Why Would Anybody Consider Hillary Clinton For President? From Benghazi To Her Role In Keeping Boko Haram Safe

May 9, 2014

Democrats are amazing in their determination to be utterly hostile to the truth and to simple decency.

The world has been outraged at the incredible hate and contempt displayed in the Muslim group Boko Haram’s abduction (and I have no doubt gang-raping) of nearly 300 innocent girls (some of whom escaped on their own, thank God) whose crime was 1) being Christians and 2) trying to go to school.

The leader of Boko Haram (Abubakar Shekau) released this message:

“I abducted your girls…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women.”

Who do we have to blame for this outrage?

Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Democrat candidate for president:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
Josh Rogin
05.07.14
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.

The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”

“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”

Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)

“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.

The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.

“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring—in partnership with Nigeria and others—broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”

Representatives for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The media is asking a few questions (but don’t worry, in a few months it will all blow over and the media will yawn over this and every other outrage of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence or personal viciousness).  CNN had this:

Washington (CNN) — Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but some people may need backwards-looking glasses in debating whether the State Department under Hillary Clinton erred two years ago by not designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.

The question arose Thursday as part of the international focus on last month’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by the jihadist group in northeast Nigeria that threatens to sell them into slavery

The CNN piece becomes more of a cover-up than an objective piece.  It lists all the reasons Hillary was loathe to add Boko Haram to the FTO list.  But it very quickly gleans over the fact that Republicans were demanding that the organization be added to the list as early as 2010 after a SERIES of terrorist attacks:

A few months later, amid increasing violence by Boko Haram, the top Republicans on the panel wrote Clinton to urge its immediate terrorist designation.

In a letter to the secretary, Reps. Peter King of New York and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania cited support by the Department of Justice and military intelligence for such a step.

State Department officials opposed the move, as did 24 academics with expertise in African affairs.

You have to guess that in spite of a major effort to get Boko Haram designated as a terrorist organization, Hillary dithered and did NOTHING.

“Hindsight is 20/20,” CNN tells as us they introduce their piece.  So please don’t blame the Clinton News Network’s pick for president in 2016.

But yeah, BLAME her.  Had she did what was right and called a terrorist a terrorist when she and Obama were calling terrorism an “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” this outrage could have and likely would have been avoided.

Who kept Boko Haram off the terrorist list so they could be free to unleash all the Islamist evil in their hearts?  Just remember:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

There is a statement in the above-quoted article that directly links the present U.S. failure with Boko Haram to the gross failure of Benghazi:

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

It was the same mindset based on the same dishonest Obama political narrative: we’ve got al Qaeda on the run.  And any facts that prove otherwise are to be ignored out of sheer cynical political expediency as Obama runs for re-election and Hillary awaits her turn four years later.

So let’s talk about Hillary and Benghazi:

When the murdered ambassador and the other victims were pleading for help in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack in Benghazi, where was Hillary Clinton?

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

When every other Western nation removed their diplomatic outposts from Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attack against our compound, where was Hillary Clinton?

Others, like the British government and the International Red Cross, were aware how dangerous Benghazi was and pulled their personnel out, but Clinton insisted on pursuing a diplomatic U.S. presence in Benghazi, but left them practically undefended

When a terrorist attack took NINE HOURS to unfold and American warriors were orderered to “stand down” and violate the American tradition to leave no man behind, where was Hillary Clinton?

All we know is that when it was time to offer up a pure LIE as an excuse for criminal incompetence in an obvious political cover-up, we DO know where Hillary Clinton was: right in front saying “Blame the video!”

We know that Hillary Called Barack Obama minutes prior to releasing a statement that turns out to be nearly identical to the one White House staffer Ben Rhodes crafted for Obama’s own dishonest deception campaign two months before his re-election.

We don’t know where Obama was during the nine-hour-long attack either.  All we know is that he NEVER SHOWED UP at the situation room that night.  But that he was quickly whoring for campaign money the very next day.  I actually believe Obama’s whereabouts during the attack are still unknown because Obama was fundraising AS THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE.

Here’s a good summary of what happened in Benghazi.  And it is frankly stunning how the media has yawned because it proves a DEMOCRAT to be corrupt and dishonest rather than the Republican they would have rabidly torn into.

We now know for a FACT that the Youtube video story had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what happened in Benghazi.  We now know for a FACT that the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department knew this for a fact within MINUTES of the attackWe know the Libyan president said that from the moment he first heard the ridiculous suggestion.  And we now know for a FACT that Obama and Clinton teamed up to pass off THE most cynical political cover-up in the entire history of this republic.  The result was, when Hillary Clinton should have gone on those five political Sunday shows, Obama sent Susan Rice (who had nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with a terrorist attack) to claim that there had been no pre-planned terrorist attack, but rather nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration over a video made by a U.S. citizen that got out of hand.  We know that what Susan Rice said FIVE TIMES was manifestly untrue.  We now know that the White House TOLD her to pass off this lie.  Even though they KNEW that was a pure lie.

These are desperately wicked people who do not have as much as a “scintilla” (to quote Obama over his next cover-up of his ordering his IRS to persecute conservative organizations AND their donors) of integrity, decency, virtue, or honor of any kind.

And neither do those who vote for these people.

The ‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Of Clayton Lockett And The (Un)Principled Liberal Objections To The Death Penalty

May 7, 2014

Clayton Lockett is a perfect victim for liberals.  After all, he was a black man put to death in a conservative state by a white Republican governor.

The fact that he is a vile cockroach who is getting his chance to burn in hell now after having brutally raped a woman, shot her in the head with a shotgun and then had her buried alive truly doesn’t mean one damn thing to liberals.

You read the outraged liberal accounts of the “botched” execution (from what I hear, the state was actually quite successful in accomplishing the murderer’s death) and again and again you see all the outrage directed at the manner the murderer died and nothing about the demonic horror that the murderer imposed on his victim.

A man who inflicted a horrifying death on his victim died having suffered slightly more pain than the painless death that liberals demand.  That’s what happened in Oklahoma.  And you’d think the Republican governor had personally put a poor, innocent man on a rack and flayed him alive herself.

And, of course, he same liberals who erupt in horror that anyone would so much as suggest that Obama’s use of the IRS to persecute his political opponents or his cover-up of the cover-up in Benghazi where he falsely claimed a Youtube video (rather than “a broader failure in policy”) was to blame, are essentially demanding that the Oklahoma governor resign in shame over this execution.

It’s amazing: investigations are fascist when they are directed at a liberal and heroic when they are directed against an opponent of liberalism 100% of the time.  And it doesn’t seem how blatantly evil liberals have to be to maintain their “victim.”  Even going to making a “victim” out of Clayton Lockett.

I like the way Goldberg responds:

“As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.”

You’re damn right he got off easy.  It would have been a nice object lesson had 19-year-old victim Stephanie Nieman’s family members been able to administer Lockett’s execution.  I suspect it would have taken a lot longer and been an awful lot more painful.  And he STILL would have got off easy were it not for the fact that there is a fiery and eternal hell of torment awaiting Lockett and those like him as they leave this world.

Jonah Goldberg did a brilliant job dismantling several of the key arguments of the left regarding the death penalty.  I shall give a brief summary and post his article below.

