 
For the politicians in Sacramento, there can never be enough revenue or regulation.
By Lloyd Billingsley
April 17, 2013

Gas prices are displayed as a motorcyclist pumps gas into his motorcycle at a Chevron gas station San Francisco. The California Board of Equalization recently voted to implement a statewide excise tax on gasoline starting July 1 that will increase the tax by 3.5 cents to 39.5 cents per gallon. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images / March 1, 2013)

Now that they have filed their income tax returns and written their checks, many Californians are starting to realize that government greed is no laughing matter.

In November, California voters approved Proposition 30, raising the state’s top income tax rate to 13.3%, an increase of more than 29%. The state sales tax now ranges from 7.5% to 10%, the highest statewide rate in the nation.

The tax increases are supposed to raise an additional $6 billion in revenue. But that’s not enough for California politicians. They want more.

The California State Board of Equalization, for example — a government agency that collects sales, fuel, alcohol, tobacco and “use” taxes — recently approved a 9% increase in the excise tax on gasoline, raising it to 39.5 cents a gallon effective July 1. That’s a large increase in a state where businesses and workers depend heavily on their cars and gas prices already average more than $4 a gallon.

There’s more coming from the Legislature. Assembly Bill 1002 would raise the $46 basic annual vehicle registration and renewal fee by $6, supposedly to encourage greater use of bicycles, buses and other transportation modes with smaller carbon footprints than cars.

Senate Bill 700 would require Californians to pay 5 cents for every paper and plastic shopping bag they get at the store, supposedly to raise money for cities and parks.

SB 622 would tax consumers a penny an ounce when they purchase bottled tea, sport drinks, energy drinks and other beverages. That would add nearly $1 to the price of a six-pack of 16-ounce sodas. The excuse for this is to fight childhood obesity and dental disease.

SB 391 would impose an additional $75 state fee on top of existing county charges for recording various legal documents in real estate transactions, such as deeds, liens and so forth. This measure will supposedly support affordable housing.

In the war against gun violence, AB 760 would impose a 5 cents a bullet sales tax on ammunition purchases, on top of the existing sales tax. The supposed purpose of this new tax is to fund expanded mental health services.

Under SB 782, bars and restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages and offer adult entertainment, such as exotic dancing, would get slapped with a $10 a person fun tax — or is it a sin tax? These funds supposedly would be used to prevent sexual assault and provide treatment for victims.

California politicians also are intent on making it more expensive and cumbersome to operate businesses in the Golden State, even as the state’s unemployment rate stands at 9.6%, one of the highest in the nation.

SB 254, the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act, seeks to eliminate the blight of illegally dumped mattresses. It would do so by requiring mattress manufacturers to submit recovery and recycling plans to the state, with the goal of a 75% compliance rate by 2020. The bill would require mattress retailers to pick up the old mattress when they deliver a new one, and would be funded by a “quarterly administrative fee” paid by manufacturers (which, of course, in the real world would undoubtedly be passed on to consumers).

The authors of these proposed measures are unable to predict with any certainty how much revenue they would bring in if they became law. But the proposals make it clear that the hundreds of millions of dollars that California already spends on affordable-housing, mental health and other government programs will never be enough. The politicians will always want more.

Onerous regulations, false promises of fiscal responsibility and the relentless quest for more revenue have become hallmarks of California government.

Lloyd Billingsley is communications counsel for the Independent Institute in Oakland.

People are fleeing California like rats fleeing a sinking ship.  All the highest-taxed states have the worst deficits.  All the lowest-taxed states have the lowest deficits.  But that math is beyond rocket science to liberals for whom reality is irrelevant compared to their glorious Marxist theory.

You literally have to be demon-possessed to believe that you can tax your way into prosperity. But “demon-possessed” is exactly the state America – and the state of the leading state in God damn America – is in right now.

California deserves it.  As does every single American.  You ALL deserve to pay shockingly high taxes to pay for your emperor.  And the poorer you are, the more tax you deserve to pay for your part in this national wickedness in re-electing this wicked man.

Obama’s Economy Has Yet ANOTHER ‘Arab Spring’ As Employment Collapses To Less Than HALF What We Were Told To Expect. And The Beast Is Coming.

Why do I compare Obama’s economy to the so-called “Arab Spring”?  Think back: when the Arab world first began rioting, the liberal-dominated mainstream media coined it “the Arab Spring.”  It was a wonderful thing, they claimed.  It was the Arab world blossoming under Obama and claiming “democracy.”

We now know in hindsight that that was all a giant wave of lies coming from both the Obama White House and his Joseph Goebbels’-style media propaganda machine (see also here and then see here).  We’ve seen close historic U.S. allies topple to the Muslim Brotherhood; we’ve seen an embrace of sharia law from these “democrats”; we’ve seen blood baths of vicious war.

And of course we saw an Obama who claimed credit for that “Arab Spring” (see also here) only to blame everything else instead when it went to hell.

And that’s the way it has been with Obama’s economy.  Over and over again, he took credit for it – only to proceed to demonize the very thing he had taken credit for as he blamed Republicans for the failure of what he had promised would be a success.

Remember that term “green shoots”?  Obama promised that a turnaround was just around the corner, hyped the “green shoots” of his stimulus and promised that happy days were returning?

His false promises are now an annual event.  Let me go back to one year ago to May 2012:

As Economy Sputters, Obama Tries Distraction
Posted 05/02/2012 06:56 PM ET

Economy: It’s no wonder President Obama wants to direct everyone’s attention to far-off Afghanistan these days. The economic news here at home is looking increasingly grim.

Just 28 days after Time magazine ran an April 2 cover story boasting that “in the past few weeks, signs of economic expansion have been everywhere” it warned that “the economy might be stalling.”

The article pointed to “disappointing” news that Q1 GDP had climbed just 2.2% — below expectations — and job growth in March was 120,000, also a miss.

Now, two more troubling signs have emerged. The government reported on Wednesday that new factory orders fell 1.5% in March, the steepest drop since March 2009, when the country was still in recession.

Then ADP reported that private employment climbed just 119,000 in April — the smallest gain in seven months and also far below expectations. The April employment report comes out Friday, which economists think will show an unimpressive 160,000 job gain.