The first objective liberals love to use is that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.  They can claim that because, when it takes DECADES and a dozen lengthy court dramas to finally execute somebody, there are so many years between the act and the punishment of the act that it very likely doesn’t have much of a deterrence effect.  I know that if a powerful man walked into a bar and beat the biggest guy in there to a pulp and then asked, “Does anybody else want to be next?” the bloody unconscious body of the broken man on the floor would very much have a giant deterrence effect to the man who would want some of what that guy just got.  Nobody would want any of what that guy just got.

Contrast that with the following scenario: somebody gets to get up and punch the powerful man repeatedly in the face and the powerful man can’t do anything about it for, oh, say 25 years or so.  And then maybe, MAYBE, he will be allowed to give the guy who hit him the beat-down he deserved DECADES ago.  Does that sound like it’s going to deter anybody?  Because that’s the way liberals have “fundamentally transformed” our capital punishment system.  Only to claim it “doesn’t deter.”

That’s simply the way that human psychology works.  And unless you aren’t human, it works that way for you, too.  Deterrence is real, baby.  But only when criminals actually pay the price for their crimes.

Liberals have made it impossible for the wheels of justice to provide such genuine deterrence.

Goldberg deals with this “deterrence” objection masterfully, pointing out that it would literally be wrong to kill somebody just to provide an object lesson for other people.  As Goldberg puts it, “It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.”  And when you stop and think about it, that’s entirely true.  In other words, as he demonstrates, “deterrence” doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rationale for the death penalty; it is nothing more than a red herring that the left keeps throwing up and the right too-frequently foolishly attempts to respond to.

If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”  That is JUSTICE.  If it deters as well, so much the better.

Then he moves on to another red herring: racial injustice over the statistical fact that black people are proportionately more likely to be executed than white people.  He says, “Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.”

How is that not true?

If you in any way, shape or form agree with the statement that one ought to be sentenced and punished according to the crimes that one committed, rather than the statement that justice should have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual criminal but ought to somehow reflect the broader society, how is any argument that guilty black murderers shouldn’t be executed simply because somewhere a guilty white murderer wasn’t executed?  How does that not amount to children squabbling over one of the children getting more of whatever and therefore they should get more, too?

We shouldn’t allow childish arguments to interfere with JUSTICE.

If we need to do a better job to make justice blind to race, then let’s pursue that: but to say that we’re going to abandon JUSTICE because of some statistical shenanigans is outrageous.

That is also how Goldberg responds to the final charge: that innocent people may have been executed in the past and therefore could be in the present or future.  Goldberg’s point is brilliant:

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Do you understand that, liberal?  Given that we have had NUMEROUS events in which the police have killed an innocent person, do you therefore want to abolish the police the way you demand we abolish the death penalty?  Or are you an inconsistent hypocrite instead?  (That’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious: rich liberals need armed people to protect them from poor liberals who would rob them and do worse if they could).  In the same way, it actually gets hard to name a branch of the federal government that hasn’t committed some gross injustice against an innocent victim: and yet the crickets chirp in lieu of liberals demanding that these federal monstrosities be abolished as a result.

In other words, abolishing the death penalty is refuted by the very same liberals who won’t abolish all the OTHER government systems that have been FREQUENTLY documented to have trampled the rights of the innocent.  We need to do a far better job of administering the death penalty, but if you’re going to abolish the death penalty, let’s abolish the federal government along with it if we’re going to be consistent rather than being liberal hypocrites.

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

Last week the state of Oklahoma “botched” an execution..

Botched is the accepted term in the media coverage, despite the fact Clayton Lockett was executed. He just died badly, suffering for 43 minutes until he eventually had a heart attack.

Oklahoma’s governor has called for an investigation. President Obama asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (who is seeking the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case), to review the death penalty.

Obama’s position was a perfectly defensible straddle: “The individual … had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes, and I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances where a crime is … so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate.”

On the other hand, Obama added: “I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty … we have seen significant problems, racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to be innocent.

“We do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions.”

As a death penalty supporter, I agree. Although, I’m not sure we’d agree on what those questions — and answers — should be.

As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn’t tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn’t die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here’s an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: “conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear.” Maybe you can weep for the man. I can’t.

Let’s get back to those difficult and profound questions. Capital punishment opponents offer many arguments why people like Lockett shouldn’t be executed. They point out that there are racial disparities in how the death penalty is administered, for example. This strikes me as an insufficient argument, much like the deterrence argument from death penalty supporters. Deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.

Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.

The most cynical argument against the death penalty is to point out how slow and expensive the process is. But it is slow and expensive, at least in part, because opponents have made it slow and expensive, so they can complain about how slow and expensive it is.

As for humaneness, Lockett’s execution was botched — “inhumane” — in part because Oklahoma had to use a new drug regimen because anti-death penalty advocates had successfully lobbied the maker of a component of an earlier formula to stop making that drug available for executions.

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Radley Balko, a death penalty opponent, in a piece in the Washington Post, says that ultimately both sides of the death penalty debate have irreconcilable moral convictions. I think he’s right. As far as I’m concerned, Lockett deserved to die for what he did. Everything else amounts to changing the subject, and it won’t convince me otherwise.

Clayton Locket is screaming in hell right now and he’ll be viscerally screaming one hundred trillion millennia of years from now.  And thank God for that justice.

 

Remember Hillary Clinton’s Anti-Obama ‘3 AM Phone Call’ Ad? OBAMA WASN’T In Situation Room on 9/11 When Ambassador Was Murdered

May 2, 2014

Remember how Hillary Clinton ran against Obama, pointing out that he was a national security flea weight who wouldn’t be there when we needed him?

Do you know what’s funny about that ad?  When Obama never bothers to pick up the damn phone, IT WAS HILLARY CLINTON ON THE OTHER END.

And we now know what a disgrace Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.  Because she’s sewer in this every bit as much as Obama.  Do you know who was the VERY FIRST person to falsely claim that the terrorist attack on Benghazi was a “spontaneous uprising” as the result of an “Internet video”?  Hillary Clinton was that shameless liar.

It is easily provable that one of the questions we have asked over and over and over again for going on two years now AND NEVER RECEIVED AN ANSWER ON was the question where was Obama on the night of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound???

There’s one reason we’ve never received an answer: because the answer makes Obama look really, really bad, really, really weak and really, really incompetent.  Oh, and really, really disgraceful.

Last night on Fox News Special Report, Bret Bair got it on the factual record.  For the FIRST TIME since the TERRORIST ATTACK on American soil in Benghazi in which a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered, we finally know for a fact that BARACK OBAMA WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THE SITUATION ROOM AS THE DISASTER UNFOLDED.

We got this news from Barack Obama’s own NSC “Dude” boy, who not only admitted altering the CIA talking points - which the White House had for two years SWORN it had not done – but who admitted that he was in the situation room and Barack Obama never showed up:

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?

VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

BAIER: And the president wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: Not in the room I was in. Let’s just be clear. You don’t have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an intelligence situation. The PDB is in the Oval Office.

For the record, “the Situation Room” is ONE ROOM.  It is not a suite.  There is no way Obama was in the Situation Room and Tommy Vietor – who was in the room throughout the evening on his testimony – would not have seen the president.

It is true that a president doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be in the Situation Room during a crisis.  He could be briefed from elsewhere.  But it is EQUALLY TRUE that it is in the Situation Room and NOWHERE ELSE that a president could receive live feeds immediately as they were coming in.

And it is the height of irresponsibility that we had a United States ambassador under fire and missing and a president of the United States AWOL while he was being murdered over a period of several hours.

I tell you what: I watched that interview with Bret Bair and Obama’s former NSC “dude” boy.  And one of the things that shocked me without the little turd saying a word was the fact that under Obama we’ve had Doogie Howser running our national security for us.

That explains a lot about the disaster and disgrace that is our Obama foreign policy and national security.  You can’t get a real man to work for Obama because no real man would ever work for Obama.

What we now know and know for a FACT is that the White House invented the Youtube video in order to fabricate a false national security scenario so that Obama wouldn’t have to answer for his outright LIE that he had al Qaeda on the run.  The email says it perfectly: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

We know that on the night of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on 2011, the White House was in fact scrambling.  NOT to rescue the Americans who were under fire, but ONLY to cover-up and save Obama’s political weasel ass after his “al Qaeda is on the run” garbage.

Because it WAS a “broader failure of policy” and Obama had to lie and cover-up his cover-up to protect his lies and his cover-up.

Today Obama had a press conference with Angela Merkel and he said something about Ukraine that is frankly amazing in light of what we know happened in Benghazi:

He said the Russian account of events in eastern Ukraine that there was a spontaneous uprising by pro-Russian activists was belied by the use on Friday of surface-to-air missiles that brought down two of Ukraine’s military helicopters.

“It is obvious to the world that these Russian-backed groups are not peaceful protesters. They are heavily armed militants,” Obama said.

You know, much the way any decent human being would immediately understand that Benghazi was not a “spontaneous uprising” because of the use of incredibly well-trained mortar crews who precisely attacked the compound.  Five rounds were fired in less than one minute in the dark, with three accurately hitting their target – which all by itself was enough to immediately demonstrate that a well-trained crew was operating with pre-calculated coordinates.

Obama is a liar by his own rhetoric as he demonizes Putin for being the same sort of liar without shame that Obama proved himself to be YEARS ago.

The Joke That Is The U.S. Unemployment Rate: If We Used Same Metric As When Bush Was President, Unemployment Would Be Almost 12%

May 2, 2014

The day that George Bush said, “See ya, moral morons!” and sailed off into the sunset, the labor participation rate – the rate that measures the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a JOB – was 65.7%.

Today participation just plunged (again) to match the lowest nadir of 1978.  Which is to say that Obama has taken America back nearly forty years.  And at least we still had a viable damn space program back then.

You need to understand the trick that is “the unemployment rate.”  The trick is when labor participation falls (which is a very, very BAD thing) the unemployment rate measurement artificially drops as well.

You have a negative rate which benefits whenever another rate happens to be measured in the same negative terms.  For example, let’s say I was calculating your “stupid rate.”  And part of the calculation involved multiplying by your IQ level.  And your IQ dropped by several points.  Well, wouldn’t your “stupid rate” go down too?  Of course it would.

288,000 people found jobs this month.  Which is the best showing in like 2 years under Obama.  Let’s forget the fact that that Obama’s most spectacular performance even adequately keep up with basic population growth.  Let’s also forget that 806,000 abandoned the workforce and just gave up hope of ever finding a job in God damn America.

That’s what’s going on with the unemployment numbers you’re seeing.  They’re getting better and better – but that’s because the number of people participating in the workforce is getting lower and lower which is driving a lower and lower measurement for unemployment.  It would be an easy fix: if we were to calculate the non-participation rate (100% minus the participation rate %), you would have a rising number to reflect the rising bad news of low labor participation which would thus provide a lower number for unemployment percentage.

But that would be honest.  And government is DIShonest to the core.

But here is the grim reality, if we were to stick the January 2009 labor participation rate that Bush handed off to Obama into the unemployment rate calculation, unemployment would be nearing 12 percent right now.  Which is Great Depression territory.

James Pethokoukis pointed this out last year (when the labor participation rate was better than it is now):

“11.4%: What the U.S. unemployment rate would be if labor force participation were back to January 2008 levels.”

Instead, the left is trumpeting the best unemployment rate since 2008, as if Obama magically solved all of our problems.  And I point out that this massive belief in disinformation is what the Bible prophesied would happen when Antichrist came: the Bible says he will literally be worshiped out of the (false) belief that he solved all the world’s problems.

It’s an amazing thing to watch the formerly greatest nation in the history of the world swiftly descend into pathetic weakness as an increasingly passive, narcissistic and depraved culture either tunes out or believes the lies they are spoon-fed by a mainstream media that provides far more propaganda than journalism.

If you want to know the truth about the U.S. economy under the misrule of Obama and his Democrat stooges, consider this:

“According to shocking new numbers that were just released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of American families do not have a single person that is working. So when someone tries to tell you that the unemployment rate in the United States is about 7 percent, you should just laugh. One-fifth of the families in the entire country do not have a single member with a job. That is absolutely astonishing. How can a family survive if nobody is making any money? Well, the answer to that question is actually quite easy. There is a reason why government dependence has reached epidemic levels in the United States. Without enough jobs, tens of millions of additional Americans have been forced to reach out to the government for help. At this point, if you can believe it, the number of Americans getting money or benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million.”…Zero Hedge April 29, 2014

One out of every five American families cannot point to a SINGLE member with a damn job.  And do you know what Democrats call that?  An economic miracle.

If you want to know the truth about the U.S. economy under the misrule of Obama and his Democrat stooges, consider this:

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief

Virtually EVERY SINGLE JOB Obama has “created” in the aftermath of his ObamaCare hijack-takeover of the health care system was a part-time job.  And overwhelmingly, those jobs are in food service and other low-end, low-wage, dead-end jobs.  And do you know what Democrats call that?  An economic miracle.

Look at America’s collapse relative to China if you want to know the truth.  Consider that China had 43% of the U.S. economic power when Bush was president.  And now they are just about to overtake us less than six years later, thanks to Obama and the Democrat Party control.

The deception and disinformation that now characterizes our president, our White House and the media that is supposed to serve as a check and balance, is amazing.

It wasn’t very long ago that you could say, “Read my lips…” and the average American could finish Bush’s broken promise: “no new taxes.”  That was because the media beat the drums on that broken promise day in and day out for the rest of his second term after Democrats who controlled both the House and the Senate forced him to do so.  Literally, the Democrats who forced Bush to raise taxes politically attacked him for doing the very thing that they had forced him to do.  There is no such parallel for Obama’s many broken promises, such as “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”  Obama has broken so many promises that it is beyond unreal; yet few remember because the media has simply refused to do its job of holding a man they basically worship accountable the way they rabidly held the Bushes accountable.  There is no question that Democrats forced Bush to break his promise; there is also no question that Republicans did NOT force Obama to break his many promises on taxes, on ObamaCare, on red lines, or on any of his many lies.  Yet the media tore into the man whose opponents forced him to break his word and have refused to attack the man who simply proved dishonest.  The American people KNOW Obama is a liar, but the media simply will not beat the drum to torment their messiah the way they so happily tormented Republican presidents.