Seems that, once again, all the talk about “green shoots” and “turning the corner” and reaching “escape velocity” are just more false hopes.

Instead, we’re starting to get another round of economic reports that contain “unexpectedly” bad news.

I wrote about Obama’s bogus “green shoots” a year before that in June 2011.  And cited articles from 2010 and 2009 where Obama had made the same bull crap promises with the same economic tank coming after he made those promises.  Oh, after the mockery of his “green shoots,” he came up with a different term that meant the same thing, such as “recovery summer.”  But it’s been the same promise that Lucy keeps making to Charlie Brown.  And unfortunately the American people were as naive and as stupid as Charlie Brown in believing that Obama really would hold the economic football so we could kick it into the air.  Again.  And again.

Was sequestration to blame for the economic plunge last May?

Now we’re at a job creation level that made last year’s miserable job creation level look wonderful in comparison.  But it’s too late to do anything about it, American fools: you voted for it.  And you deserve it and a lot worse just as you’ll eventually be getting the eternity in hell that you deserve.

The liberal-owned financial world that contributed to much to Obama’s reelection (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan) predicted we’d have 190,000 new jobs.  Surprise!  We got the “unexpected” dismal level of 88,000.  Which aint even HALF what they said it would be.

That 88,000 falls WELL BELOW what we needed just to keep up with population growth.  We need at least 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the growth in population.  We are LOSING ground under this failed presidency.

And Obama has given us a labor participation rate that is so completely godawful that if we used the same labor participation rate as that which Bush handed over to Obama, unemployment would be measured at about 14% right now.

The labor participation rate measures the percentage of working-age Americans who are employed.  And there is no question when one considers it that Obama has destroyed the American job engine (that existed in the private sector until he killed it) with his socialism, his big government crony capitalist fascist state, his war on business.

Again, I talked about that when I pleaded with the American people to NOT choose stupidity and suicide in the 2012 election:

In 2010 – and this was AFTER we supposedly were out of the recession in Obama’s “wreckovery” –  the labor participation rate was 64.5%, which was at a 25-year low (i.e., lower than it had EVER been under Bush).

In 2011, the labor participation rate dropped to 63.9%, the lowest level in 27 years.

Last year in 2012 under Obama’s failed policies it fell to the lowest level in 30 years.

And here we are today.  You’ve got to go back to the dismal failure of the Carter era in the late 1970s to get such an awful participation rate.  It’s now the worst its been in 34 years.

Stupid people can’t see it, I know, but THERE’S A REALLY BAD TREND going on under this demonic administration.

What is our actual unemployment rate if Obama didn’t get rewarded for crushing the spirits of Americans who desperately want jobs and driving them out of the job market?  It would be 14 percent.  Instead, Obama can keep taking credit for the unemployment rate going down and down even as the American people give up ever having a job.  It’s like I derisively pointed out a year ago when I wrote an article with the title: “Unemployment Rate: At ‘Rate’ We’re Going, We’ll Have 0% Unemployment But No One Will Have An Actual Job.”  And when Bush left office, people stayed unemployed less than HALF as long as they are staying unemployed today as Obama has gutted any incentive for any employer to hire anybody.

Year after year Obama has failed to deliver.  Year after year he had something else to blame,something else to demagogue, to explain away his abject failure to create the jobs he promised with his crony capitalist policies in which he appointed himself and his giant government the sole right to appoint who wins and who loses, who succeeds and who fails.

Like I said, America.  You voted for this.  You deserve it.  And the people who voted for Obama in the highest numbers: young people, black people, Hispanics and women – have the worst employment figures of all.  They are getting what they deserved.  And they deserve far worse, so Obama will give them far worse.

Now Obama is blaming the sequester for his current “green shoots/recovery summer” failure.  In spite of the fact that the damn sequester was HIS idea, which HE signed into law, and which HE swore to use his veto pen to protect when Republicans wanted to overturn it (see also here).  Oh, and the fact also is that Republicans offered Obama a way to manage the sequestration cuts so that the American people would not feel so much pain, but Obama, WANTING the people to suffer so he could falsely demonize Republicans for that suffering, refused the authority.

Let’s also not forget that Democrats wanted this sequester and they got what they wanted.

Was sequestration to blame for 2009?  2010?  2011?  I mean, the sequestration thing Obama is now demagoguing as being the cause for all the economic calamity didn’t even exist.  Right?

Obama is a cynical liar without shame,  without integrity and without honor.  His political brilliance is in the fact that he never underestimates the sheer stupidity of the American sheep who used to be the American people.

If you are a pathologically morally stupid human being – which based on the polls you likely are – you will decide that Obama is not to blame yet again.

I remind the world that when George W. Bush was president, he had to contend with not just a Democrat House that hated him and plotted his destruction under the rule of Nancy Pelosi, but a Democrat Senate that hated him and plotted his destruction under the rule of Harry Reid, as well.  Just in case you want to blame Obama’s failed economy on the Republican House.

Democrats are abject hypocrites year after year.  The only thing you can trust about them is that they will demagogue and slander and blame and lie.

If you want to blame the tanking economy on the sequester, at least have the integrity to demand that Obama – who again thought it up in the first place, signed it into law and then threatened to veto anything that prevented it – resign from office.  But the fact of the matter is that in spite of two months of pathologically insane Obama lies, the sequester has had so little economic impact that it has had nothing to do with anything (all the sequester did was cut the projected rate of growth – and many of the projected rate cuts don’t occur until years in the future).

If you want to know why the economy is now officially crippled again, blame Obama, blame Democrats and blame their tax hikes.

Unlike Obama, Republicans have been incredibly consistent in pointing out the historic fact that tax cuts increase economic activity and tax revenue, and that tax hikes do the exact opposite by undermining economic activity as job creators and investors have all of their incentives to grow and invest seized from them.

ObamaCare – which is an absolute catastrophic failure – was the largest tax hike on the middle class in American history (and see here).  And now even the überliberal Los Angeles Times now acknowledges that is true:

The threat of higher costs could alienate many of the policyholders the state needs to keep in the fold in order to offset the increased costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.