A willingness to tolerate liars and the lies they tell is a prelude to a deceived nation.  And America is very much a deceived nation.

This is God Damn America.  This is America according to the wrath of God as described quite fully in Romans chapter one.  The Democrat Party has pissed in God’s eye and demanded He bring His wrath upon America with their sodomy “marriage” and their murder of God’s babies: one day Democrats will stand before God’s judgment and say they were Christians and Jesus will tell them according to Matthew chapter 25, “I tell you the truth.  When I was hungry and thirsty, these righteous ones fed Me.  When I was in naked, these righteous ones clothed Me.  Not so you.  When I was a baby in My mother’s womb you tore Me to shreds and murdered Me before I could live in your place and die for your sins.  Now depart from Me, you murderers, you worker of iniquity, for I never knew you.  You NEVER gave Me the chance to know you.”

All you have to do to know that America is experiencing the wrath of God as never before is to read about the terrifying weather and the worst droughts we have ever seen as Obama has led America into defying the God of Creation.

But as the Bible says, we live in an age where most of humanity blindly believes a lie, a delusion.  2 Thessalonians chapter 2 describes the coming global big-government dictator in the last days and St. Paul says in verses 11 and 12, “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

St. Paul goes on to describe the last days mindset in chapter three of 2 Timothy:

      1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

And that’s precisely where we’re at as a culture today.  We live in an age of radical human free will – so long as that radical human free will rises up in hostility to God and His righteousness.  If you try to use the “radical free will” that modern culture so values to stand for God and His ways, this sick, twisted, perverted, depraved culture will turn on you with stunning viciousness.

People’s minds are closed to the truth in these final days before the coming of the beast and his total government control that Democrats have been working to create for decades.

One of the foremost characteristics of bad people is that bad people believe lies and reject the truth.  And we live in an age where the lie dominates and the truth is harassed and persecuted.

I know that most of America will continue to believe the lies for the same reason I know that Jesus loves me: “the Bible tells me so.”

 

 

 

China Just About To Overtake God Damn America As #1 Economy Due To Obama’s Failed Policies

May 1, 2014

Here’s an interesting fact: who is more “socialist”: Barack Obama’s God Damn America Or the (communist) People’s Republic of China?

The really scary thing is that it’s not even close: Barack Obama is FAR more communist than anyone in China.

Consider that your tax rate in the People’s Republic of China is 25% vs. your top federal tax rate in God Damn America of 39%.  And those Chinese don’t pay the state taxes that we also have to pay over here in good ole God Damn America.

If you want to understand why China owns us AND gets to eat our lunch at the same time, realize that the United States has THE highest corporate tax rate on planet earth.  AND a president who keeps saying the highest on earth still isn’t high enough.

I’ve watched dozens of Democrats who argue for higher taxes get asked the question, “How much should the rate be?”   And not ONE of them has ever answered.  The reason being THEY WILL NEVER GRAB ENOUGH OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY OR ENOUGH POWER TO DOMINATE OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES.

The last time this measure was taken when George W. Bush was still president, China had well under HALF (43%) the economy of America.  But under Barack Obama and under Barack Obama’s “God damn America” policies, we have tanked so fast it gives me vertigo to think about it:

China Set to Overtake U.S. as Biggest Economy in PPP Measure
By Bloomberg News
April 30, 2014 4:32 PM EDT   69 Comments

China is poised to overtake the U.S. as the world’s biggest economy earlier than expected, possibly as soon as this year, using calculations that take purchasing power into account.

China’s economy was 87 percent of the size of the U.S. in 2011, based on so-called purchasing power parity, the International Comparison Program said in a statement yesterday in Washington. The program, which involves organizations including the World Bank and United Nations, had put the figure at 43 percent in 2005.

The latest tally adds to the debate on how the world’s top two economic powers are progressing. Projecting growth rates from 2011 onwards suggests China’s size when measured in PPP may surpass the U.S. in 2014, which would be years earlier than many economists had previously estimated, according to Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“There’s a symbolic element to this, to China overtaking the U.S., and that seems to be happening,” said Subramanian, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute. The latest data “plays to the idea that China is very big and getting bigger. It’s not to be underestimated.”

In a book published in September 2011, Subramanian estimated China became the world’s largest economy in 2010. While this was too early, the International Monetary Fund’s projections in its World Economic Outlook show China will move to the top in 2019, which is too late, he said today.

U.S. Share

The U.S. share of global GDP was 17.1 percent in 2011, while China was 14.9 percent, according to the ICP figures based on purchasing power parity, which seeks to compare how far money goes in each country. PPP calculates gross domestic product using exchange rates that adjust for price differences of the same goods between nations.

Yet China was well behind the U.S. based on another comparison, which looks at GDP in U.S. dollars at market exchange rates. By that approach, the U.S. share of 22.1 percent was more than double that of China’s 10.4 percent, the ICP data show.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. prefers to use market exchange rates for its “hard-nosed business cycle analysis,” said David Hensley, the bank’s director of global economic coordination in New York. That approach “gives a better sense of the resources that a country has command over.”

While JPMorgan keeps an eye on PPP comparisons as a secondary measure, it’s a hypothetical calculation which assumes one price level across all countries, Hensley said.

Different World

“That’s not the world we live in,” said Hensley. In addition to problems in measuring PPP, it “inflates the relative size and importance and command over resources that countries like China, India, Brazil or Russia have. That can create mistakes in judgment if you’re not careful.”

Hensley estimates that based on market exchange rates, the U.S. will stay in the lead until about 2024, when China crosses over as the world’s biggest economy, he said.

Changes in methodology contributed to the speed of China’s rise, according to the ICP report. Using market rates, U.S. gross domestic product was $16.2 trillion in 2012, compared with China’s $8.2 trillion. India vaulted into third place, ahead of Japan, the latest ICP figures also show.

This is what we voted for and this is what we deserve.

According to the Bible, America either will not exist or will be so weak that it will not matter one scintilla in the last days.

And while the fascist media keeps distracting us with one bright and shiny object after another, America is NOTHING like what it was just a few years ago as Obama has gutted America giant chunk by giant chunk.

The ONLY thing that makes the United States matter today – now that Obama has dismantled America’s military and pissed away our national security prestige – is the fact that since the end of World War II, the United States has served as the global reserve currency (with all commodities being bought and sold in U.S. dollars).

I have a vision of how that is going to change: now that Obama has gutted the American military and literally made America weaker than at any time since BEFORE our enemies decided to attack us to begin World War II, and now that Obama has so pissed away American credibility with his never mind “red lines” and his feckless response to Russian aggression that eerily parallels Hitler’s aggression in Europe, why does the United States even matter?

The major economies known as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have all made it clear that they want to dump the US as the global reserve currency (see also here).  We have lost more than enough influence both strategically, militarily, economically and morally under Obama that it is only a matter of time before we don’t have enough people who need us relative to the growing list of countries that hate us.  Note that Obama has done EVERYTHING to cut the list of the former countries and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the number of the latter.  In every region in the world, we are very clearly in worst shape than we were in when we cursed ourselves by electing Obama.  We have distanced ourselves from our former friends and emboldened and increased our current enemies.