According to the state, about 1.3 million people who are middle-income or higher and already have coverage not through an employer will bear the brunt of the higher costs. These are individuals making more than $46,000 and families earning more than $94,000 annually. People below those income levels qualify for federal subsidies.

Look at some of my article titles which pointed out this fact:

Even ObamaCare Backers Now Finally Admit To Seeing Shocking Premium Hikes Coming Due To The Evil Mark-Of-The-Beast ObamaCare Law

This Is Amazing.  30% Of Doctors Leaving Medicine Under ObamaCare.  Just As We Said.  Left Is Handling It Dishonestly.  Just Like They Always Do.

Get This: The CHEAPEST ObamaCare Plan Will Cost $20,000 A Year Per Family, Says The IRS

Somebody Had To Pay For All That ‘Free’ Stuff Obama Stuck Into ObamaCare; Turns Out It’s Companies And Their Workers

Lying Democrats Demonize Romney-Ryan For Gutting Medicare; Meanwhile, ONE-THIRD Of Funding For ObamaCare Comes Out Of Medicare

ObamaCare Killing Economic Growth And Job Expansion – And We Aint Seen NOTHING Yet!

What the hell did thinking people think would be the effect on jobs?  We’re seeing what conservatives said would happen: businesses culling their workforce to remain under that magic “fifty” number so they could escape ObamaCare hell; businesses cutting people to less than full-time so they could escape ObamaCare hell.  And NOBODY expanding their payrolls.

We TOLD you this would happen.  And it is amazing that the American people now prefer socialist and frankly Marxist LIES to the truth and to reality.  And to then reward a liar without shame to slant that truth and reality again and again as the consequences of his immoral policies rain down like the black rain in the aftermath of the nuclear bombs the fascist Japanese demanded fall on them before they would surrender.

Remember the  tax hikes Obama got in January?  Obama demanded – and got – $620 billion in new tax hikes in exchange for only $15 billion in spending cuts.  For a ratio of 41:1 in tax hikes to spending cuts.  Obama called that” balanced.”

Mind you, Obama initially demanded over $1.5 TRILLION in new tax hikes.  So you know where his heart is: punishing job creators and investors in America.

Add to that the payroll taxes that nailed the middle class.  That was another $115 billion in tax hikes just for 2013 alone.

Add to that the $800 billion in NEW tax hikes Obama is now demanding.

And explain to me why a rich person, an investor, a business, should do anything other than protect themselves against this seizure of what they worked so hard to build.  How does taxing productivity generate productivity?  How does punishing wealth production generate more wealth production?  If I beat you with a bat every time you produce, how long will you keep trying to produce?

You are getting what you voted for.  You are getting a foretaste of the hell you will one day spend the rest of your eternity in for your role in the participation in the murder of 56 million innocent babies since 1973.  You will get what you deserve for voting for the Democrat Party Platform of Romans Chapter One.

I put it crystal clear in November after the election fiasco: Congratulations, America, You Got What You Voted For: Soaring Unemployment, A Crashing DOW.  Next Comes The Beast (You’ll Be Worshiping Him Soon).  And: Obama Gives America One Of Worst Post-Presidential Market Plunges In History As Businesses And Investors Say Sayonara To Economic Growth, Jobs.

Do I look like I’ll be right or wrong???  And, again, unlike Obama – who was for the sequestration before he was against it – I’ve been consistent in explaining why America would end up in misery under this most wicked president in American history.

We are watching the world melt down.  We are watching Iran get nuclear weapons – after Democrats mocked Bush for warning of that fact - and will one day soon reap hell as Iran seeks Armageddon.  We are watching North Korea pursue a level of brinksmanship unlike anything we have ever seen.  We are watching China and Russia rise up against us and block us at every turn – while they rob us blind with no response from Obama.  Thugs know they can push us around now because of our weak and failed leadership.  And we are watching our own America become weaker and weaker as Obama has gutted American jobs – with tens of millions of jobs now vaporized as measured by the dwindling labor participation rate – even as he keeps claiming success for his nonexistent economic turnaround.  Before Obama, we could fight two wars simultaneously; now it’s a real question whether we can even fight one.

The beast is coming.  The Bible describes him as a man who will criminalize the God of the Bible while imposing the most gargantuan fascist government stranglehold on the private economy ever witnessed in human history.  In other words, he will be a Democrat.  That’s the Party that is working overtime to criminalize God even as they advance a giant welfare state to replace God.

We’ve just seen two appalling sings of the coming financial ruin: in the theft of private bank account holdings in Cyprus and in the confiscation of bondholders’ investments in the bankruptcy of Stockton, California.  The first has been compared to being a “Sarajevo moment” in which an event in a tiny country triggered catastrophic global consequences.  The cat is out of the bag; the European Union has described the confiscation of privately held bank assets as a “new template” to follow in other bailed-out nations’ financial crises.  Countries who cannot pay for all of their socialism will be encouraged to seize the assets of banking account holders.  And what spillover effect will that have in terms of confidence in the banking system?  How many people will start withdrawing their holdings fearing their savings will be targeted next?  The second has been in Stockton, California, where bondholders are going to get screwed while union pensions remain sacrosanct.  How does that do anything but discourage holding bonds in cities that could fall next?  What impact will that have on the interest rate of such future bonds?  Would you like to lose YOUR money so completely out of control union pensions can remain untouched???  How can bondholders not flee from this idiocy???  How can that not trigger more and more cities – starved of funds – from declaring bankruptcies in a domino effect???

We’re facing the collapse of the entire global financial system, folks.  And the night before it all just melts down and implodes, I promise you this: the “experts” that will be trotted out by the mainstream media will assure everybody that everything will be fine the night before the collapse occurs.  This is a house of cards that is going to catastrophically fall; and when it falls you will deserve it and your children will deserve it.  Because the Bible makes it plain that a nation suffers for the wickedness of its king.

Abject hypocrite liberals tell me I’m angry and hateful.  Only to hate me with a hate that I NEVER had for my opponents even as they self-righteously lecture me about hate.  And I AM angry: I have watched America go from walking toward the beast and ultimate collapse to running to fall at the feet of the beast and worship him.  Our real debt is not the $16.7 trillion you hear about; it is HUNDREDS of trillions.  This nation is doomed.  In the four miserable years of Obama, this nation has crossed the threshold and there is no way to avoid complete collapse and the ensuing mark of the beast.

The same people who voted so eagerly for Obama will vote for the Antichrist.  And they will get the hell they deserve both on earth and in eternity.

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally – to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Liberal Fascist Hypocrite Joan Walsh Says It’s ‘Racist’ To Go After Obama’s Family – After Viciously Slandering Bush’s Family In 2001.

Joan Walsh is a typical liberal hypocrite.  She literally says it’s racist to do what she herself did.  Only of course it wasn’t racist when she did it.

Here’s her article attacking George W. Bush as a father and then attacking his daughters back in 2001 (note that the picture of Bush’s daughter below was a prominent part of the Salon.com piece) back when it was wonderful to demonize the president:

Thursday, May 31, 2001 01:00 AM PDT
The first family’s alcohol troubles
President Bush downplayed his own drinking problem and hid a DUI. Now his daughters are making news for underage drinking. Is there a connection?
By Joan Walsh

Enlarge

I don’t envy Jenna and Barbara Bush, going off to college under the watchful eye of the Secret Service and the international media. But the sudden flurry of headlines about the first twins’ alcohol-related mishaps raises new questions about the way their father handled his own “young and irresponsible” past.

I always thought it was a bad decision for Bush, as a politician, to refuse to acknowledge his wild youth — which, by his own account, lasted until he was 40. But now it seems it was a bad choice for Bush as a father. After his 1976 drunken-driving arrest was revealed last year, Bush said he didn’t admit it when he decided to run for president because he didn’t want his daughters to know about it. That was a mistake, and the twins’ recent run of bad behavior seems designed to let him know that.

There’s no evidence either twin has a drinking problem, but the string of news items involving their partying and scrapes with the law in the last few months can’t be ignored. First came the tale of Secret Service agents ferrying home Jenna’s boyfriend after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then there were randy National Enquirer photos of Jenna, a University of Texas freshman, and a beer-drinking pal, and a story about her alleged marijuana use. Yale freshman Barbara, supposedly the studious twin, had a false I.D. confiscated at a New Haven, Conn., bar. In April, the Enquirer featured a lurid tale of Barbara’s drunken spring-break binge in Mexico, and by the end of the month all major newspapers were carrying a story about Jenna being cited by police at an Austin bar for underage drinking, while Secret Service agents waited outside.

Now, barely a week after a court appearance to deal with that alcohol citation, Jenna has been caught again using a false I.D. to buy alcohol at an Austin restaurant, with sister Barbara at her side.

Of course, many of us would have provided lively tabloid fodder in college if we’d been subjected to the scrutiny Barbara and Jenna Bush must endure. And their college drinking doesn’t mean they’ll turn into alcoholics as adults. Most teenage party girls become responsible citizens, eventually. Still, their recklessness in the first months of their father’s presidency suggests their parents screwed up by downplaying and even denying President Bush’s own drinking problem.

Bush’s he-man decision to quit drinking cold turkey is the stuff of legend. The morning after a boozy 40th birthday party in 1986, he woke up at Colorado’s tony Broadmoor Resort and decided, on his own, to get sober. Alcohol had begun to “compete for my affections,” Bush said later. Certainly he didn’t need Alcoholics Anonymous, he told the Washington Post: “I don’t think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn’t have the genuine addiction. I don’t know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess.”

But his close friends tell a slightly different story: “Once he got started, he couldn’t, didn’t shut it off,” Bush’s buddy Don Evans, now commerce secretary, told the Washington Post last year. “He didn’t have the discipline.” That sounds a lot like an addiction, though only Bush himself knows for sure.

He refused to discuss details of his drinking or rumored drug use throughout his political campaigns, relying on the stock excuse, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” His parents have also repeatedly denied he had a drinking problem, even after several family crises involving his drinking came to light: an ugly Christmas confrontation with his father in 1972, after Bush drove drunk with his brother Marvin, crashed into a neighbor’s garbage cans and offered to fight “mano a mano” with his father; and the 1976 DUI incident near the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, with his then-teenage sister Dorothy in the car.

We know Bush’s problem drinking, including the DUI, was a family secret. The night a reporter broke the DUI story, Laura Bush called both daughters, in Austin and New Haven, to break the news to them. “I made the decision that as a dad I didn’t want my girls doing the kinds of things I did, and I told them not to drink and drive,” Bush told reporters. But he didn’t tell them about his own arrest.

The secrecy, of course, was a mistake. Anyone who works with alcoholics and their families knows honesty is crucial: The drinking parent needs to come clean about his or her problems, and kids need to understand the family dynamics that were established around the drinking. And as teenagers, they need to know that alcoholism is a disease — whether because of psychology or physiology or some combination of the two — that is remarkably hereditary, and think about their own drinking in that context.

“We know for a fact that [Jenna's] father had a long history of alcohol use and abuse,” Lynn Ponton, a psychiatrist who studies teenage risk-taking, told Salon. “And this is an opportunity for the Bushes … to talk honestly with their children about risk-taking and really provide guidance and increase communication. And I would wonder what type of communication is actually taking place.”

I wonder, too. I’d bet there hasn’t been enough communication in the WASP-y Texas Bush family, and it looks as if the first twins are acting out as a result. Even with a Secret Service detail, there are ways for young women to party, if they’re discreet. Clearly, the first twins aren’t. Their blatant risk-taking and public partying (the Secret Service waits outside the bars where they drink illegally?) seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father’s drinking never triggered.

I’m reluctant to play family therapist for a family I’ve never met, but I’d say that Bush may have gotten past voters with evasiveness about his drinking problem, but he hasn’t satisfied his daughters. And if he sticks to the sanitized, up-from-Broadmoor version of the story, he may someday find he won the White House at the cost of an honest relationship with his daughters.

An earlier version of this story appeared in Bushed! last month.

That was then.  As liberal fascism always declares, it can’t be fascist when we do it.  So liberal roach-thug Walsh apparently gets pissed off about what is actually a pretty straightforward piece at Breitbart and writes this stinking pile of crap that these days passes as “journalism” (note the considerably more flattering picture of Obama’s daughters in which they look considerably less drunk than their choice for Jenna’s pic above).