One day, soon, as a result of our rapid decline under Obama, the world is going to cut its losses and dump the United States as the reserve currency.  We are facing a world in which we have too few friends, too many enemies, a growing list of enemies who are gaining power over us, and not enough influence to change a damn thing.  Russia and China and India will lead the effort to dump the dollar and we won’t be able to stop it.  And we will implode as no society in the history of planet earth has EVER imploded.  Because when you have a house of cards built on more than $225 trillion dollars of debt, you are going to fall HARD when you fall.

The worst of the Great Depression will seem like a pleasant stroll along a sunny beach compared to what’s in store for God damn America.

This is a nation that voted to perish.  And it is going to get – as God damn America – exactly what it voted for.

 

Barack Obama – Who Actually TOLD US He Would Make Electricity Prices ‘Necessarily Skyrocket’ – Has Completely Broken Our Electrical Grid

April 30, 2014

I’ve been seeing articles about how “vulnerable” our electrical power grid has become to various potential crises.  And we’re finally starting to get to the root CAUSE of the REAL crisis.  In short, it is the “Crisis’-in-Chief” who also goes by the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Note how this article begins by blathering on about “the polar vortex.”  And then see how – by the time the average reader has probably switched his/her brain off – you see the paragraph that says:

The electrical system’s duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary.

So allow me to simply restate the main point: the problem that has caused your electricity bill to soar to never-before-seen heights – and STAY THERE FOREVER – is your stupid decision to elect and then re-elect Barack Obama and a frankly Demonic bureauCrat party (which is what “Democrat” actually stands for).  It was Obama’s dictate – cheered on by worshipful DemoCrats, to bankrupt the coal plants that provided HALF America’s electricity and force them to shut down, to kill nuclear power, to shift to these extravagant and financially ruinous “green” energies so that the rich liberals who bought and invested in these boondoggles could gorge on the pig trough of public money.

I want you to understand before you read the LA Times’ spin: I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN.  I told you it would happen before you elected Obama and said, “I hope they find out about this … before they make the biggest mistake of their lives.”

I pointed out and preserved for the historic record what Obama said:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

[...]

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

[...]

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

That’s what Obama said.  That’s what Obama did.

Obama declared that electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under his plan.

Obama said:

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.

Congratulations for voting for his damn plan.

For the record, as this article from a couple of years ago proves, this has been going on.  Obama is and has been at war with American energy and while Obama is powerless, helpless and weak before Putin he is a tyrant when it comes to dictating his domestic agenda.  His war has succeeded.

I pointed out that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal.  We have billions of tons of the stuff.  And Obama made it not only useless to America’s national security and economic prosperity but actually a HANDICAP to them.

And now you get to pay for Obama’s ruinous policies.

I’m stating as a FACT that the LA Times is a biased piece of dishonest propaganda.  As an example, when they talk about “the last decade” and begin their dating with “2006” they don’t bother to tell you that that was the year that Democrats – having lied to the American people – took over both the House and the Senate.  Back then, EVERYTHING was George Bush’s fault because he was the president and he was a Republican and NOTHING could be the fault of Nancy Pelosi’s liberal lordship over the House and Harry Reid’s liberal tyranny in the Senate.  And of course now EVERYTHING is the Republican House’s fault and NOTHING is the president’s fault or the still-there Harry Reid’s fault.  The first thing Pelosi and Reid and the Democrats began doing was imposing energy insanity on America – as I documented.  But given that the LA Times is staffed with propagandist liars who spin the news rather than report it, I want you to note that even THESE Goebbels are admitting reality now:

U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good
Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.
By Ralph Vartabedian
April 25, 2014, 8:47 p.m.

As temperatures plunged to 16 below zero in Chicago in early January and set record lows across the eastern U.S., electrical system managers implored the public to turn off stoves, dryers and even lights or risk blackouts.

A fifth of all power-generating capacity in a grid serving 60 million people went suddenly offline, as coal piles froze, sensitive electrical equipment went haywire and utility operators had trouble finding enough to keep power plants running. The wholesale price of electricity skyrocketed to nearly $2 per kilowatt hour, more than 40 times the normal rate. The price hikes cascaded quickly down to consumers. Robert Thompson, who lives in the suburbs of Allentown, Pa., got a $1,250 bill for January.

“I thought, how am I going to pay this?” he recalled. “This was going to put us in the poorhouse.”

The bill was reduced to about $750 after Thompson complained, but Susan Martucci, a part-time administrative assistant in Allentown, got no relief on her $654 charge. “It was ridiculous,” she said.

The electrical system’s duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary.

One recent study predicts the cost of electricity in California alone could jump 47% over the next 16 years, in part because of the state’s shift toward more expensive renewable energy.

“We are now in an era of rising electricity prices,” said Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who said the steady reduction in generating capacity across the nation means that prices are headed up. “If you take enough supply out of the system, the price is going to increase.”

In fact, the price of electricity has already been rising over the last decade, jumping by double digits in many states, even after accounting for inflation. In California, residential electricity prices shot up 30% between 2006 and 2012, adjusted for inflation, according to Energy Department figures. Experts in the state’s energy markets project the price could jump an additional 47% over the next 15 years.

The problems confronting the electricity system are the result of a wide range of forces: new federal regulations on toxic emissions, rules on greenhouse gases, state mandates for renewable power, technical problems at nuclear power plants and unpredictable price trends for natural gas. Even cheap hydro power is declining in some areas, particularly California, owing to the long-lasting drought.

“Everywhere you turn, there are proposals and regulations to make prices go higher,” said Daniel Kish, senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research. “The trend line is up, up, up. We are going into uncharted territory.”

New emissions rules on mercury, acid gases and other toxics by the Environmental Protection Agency are expected to result in significant losses of the nation’s coal-generated power, historically the largest and cheapest source of electricity. Already, two dozen coal generating units across the country are scheduled for decommissioning. When the regulations go into effect next year, 60 gigawatts of capacity — equivalent to the output of 60 nuclear reactors — will be taken out of the system, according to Energy Department estimates.

Moeller, the federal energy commissioner, warns that these rapid changes are eroding the system’s ability to handle unexpected upsets, such as the polar vortex, and could result in brownouts or even blackouts in some regions as early as next year. He doesn’t argue against the changes, but believes they are being phased in too quickly.

The federal government appears to have underestimated the impact as well. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis in 2011 had asserted that new regulations would cause few coal plant retirements. The forecast on coal plants turned out wrong almost immediately, as utilities decided it wasn’t economical to upgrade their plants and scheduled them for decommissioning.

The lost coal-generating capacity is being replaced largely with cleaner natural gas, but the result is that electricity prices are linked to a fuel that has been far more volatile in price than coal. The price of natural gas now stands at about $4.50 per million BTUs, more expensive than coal. Plans to export massive amounts of liquefied natural gas, the rapid construction of gas-fired power plants and the growing trend to convert the U.S. heavy truck fleet to natural gas could exert even more upward pressure on prices. Malcolm Johnson, a former Shell Oil gas executive who now teaches the Oxford Princeton Program, a private energy training company, said prices could move toward European price levels of $10.

“When those natural gas prices start going up again, we will feel it in the way of higher electricity prices,” warns James Sweeney, a Stanford University energy expert.

The loss of coal is being exacerbated by problems at the nation’s nuclear plants. Five reactors have been taken out of operation in the last few years, mainly due to technical problems. Additional shutdowns are under consideration.

At the same time, 30 states have mandates for renewable energy that will require the use of more expensive wind and solar energy. Since those sources depend on the weather, they require backup generation — a hidden factor that can add significantly to the overall cost to consumers.

Nowhere are the forces more in play than in California, which has the nation’s most aggressive mandate for renewable power. Major utilities must obtain 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020, not counting low-cost hydropower from giant dams in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

In some cases, the renewable power costs as much as twice the price of electricity from new gas-fired power plants. Newer facilities are more competitive and improved technology should hold down future electricity prices, said former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, now a San Francisco attorney.

But San Francisco-based Energy + Environmental Economics, a respected consultant, has projected that the cost of California’s electricity is likely to increase 47% over the next 16 years, adjusted for inflation, in part because of the renewable power mandate and heavy investments in transmission lines.

The mandate is just one market force. California has all but phased out coal-generated electricity. The state lost the output of San Onofre’s two nuclear reactors and is facing the shutdown of 19 gas-fired power plants along the coast because of new state-imposed ocean water rules by 2020.

“Our rates are increasing because of all of these changes that are occurring and will continue to occur as far out as we can see,” said Phil Leiber, chief financial officer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “Renewable power has merit, but unfortunately it is more costly and is one of the drivers of our rates.”

“While renewables are coming down in cost, they are still more expensive,” said Russell Garwacki, manager of pricing design and research at Southern California Edison. The company is imposing a 10% price hike this year to catch up with increased costs in the past.

Officials at the California Public Utilities Commission, responsible for setting utility rates, dispute predictions of large-scale electricity price hikes in the near future. Edward Randolph, head of the PUC’s energy division, said price increases were not likely to exceed the rate of inflation, though the commission has refused to spell out the data on which it bases its projections. In any case, while California already has some of the highest hourly rates for electricity in the nation, the average consumer in the state pays bills that are below the national average because overall electricity use is so low.

The push to wean California off fossil fuels for electricity could cause a consumer backlash as the price for doing so becomes increasingly apparent, warns Alex Leupp, an executive with the Northern California Power Agency, a nonprofit that generates low-cost power for 15 agencies across the state. The nonprofit was formed decades ago during a rebellion against the PUC and the high prices that resulted from its regulations.

“If power gets too expensive, there will be a revolt,” Leupp said. “If the state pushes too fast on renewables before the technology is viable, it could set back the environmental goals we all believe in at the end of the day.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices-20140426,0,6329274.story#ixzz30Cs9hCJQ

Will there be a revolt?  Probably not.  We live in times that are even MORE dishonest than Hitler’s and Stalin’s because our leaders are advantaged with the latest skills in mass media manipulation and our media outlets are more propagandistic than Joseph Goebbels or TASS ever was.  Democrats – liars to the cores of their beings – will simply find their equivalent of “Jews” (Republicans, energy companies, insurance companies, rich people, etc.) to slander.  Bad people invariably believe lies – and we have become a bad people.

Obama declared war on coal, and with the aid of the stupid American people who frankly deserve to freeze in the dark, coal was forced to surrender.

We won’t get these assets back for YEARS if we can get them back at all, ye stupid dumbasses.  Even if you vote Republican, the investors who would bring cheap, efficient coal back on line now know that we’re only one election away from a fascist who will bankrupt them.  They won’t DARE invest in coal again: because the moral idiot American people elected and then re-elected a fascist and they know that it can happen again (and may in 2016 in the pantsuited form of Hillary Clinton).

So you CAN count on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has permanently caused American energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”  Amazingly, he did so in a country that has more coal than any other nation on the face of the earth.

In terms of energy and in terms of so many other things, Obama made the richest nation in the history of the world IMPOVERISHED.

And not only that, but the integrity of our grid is now in open question: having abolished coal, with NOTHING to take its place in terms of either price OR supply, we don’t have enough power to provide so we’re going to have more crashes and more devastating crashes in our electrical grid.

And who is going to suffer the most from this moral idiocy?  The rich?  They’ll buy themselves generators.  And even steep increases will hardly dent the percentage of income they dedicate to their heating and cooling bills.

You stupid liberals.  Here is another example of how you afflicted the poor who will now – thanks to the Democrat Party – have to pay unprecedented percentages of their meager household incomes on their energy because you made their rates soar.

And the only other thing you can count upon in God damn America as Democrats wage economic warfare on the poorest among us is that those very poor are ignorant enough and depraved enough to keep believing the lies of the Democrats who are most oppressing them.

There’s One And ONLY One Reason Obama Hasn’t FIRED John Kerry Over ‘Apartheid Israel’ Remark: Because Obama AGREES With Kerry

April 29, 2014

The most interesting thing about this entire thing is that we ARE on the verge of an apartheid nation in the Middle East: but it’s Palestine rather than Israel.  I mean, which nation is a democracy and which is a fascist state???  Which nation has a flourishing population consisting of both Jews and Arabs and which nation has pretty much driven out or murdered all of its minority???

John Kerry is a moral moron, singling out the exact WRONG country for his “apartheid” attack.

That asked and answered, an important question:

Is Barack Obama an anti-Semite?

You’re damn straight he is.

He’s been one all his life.  As Jeremiah Wright (That’s “Jeremiah Wright,” pronounced, “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me.”) points out:

After years of denying that he heard the radical preaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, there is new video of the reverend in which he says, “I’ve been preaching the same way since I was licensed to preach in 1959, ordained in 1967. Barack was in elementary school when I was ordained. CBS, ABC, MSNBC and Fox News spent $4,000 each buying 20 years of my sermons so they could hear what Barack Obama heard for 20 years.”

Obama without ANY question whatsoever has had THE most rabidly anti-Israel and Antisemitic president in U.S. history.

Obama is the president who declared that Israel should withdraw to it’s indefensible 1967 borders - which would amount to the cold-blooded murder of every Jew in Israel.

Obama’s negotiating stance on Iran which guarantees that the most rabidly hostile state to Israel on earth will have a nuclear weapon cements the status as “Jew hater for life.”

Samantha Powers is an anti-SemiteChuck Hagel is an anti-Semite.  You don’t consistently nominate people like this and not be an anti-Semite yourself.

What John Kerry said was UNFORGIVABLE:

“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative – because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens, or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.”

ONLY an Obama presidency would tolerate for ONE SECOND a statement comparing Israel with an apartheid state.

John Kerry said this awful, hateful thing the day before Israel marked its remembrance of the Holocaust.   Because apparently six million murdered Jews aren’t enough.

What was Kerry’s reaction?  Was it, “Omigosh.  I said WHAT?!?!  I was clearly INSANE to have said that!!!”  Nope: it was part denial of reality, part defiant angry offensive as the “wronged party” in the matter:

“I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don’t believe,” Sec. Kerry said in a statement responding to the controversy. “Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one.”