For the record, I read over the Breitbart piece.  Somehow I missed the parts that Walsh alleges are there about a) the color of Obama’s skin; b) the unfitness of Obama as a parent; or c) the disgracefulness of the president’s daughters.  Please note, however, how Walsh just flat-out poured hate on George W. Bush as a father and slammed his daughters even after acknowledging that she had any actual factual basis for doing so:

Tuesday, Mar 26, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
How not to seem like a racist
A tip for right-wingers angry about charges of racial bias: Try treating the Obama daughters with decency
By Joan Walsh

EnlargeSasha and Malia Obama(Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

You’ll remember back in December, the NRA went after Sasha and Malia with an ad insisting that the fact that they have armed protection, when the administration was supposedly blocking armed security at America’s schools (actually, it wasn’t), was the height of hypocrisy – ignoring the many threats to their safety faced by the children of presidents and the tradition of Secret Service protection, for all of them.

The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper went even crazier, with a piece alleging that the girls’ school, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, had armed guards, too. Anyone familiar with the Quaker tradition of nonviolence found that claim strange, and of course, like most claims about the Obama family that come from the right, it turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately for the untalented Mr. Boyle, journalists have a consensus about not revealing the location of the presidents’ children’s vacations. Reporters don’t write about minor first children except when they’re attending “official or semi-official events.” It’s considered a security risk. As the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported last year:

The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

“There’s a general feeling among the press corps that it wants to be respectful” of the president’s children, said Caren Bohan, the White House reporter for Reuters who is president of the WHCA.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

Esquire’s Charlie Pierce put it better than I can:

What possible interest does this serve, except to titillate the dark and envious nether parts of Boyle’s 22 readers? (No link, because fk that pudgy little monster.) There is no possible news value to this. Sooner or later, the frolicks of what my pal [Eric] Boehlert calls the “rightwing entertainment complex” are going to get someone killed.

The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.

Drudge is also hyping the president’s vacation with the blaring headline “A vacation a month.” That’s another racially tinged trope on the right, that our first black president seems to be a little, well, lazy, because he can’t stop taking vacations. Of course, Obama is on track to take about a fifth of the vacation days George W. Bush did over his two terms. Obama took 131 vacation days in his first term – which would amount to 262 if he kept that pace in his second term. Bush took a staggering 1,060 vacation days over eight years, by far the most vacation in history (he also took the longest single presidential vacation in the modern era, a full five weeks.) Can someone explain why Obama is supposedly the vacation-hog?

Oh, and the comments on Boyle’s Breitbart.com story are pretty awesome, too. Here’s a good one:

They will indeed grow up to be monsters. Very, very, angry and vengeful monsters. Just like momma… Especially after they are forced to visit their obamination of a father in a federal penitentiary following his impeachment and conviction for Treason… Although I’d far prefer they visit his plot occasionally following his hanging for treason.

Boyle is perfect for his new employer (although he was a pretty good fit for the Daily Caller, too). In a post explaining why he jumped ship (which didn’t mention the higher salary he got), he bragged about “enlisting in Andrew Breitbart’s army … I’m shipping out today. It’s time to go to war.”

A war on the president’s daughters? Boyle ought to talk to some veterans of actual war. What a putz.

Paul Farhi’s story on the media’s traditional treatment of first children quoted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on the political appeal of Obama’s family: “The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.”

That’s true for the vast majority of Americans. But not the haters and racists who belong to Breitbart’s “army.”

The galling, appalling hypocrisy of liberals and liberalism is disgusting beyond belief.

Hey, maybe if Barbara and Jenna Bush had jetset all over the world on other people’s money the way Obama’s daughters have, they wouldn’t have, they wouldn’t have ever had any issues with alcohol.  That and the fact that the Bush daughters were in their college years rather than their grade school years like Sasha and Malia.

I have documented in the past that being “white” is no more a defense against “racism toward whites” than liberals accord to black conservatives for being immune to racism because they’re black.  Do I seriously need to post articles of liberals going after conservtive blacks in a racist manner?  Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Michael Steele, Stacey Dash, Dr. Benjamin Carson, pretty much ANY black person who has ever expressed conservative views in his or her life, is labelled “Uncle Tom,” Oreo Cookie and far, far worse.  So blacks can’t be “racist” because of the color of their skin on liberal theory unless they’re conservative blacks – in which case they are the quintessential ESSENCE of racist bigotry regardless of the color of their skin on the view of these self-refuting turds.  And then these hypocrites declare themselves inpeccable – i.e. incapable of sin – while they define their opponents as ONLY capable of nothing BUT sin.

Facts get in the way, of course.

Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who actively despised Jews in his writings.

If you can be a self-hating black, as liberals assert conservative blacks are by definition and if you can be a self-hating Jew, as Karl Marx clearly was, then just how the hell is it impossible to be a self-hating white???

Thus, by liberals’ vicious attacks against black conservatives as being self-hating blacks, and literally by her own diatribe, Joan Walsh is a far-leftist intolerant racist bigot.  She is a self-hating racist race traitor according to her own demonic views.  In addition to being a truly crappy excuse of a human being.

This is what pisses me off about the left above all else: they constantly drool out the most vicious and self-righteous slanders while demonizing everyone on the other side for doing the tiniest FRACTION of what they hypocritically do.  Unless you actually want to defend her attack against Bush relative to the innocuous piece that she poured her hate on in Breitbart.

It’s time to go, Walsh, you Nazi.  That that your fellow jackbooted stormtroopers right out of the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda mold will ever make you leave.  Becuase they’re all as hypocritical and as fascist as YOU are: they’re just not as STUPID as you are in your glaring obviousness as a biased ideologue useful idiot.

Note: AJ Delgado took on the hypocrite Joan Walsh first.

Leftist CBS Celebrates That ‘The American Empire Was Destroyed’ By Having ‘Amazing Race’ Contestants Dance Around A Shot-Down B-52 In Hanoi

Maybe CBS can have stops at the Hanoi Hilton to celebrate the crushing of the spirits of American POWs next: “And in this cell an American imperialist with untreated broken bones was tied into the shape of a pretzel between meals of the maggots we fed him.”