Don’t you DARE say that the angry denunciation of your wicked words are in ANY way, ANY shape or ANY form some kind of partisan political stunt, you future resident of eternal hell.  Because – and I thank God for this – ALL KINDS of Democrats have come out against your hateful and evil and morally sick words.

John Kerry – in the same speech that he basically called Israel an apartheid state – had this to say of his Russian counterpart:

“I’ve had six conversations with Lavrov in the last weeks. The last one was Kafka-esque, it was other planet, it was just bizarre. Nobody is better at telling you that red is blue and black is white… That’s what we are dealing with.”

I guess that’s just John Kerry calling the kettle white.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  Our Secretary of State is surpassed only by our president in telling the American people garbage lies such as, “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.  Period.  End of story.”

Barbara Boxer – and this is a doctrinaire liberal – immediately responded to John Kerry’s demon-possessed slander of Israel:

“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous.”

To Boxer and the many Democrats who have criticized John Kerry I say only this: if you truly believe what you are saying, you need to demand John Kerry leave and leave NOW.

You shouldn’t resign for the very simple reason that you shouldn’t get that dignity: YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO RESIGN.

This pernicious statement by John Kerry amounts to de facto official American policy if John Kerry is not fired by the president.  It is already being repeated by the rabidly Antisemitic Muslim world.

If John Kerry stays, it is only because Barack Obama has so morally twisted the Democrat Party that they are the new Nazi Party – which of course is exactly what I’ve been saying as recently as five days ago, isn’t it?  He needs to go yesterday.

The fact that Obama has said NOTHING is all the proof you need.  The fact that the mainstream media is allowing Obama to say NOTHING when they should be pounding the drums of doom for John Kerry’s job is all the proof you need that they are the collective Joseph Goebbels of our time.

 

 

 

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

April 28, 2014

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

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

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

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

Additional Findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

What Racist Bigot Donald Sterling Needs To Be Saying: I’m Clearly Not A Racist Because I’m A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

April 28, 2014

The moment you’ve got an ugly scandal like this one and the word “conservative” or “Republican” isn’t blasted all over the story, you pretty much know the cockroach is a liberal:

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Liberal #Democrat Donald Sterling Caught on Tape Screaming Ugly Racist Epithets

Amazing.It’s been almost like clockwork this last couple of weeks. Leftists got a squirrelly reprieve with the fake Cliven Bundy sideshow, but then the left gets back on track with their racist repertoire of hate. Seriously. It’s too good. You just can’t make up these far-left Democrat Party supporting leftists spewing vile racial epithets, all caught on tape. Clockwork baby.I say it all the time: the Democrat Party is the country’s natural home to racists and ethnic eliminationists. And now we have über liberal real estate mogul and sports owner, Democrat Party contributor and philanthropist, Donald T. Sterling in the news with yet another case of vile leftist racial hatred.Here’s the headline story at Memeorandum, “Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to GF – Don’t Bring Black People to My Games, Including Magic Johnson” and on Twitter:And there’s a YouTube clip at the Independent Journal Review, “Explosive Audio: L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Shows Us All What Truly Ugly Racism Sounds Like.” As it notes there:

Just for the record, Sterling’s record of political support is for two Democratic politicians: former California Governor Gray Davis and three-term Senator Bill Bradley.

Of course! Sterling’s a liberal leftist Democrat of the first order! Also here, “Follow the Money: Political Contributions of NBA Owners.”

What’s hilarious is none of this is new. Sterling’s far-left racist bigotry has been on the public record for a long time. See this Los Angeles Times report from black liberal Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks in 2010, “Donald Sterling is generous, impolitic and eager to be liked“:

You can’t flip through our newspaper these days without spotting the giant ads Sterling buys promoting his awards and donations, his smiling face plastered among a jumble of names and cut-and-paste photos.

I wangled an invitation because I wanted to meet him. I was curious about the man — and the motives — behind the generosity. Sterling has been dogged for years by claims that he’s a bigot. Was this simple image repair or true redemption, I wondered.

Two months ago, Sterling settled a housing discrimination lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department for $2.7 million. Four years ago, he spent millions to settle a similar lawsuit brought by a fair housing group.

Both accused him of trying to exclude blacks, Latinos and families with children from renting apartments in buildings he owns.

Yet there he was last week playing Santa, handing out $1 million from his private charitable foundation to 10 high schools in South and East Los Angeles and 20 charities across Los Angeles County.

Like Skid Row’s Para Los Niños, “another fabulous Hispanic charity in Boyle Heights, where I grew up,” Sterling said.

And Roosevelt High, “with all the Hispanic kids,” he said, “where nobody thought they could study and learn calculus until that teacher” — Jaime Escalante — came along.

Oops — Escalante taught at Garfield High, which also received a Sterling grant.

And left-wing author and activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson, back in 2009, hammered Sterling’s racism — and took the NAACP to task for giving the Clippers owner a pass on his disgusting racist bigotry. See, “Put Donald T. Sterling’s NAACP Award on Hold“:

A Google search with the name Donald Sterling and racial discrimination found nearly 12,000 results. Not one of them even remotely had Sterling doing anything to further racial goodwill. The checklist of reported Sterling racial escapades include a Justice Department housing discrimination lawsuit and forced settlement, slurs and gaffes against Hispanics and African-Americans, and that includes two high profile Clipper players, the shooing of minorities away from his pricey Beverly Hills condos and rentals, and an overblown and failed promise to build a Homeless shelter on L.A.s skid row. Then there’s the allegations and lawsuit by former Clipper General Manager Elgin Baylor that Sterling runs his operations like a Southern plantation.

The NAACP airbrushed this away and simply said that Sterling has been a gem in giving oodles of tickets away to needy inner city kids and ladling out some cash to charities and sports camps for them. How any of this ranks as a take the lead, storm the barriers battle against racial injustice is a mystery….

The issue is not what, whether or even if Sterling did anything to further the cause of racial justice and civil rights. He hasn’t. The issue is what the NAACP is doing to further it.

While perhaps Ofari Hutchison’s not persuaded that Sterling’s done much in fact to help the black community, as LAT’s Banks points out, the Clippers owner indeed has a long history of philanthropy for a litany of left-wing causes. Sports Illustrated, back in 2000, ran a major feature story on Sterling, critical of his success as an NBA owner but highlighting his liberal philanthropy, “Up And Down In Beverly Hills“:

Many people believe that Sterling is playing a different game from the rest of the NBA owners. “I don’t know how important winning is to Donald,” says [Carl] Scheer, the team’s general manager Scheer. “He seems more concerned mat his books are balanced, that he runs one of the few NBA franchises with no debt, that he can bring his friends to games.” Those friends—a mix of Friars Clubbers and Merv Era celebs—show up en masse at Sterling’s Malibu White Party, the extravagant tented barbecue-and-bubbly beach bash he often throws at his second home, a neo-Tudor oceanfront bungalow. The party is so named because guests are encouraged to dress all in white, as in The Great Gatsby. “Sterling’s agenda is as much social as professional,” says Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mark Heisler. “He loves the status that owning even a bad team confers.”