CBS had their contestants dancing around the wreckage of a shot-down B-52 in Hanoi.  Four crewmen were captured and endured hell at the hands of North Vietnamese torturers.  Two were never found and listed as MIA, presumed dead.  The plaque CBS had stupid Obama-voting punks dance around declares:

“At 22:00 hours on December 27, 1972, the capital’s anti-aircraft forces shot down this B-52 in the area of Ngoc Ha Village. This is one out of 23 B-52s shot down from Hanoi’s skies. The strategic surprise attack against Hanoi by the B-52s of the American Empire was destroyed”

CBS also required that the contestants attend a musical celebration of anti-American propaganda.  You know, just in case the B-52 thing may have been too subtle in declaration of the hatred CBS has for America.

The program amounted to a victory lap for everything communist in celebration of the conquest of everything that our founding fathers dreamed of when they forged America and enshrined its Constitution.

Just to let you know how patholigically despicable and evil our mainstream media propagandist machine truly is.

It was only two days ago – and I am directly quoting the United States Marine Corps here – that Harry Reid as the leader of the Democrat-possessed Senate enaged in “pure political posturing on the backs of these dead Marines.”

Evil is being spread on top of evil on a giant cake of depraved evil in what was once the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The left are a bitter, demonic group of whining entitlement whores who won’t be happy until America is destroyed and a hammer and sickle flag rises over the ashes of our Capitol.

We can go back to the fact that liberals regarded America’s defeat and humiliation in Vietnam as a great victory.  We can go back to the fact that Bill Clinton – the first president to grow up during that Vietnam era dodged the draft by writing of his loathing for the U.S. military.  We can go back to the fact that after writing himself up for a bunch of medals he didn’t deserve, John Kerry slandered the U.S. military by falsely claiming that he had personally witnessed war crimes that he later admitted he had in fact NOT witnessed (confessing his slander of our miltary when he realized that he himself was in fact a war criminal had he witnessed atrocities but not reported them at the time).  John Kerry further demonstrated that he despised the U.S. military by throwing away medals as if they were garbage.  We can go back to the fact that Harry Reid stated that the U.S. military had lost the Iraq War (which we won in spite of his and his fellow Democrats’ treason) while our soldiers were sacrificing to secure victory.  We can go back to the fact that Barack Obama has absolutely gutted the United States military even more than Bill Clinton and before him Jimmy Carter did.  And of course we can go back to just a few days ago when Harry Reid – and again I’m quoting the Marine Corps – engaged in “pure political posturing on the backs of dead Marines.”

Democrats have a history of being shameful treasonous vermin that goes back nearly fifty years.

This is God damn America, kids.  Not that you godless little punk kids have the moral intelligence or decency to care as you vote for a socialist turd and dance around celebrating America’s humiliation.

I keep saying that the beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  But there are beasts aplenty already here.  And these beasts are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Antichrist.

P.S. To his credit, liberal Bob Beckell was outraged by this appalling display of disgusting anti-Americanism on the part of CBS.  Which pretty much means that the other four conservatives on the cast of “The Five” are beginning to get to him.

Liberals Rejoice At The Destruction Of The Last ‘He-Man.’ When America Needs Him And He Is Nowhere To Be Found, Don’t Forget Who Banished Him.

I came across an amazing piece of rubbish in the rubbish that is the Los Angeles Times.  It is amazing how incredibly deceitful and deliberately disingenuous these propagandists are.  But I’ll wait to respond until after you’ve read this pile of drivel from the “senior culture editor” of the LA Slimes:

Schwarzenegger, your He-Man days have come and gone
March 17, 2013 | 5:00 a.m.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent decision to return as executive editor of Muscle & Fitness and Flex magazines makes one thing abundantly clear: The former bodybuilder, movie star and California governor can’t seem to grasp the simple fact that his era is over.

He tried to ride out the revelation that he had secretly fathered a child with his housekeeper by penning an autobiography that was long on self-aggrandizement and short on introspection. Then he ventured back to the big screen with “The Last Stand,” prompting critics to declare him too old, too odd-looking (who knew Austrians turned orange as they aged?) and too mired in scandal to resurrect his action hero career.

Now he plans to return to his bodybuilding roots because he just doesn’t get it: The He-Man is dead, and few mourn his passing.

While Schwarzenegger was governating, the cultural landscape changed. Women, led by Lara Croft, Buffy and Nikita, gained muscles and martial arts skills on the big screen and small, while men learned how to talk and even (gasp) intuit.

Dr. Gregory House and Don Draper became the objects of serial desire while the cinematic action hero morphed into Robert Downey Jr., more mind and mouth than muscle. James Bond still thrives, but it is Daniel Craig’s scarred, haunted and human Bond, weeping tears of salt, not vermouth. Sylvester Stallone tried to get back in the game too, and “Bullet to the Head” bombed even faster than “The Last Stand.”

It isn’t just anatomy, it’s attitude. Social, economic and environmental concerns have turned on the in-your-face consumer-machismo that Schwarzenegger and other big men made their signature. Bodybuilding, Hummers, the Cuban cigars, the triple Scotches, the wild nights and womanizing are no longer the accoutrement of A-list masculinity.

Nowadays, real men drive hybrids, extol super-foods and worry more about core muscles and resting heart rates than the size of their pecs. Smart is the new sexy, struggling the new strong, insecurity a form of seduction. It helps if you can sing.

The He-Man did not go quietly. Roused to fury by the feminist movement and the quiche-eating New Male, the He-Man took power in the 1980s, both politically and culturally — it’s no coincidence that Schwarzenegger’s film career launched during the Reagan years. Subsequently, he found sustenance in both the “Fast and Furious” video-game generation and the new political right.

But the rise of the woman warrior, both real and fictitious, the increasing acceptance of gay Americans with their richly diverse definitions of masculine and feminine, and a digitally led shift toward Steve Jobs-cerebral over blue-collar-physical forced the classic He-Man into a very real Last Stand.

It all but defined this past election. Mitt Romney, no one’s definition of a He-Man, was recast as Mr. Fix-It, a can-do guy with money-making smarts who might be good to have around the house. Meanwhile, some of his supporters seemed intent on taking up the machismo slack with a game of gender-political chicken.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) convened a House panel on birth control that was all male. Rush Limbaugh called law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” because she thought insurance companies should cover birth control. Then-Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) tried to argue that women could not get pregnant in cases of “legitimate rape” in last year’s GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat. In the Indiana Senate race, Republican Richard Mourdock insisted that abortion not be allowed in cases of rape because such births are in fact a “gift from God.” (Both Akin and Mourdock lost their races.)

Coming from hard-line conservatives, none of these views were new or even surprising, but the response of bipartisan outrage certainly was. The gender gap has been a political reality for years, but during this past election many voters seemed intent on sending a message: “Knock it off, guys.” Smug and sexist just doesn’t fly even among conservative women.

So for another four years we have a president whose wife has better biceps than he does, a man more visually associated with a library than a ranch. In many ways, Barack Obama is the quintessential third-millennium alpha, the antithesis of such He-Man presidents as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton (who, after a life-saving diet of veganism and spousal deference, has also changed with the times).

Obama may be commander in chief of two wars and the man who brought down Osama bin Laden, but unlike most of his predecessors he is rarely seen handling a firearm (and then only shooting at clay targets). He does not yell; he has been known to sing.

Indeed, prompted by the Sandy Hook tragedy, one of the first big fights of his second term is against the National Rifle Assn., arguably the most powerful embodiment of Old Guard masculinity in the country. Certainly NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre followed the He-Man script to the letter when he finally broke his silence after 20 children and six adults were slain by a lone gunman in a matter of minutes. The obvious solution, he said, happily stepping back into a time when men were men and women didn’t have the vote, was to arm all the teachers.

And it isn’t just an American phenomenon. All over the world, in countries where male authority is socially and politically institutionalized, the old models of masculinity are being reconsidered. The recent gang rape and killing of a female student in New Delhi sparked a national uproar that resulted in a government panel examining the widespread abuse of women in India and calling for an end to “a culture of masculinity, a cult of aggression.” In Pakistan, the shooting of 15-year-old Malala Yousafzai by members of the Taliban infuriated by her insistence that girls should receive an education caused international outrage.

Not even the pope, arguably the world’s most spiritual He-Man — head of the most famous patriarchy, defined by his position as infallible, speaking literally in edicts — is immune. Beset by scandal, including and especially the revelations that the Catholic Church has, for decades, ignored and covered up the rape and sexual abuse of children by pedophile priests, the now-former Pope Benedict XVI recently acknowledged that, beset by health issues and general frailty, he was no longer the man for the job and became the first pontiff in centuries to resign.

So out of style is the concept of He-Man masculinity that History, in publicizing its much-anticipated series “The Vikings,” is pushing not only the role of women (did you know they were allowed to own property and go into battle?) but intellectual curiosity. The lead character may be named for a famous Norse pirate, but he’s portrayed as just as interested in acquiring knowledge and technology as he is in slaughter and booty.

If Ragnar the Viking realizes the age of the He-Man is over, perhaps it’s time Arnold Schwarzenegger did too.

– Mary McNamara, Senior Culture Editor

What are her data points?  What actual facts does she offer?  Well, a couple of frankly elderly men tried to make movie comebacks which didn’t go so well.  That, plus a load of lies such as all conservative he-men are pro-rapist, was her basis for declaring that real men are dead, and good riddance to them.

Mary McNamara says that the fact that 66-year-old Schwarzenegger and nearly 67-year-old Stallone can no longer play macho he-men in the movies somehow proves that “he-men” have been vanquished from culture.  What does this idiot think; that if “he-men” were still viable, these two would be able to continue to flex their biceps on the big screen into their nineties???

That proposition is nearly – but not quite – as dishonest as her use of failed Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin and the revulsion of a gang rape in India as “evidence” that real conservative he-men are dead and gone.  Did you know that conservative muscle men all supported gang rape?  Because that was sure as hell news to me.  Did you know that all conservative muscle men cheered when Todd Akin made his stupidly worded statement?  Because damn it I sure didn’t.  I also wasn’t aware that all muscular men everywhere think that all women should be denied an education the way McNamara assures me they do.

Just to point out a little thing called the truth, by the time Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in humiliation, he had long since been a pawn for pretty much ever arrow in the liberal quiver: global warming, ObamaCare, homosexuality and gay marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research.  To frame “the Governator” as some kind of right winger is dishonest nonesense squared.

Let’s just call this Los Angeles Times piece what it is: infantile propaganda for stupid, ignorant, wicked minds.

It’s kind of interesting: I want you to notice that McNamara somehow utterly fails to mention the Navy SEAL Team that went in and killed Osama bin Laden.  I mean, this woman even goes to Pakistan in her propaganda piece, but not to those masculine anachronisms otherwise known as the Navy SEALs.  Because on her dishonest worldview, “he-men” Navy SEALS didn’t really do that job; girl-man Barack Hussein Obama did:

America doesn’t need real actual he-men when we’ve got a posturing coward in our White House.

Those “he-men” Navy SEALs are useless to liberalism.  They’ve been killed off to make way for liberal heroes such as:

Lara Croft – like this anorexic woman is going to kick ass?

and 98-pound weakling – literally! - Buffy:

Yeah, these women are just as tough as any man.  I know it’s true because I saw it on television.

Not only does it not matter that these two pencil thin pencil-necked women would be knocked right on their asses if they tried to take Joe Biden’s advice and fire a shotgun -

- but facts, truth and reality itself don’t matter.  Liberalism urinates on these three things every single day.  And for the record liberalism squats to pee on them.  Because standing up for pretty much ANYTHING is beyond these fools.

Mary McNamara cites Rush Limbaugh.  She deliberately mischaracterizes him, of course.  Limbaugh in point of fact most certainly did NOT say Sandra Fluke was a slut “because she thought insurance companies should cover birth control.”  Rather, Limbaugh said she was a slut for claiming that she and her fellow women at a high-priced Ivy League university – women who would soon be earning six figure salaries – were on Fluke’s testimony having so much out-of-control sex that they were going through $3,000 worth of birth control every single year.  That’s an awful lot of condoms for one girl to need in a year, you know.  Sandra Fluke dishonestly testified that birth control cost $3,000 when in reality it costs $9 per month at Wal-Mart.  Sandra Fluke dishonestly testified that women who were paying $24,000 per SEMESTER at Georgetown University Law School somehow couldn’t possibly afford to pay that nine bucks a month to fund their own personal responsibility.  THAT is why Limbaugh jumped all over Sandra Fluke, all ye dumbasses.  But the truth doesn’t sound as good to Mary McNamara, so so much the worse for the truth.

Anyway, Rush Limbaugh has been predicting that liberals were killing off real men and replacing them with feminist girly men for YEARS now.  And Mary McNamara’s biased piece of crap is actually all the proof you need to know that Limbaugh was right and McNamara is wrong.

I did point out that liberals and truth, facts and reality are like east and west with never the twain meeting.

Which is why I go back to the Navy SEALs – whom Mary McNamara thinks are dead and gone – as evidence that she is both a liar and a fool.  Because, contrary to this idiot LA Times propagandists, these are men who frankly don’t care about making their abs look pretty.  They actually stand for something; which is why they’ve got to go.  After all, these are the guys who go into buildings when negotiations break down and there are people inside who need to be killed.  You don’t get more “he-man” than that; which for the record is why actors like Schwarzenegger and Stallone pretend to be guys like this in their films.

McNamara for whom Hollywood is all the reality she will ever understand – cites Robert Downy Jr. as proof that real men and real man muscle are dead and gone.  But it’s kind of funny that she somehow omitted somebody from her own damn Hollywood genre.  Because apparently she’s never heard of “The Hulk.”

Does this look like a fellow who is “worrying more about core muscles and resting heart rates than the size of his pecs” to you???

I guess you’re right, Mary, you half-wit; clearly this guy was only focusing on his “core” rather than building those stupid muscles you believe are so offensive and useless.

The first Incredible Hulk movie was number one at the box office and grossed more than a quarter BILLION dollars.  And we’ve seen the Hulk in a couple more huge grossing movies since.  And what do you know the Hulk actually appeared right alongside McNamara’s sissified Robert Downy Jr. as Tony Stark in The Avengers.  And I could have sworn that the Hulk’s other fellow co-stars Thor and Captain America had spent more than a little time in the gym concentrating on their pecs in that the third highest grossing movie of ALL TIME.  Maybe somebody could have considered THOSE muscles rather than the near-septuagenarian muscles of fossilized Schwarzenegger and Stallone that McNamara dishonestly wanted us to fixate upon for the sake of her bogus point.

And let’s consider McNamara’s example of current 007 Daniel Craig.  Is this idiot seriously trying to tell me that Craig was less concerned about his “pecs” than was former very non-muscular Bond Roger Moore????  Seriously???

Outside of the fake bubble that is Hollywood, I have memberships at two different gyms (World’s and Gold’s) because the considerably better equipped gym is also considerably farther away.  And at both gyms what I see actual men doing is focusing so much on their chests and their arms that they are ignoring their legs.  It is decidedly easier to work out one’s abs and legs than it is one’s chest and arms because the latter equipment is nearly constantly in use.  This fool woman knows absolutely NOTHING about “he-men” or pretty much any other kind of man.

Of course, outside of Mary McNamara’s incredibly contrived examples was Vladimir Putin, who literally won reelection in Russia by taking off his shirt and showing us, yes, his “pecs.”  I’m sure that former KGB thug would have a different view than our resident LA Times idiot.

Again, this woman is a dishonest, biased, liberal turd propagandist who is so selective in her “facts” and so deceitful in her conclusions that it is shocking even by the Los Angeles Times’ “standards.”

I hate lies, which is why I hate liberalism so much.

I don’t have a doubt that Limbaugh will be highlighting Mary McNamara’s gibberish in his radio program.  Without trying to replace my opinions for his, I have a feeling that he’s going to be pointing out THE FACT that he’s been saying over and over again for YEARS that liberals viscerally despise strong men.  Women can’t have powerful muscles, so men shouldn’t be allowed to have them either.  And no decent man would ever try to build something that women can’t have every bit as much of, including muscles.  Social justice requires pathetically weak men, albeit pathetically weak men with slim, trim waists.

That’s why we’re heading toward women being pushed into combat by a few feminists.  Whether their FAR physically weaker women’s bodies can handle the stress of it or not.  That’s simply a fact attested to by a Marine Corps captain (named Katie Petronio) who knows from personal and painful experience that it is a fact.

Again, facts don’t matter one freaking DAMN to these people.  They are people who are determined to substitute a lie for the truth until their lie BECOMES the “truth.”

And that’s why we’re gutting our physical fitness standards for male military recruits.  Because if men are stronger and have greater endurance than women, well, that doesn’t help the cause of liberalism.  So strength must be weakened, and then weakened again and again and again until women can pass the same “standards.”

No woman on earth could be a Navy SEAL.  Or a Delta Force operator.  Or a Green Beret.  Or an Army Ranger.  Or a Marine Force Recon member.  Or an Air Force Pararescue member.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.  The requirements are simply too physically difficult for women because men and women aren’t the same.  And the idea that a man is capable of being something – anything – that a woman can’t be is just anathema to these leftist turds for whom ideology must trump reality.

I watched a young Marine doing standing military presses with 245 lbs.  Try that at home, girls.  That would be almost as much fun as watching Angelina Jolie and Sarah Michelle Gellar shooting 12 gauge shotgun slugs.

Liberals are gutting strength.  They are gutting honor.  They are gutting courage.  And most of all they are gutting the truth.  And they are replacing these qualities – which Americans used to reverence in their real heroes and in the men like John Wayne who depicted those heroes on film – with the weak, limp-wristed feminist pseudo-men that liberals are baiting and switching us with on a pretty much daily basis with their Hollywood drivel even as they cite that selfsame drivel as some kind of proof.

When the real “he-men” are gone, we’re going to need them.  And they won’t be there to help you.  But if it helps you to feel better, just remember that Georgetown law school students will get free birth control off the sweat of people who won’t earn a twentieth what these entitlement whores will earn in their law careers.

Remember who killed our real men and rejoiced at their demise on the day that it results in our own national demise.

Real men tell the truth and stand up courageously for what is right.  Which is precisely why real liberals despise them so damn much and will continue to do everything they can do to discredit and destroy them until their propaganda war on reality succeeds.