He also enjoys the publicity he’s received as a philanthropist. Southern California charities routinely fete Sterling as their Humanitarian of the Year. Since 1997, the title has been accorded him by the Vista Del Mar Orphanage, the Special Olympics, the Los Angeles Yeshiva, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation and the L.A. Police Historical Society. Not that every charity has found it easy to separate Sterling from his swag. Linda McCoy-Murray recognized that last summer when she phoned him to help sponsor a golf tournament in honor of her late husband, venerated L.A. Times sports columnist Jim Murray. Every pro franchise in California, according to McCoy-Murray had forked over at least $5,000 to her foundation, which provides journalism scholarships. Every pro franchise, that is, except the Clippers, which had memorialized Murray on the final page of last season’s media guide. Sterling offered McCoy-Murray two season passes. “You know, that’s wonderful,” she remembers telling him. “but we’re trying to endow a college scholarship fund. We could really use cash.”

Sterling’s a classic Beverly Hills-Hollywood schmoozer and left-wing philanthropist big shot, and the occasional leftist tight wad, heh.

Again, this is just one more case of leftist racism and bigotry, unfortunately too splashy of a celebrity story for the hopelessly biased leftist press to tamp down.

Hillary Clinton has said on multiple occasions that her political heroine is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  On receiving an award from Margaret Sanger’s organization Planned Parenthood, Clinton said:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Here are some of Margaret’s best lines:

    • …human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to blacks, immigrants and poor people
    • “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
    • The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
    • “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
    • In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
    • “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
    • “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.” (Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review)
    • “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems (“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5).

The heroine of Hillary Clinton was a freaking Nazi.  And I mean that literally.  Margaret Sanger was an ardent supporter of Hitler’s eugenics program and had a similar “master race” concept (with Aryans clearly being aforementioned “master race” in her warped and depraved mind.

We just saw a giant blowup over Cliven Bundy and his remarks about “the Negro.”  And I want to point out that Bundy is no hero of mine.  But as to the militia who flocked to protect him when the Government began to first confiscate and then to execute his cattle and bury them in mass graves, allow me to respond to liberals’ charges that these conservatives are criminals and “domestic terrorists” by pointing at their own Occupy Movement – which had 7,765 documented arrests including for rape and murder AND terrorism.  And of course we can likewise point out that racism is intrinsic to the left.

Harry Reid basically thought Obama was a “good” negro and that was basically fine with the left.

I mean, yes, liberals like Donald Sterling want to give “other people’s money” to blacks.  But that is because according to liberalism, black people aren’t actually “people” but inferior animals who as “the white man’s burden” need to be cared for on the Democrat Party’s plantation.  All they have to do is keep voting for their masters to get the care which as racial inferiors they clearly cannot provide for themselves.

Donald Sterling doesn’t have a problem with “black people.”  I mean, he hired a black guy as his head coach, right?  He’s only got a problem with black people believing they’re his equals is all.

The Los Angeles Clippers are – as of the moment I write this – getting blown out by the Golden State Warriors.  You have to sympathize with the team: do they play their guts out to the ultimate reward of a racist turd?  Or do they deliberately tank the series after working so hard all year to get to the playoffs?  What the hell are they supposed to do?

Apparently, the black population as a whole doesn’t have much of a problem with Donald Sterling: because they’re going to keep helping the racist turd’s political party – and the plantation system that Sterling endorses – with their votes.

I think of Bill Clinton and what he said to Ted Kennedy when he was trying to persuade him to support Hillary’s nomination over Barack Obama’s:

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”

And:

 “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”

I mean, white liberals are perfectly happy working with the black people that they own lock, stock and barrel via the welfare system.

I think of Hillary’s attitude toward blacks – via her own sense of entitlement to power as a white liberal – as expressed by liberal Father Pfleger:

“We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head…. [W]hen Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s [Bill Clinton's]wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came, ‘hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.‘” Pfleger then mimicked Mrs. Clinton crying as the audience gave him a standing ovation. Added Pfleger: “She wasn’t the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people cryin’.”

It sounds to me like that is what “almost” NAACP-award-winning Donald Sterling was doing: he was perfectly fine with a black man bringing him his coffee.  Just don’t let them stand too close to the woman he bought himself to keep along with his wife.

Did you get that?  Donald Sterling was just about to get an AWARD from the NAACP for his wonderfulness.  They were JUST about to give this racist pile of filth a lifetime achievement award.  Because he’s a liberal and thus his rather lengthy history of previous race issues was irrelevant.  And the only reason they cancelled it was because it would have made them even bigger laughing stocks than they already ARE.

Tell me how close the damn Koch brothers have ever been to being on the receiving end of an award from the NAACP.  Pluto is closer to the sun is than any conservative has ever been to receiving such an award from this leftist hate group masquerading as an equal rights organization.

“Racism” is just a game to these lying liberals.  It’s no different from the National Organization of Women: they don’t represent women in any way, shape or form.  They represent a leftist ideology and if you are a successful, fulfilled, accomplished conservative woman such as Sarah Palin, well, you’re clearly “anti-woman” the same way a Clarence Thomas or a Ben Carson becomes an “Uncle Tom” if they don’t tow the plantation line and pick the cotton the way they’re supposed to as far as doctrinaire liberalism is concerned.

You better stay on your damn plantation, negro.  Especially if you’re not “light-skinned” and “clean” and “articulate” with “no negro dialect” like Obama or Eric Holder.  Otherwise you can count on the left coming after you with all the viciousness and race-hate it can muster – and they can muster a LOT of race-hate as virtually all black conservatives have learned.

Had Donald Sterling not been literally caught on tape by his mistress explaining in detail what a racist he is, this racist scumbag would have been just one more among many other white liberals who got an award from the black establishment that serves as the foremen on the elitist white liberal plantation.

I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…

April 24, 2014

Let me point out that these homosexuals are Nazis.  And I mean that LITERALLY, given the historic connection between the rise of Nazism and homosexuality and that Nazism would not have risen had it NOT BEEN for homosexuals who served as Hitler’s brownshirted stormtrooper thugs and beat down the opposition.

And nothing has changed.  Homosexuals are every bit as violent and as hateful as ever.  Look at the history of the “gay rights” movement.  Their “movement” began with violence at Stonewall and the White Night riots.  Today our prisons are CLOGGED with violent and vicious homosexuals who rape one another every chance they get.  And homosexual domestic violence is FAR higher than among heterosexual couplesEven studies that are clearly pro-gay acknowledge this fact.  Gays routinely threaten violence against those who don’t agree with them.

Nazism has its philosophical roots in philosophical worldviews that abandoned truth.  And once truth is dismissed as a possibility, anything and everything is allowed to fill the void.  And homosexuals have that in common with the Nazis, in that the philosophical systems they cling to abandon any and all notion of “truth” as held by classical foundationalism.  It really is no surprise that the two (homosexuality and Nazism) would be so inextricably inter-connected.  I documented this (liberal) philosophical worldview in depth six years ago as Obama was getting elected and these people have obviously become even worse since then.  There are so many examples of it happening it is beyond unreal.

Back on November 22, 2008 I wrote this article: Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

These people are true fascists.  They are identical to the Nazis – especially the homosexual Nazis who BEGAN Nazism in the first place.

And with that, here we are, detailing AGAIN how homosexuals act identically with NAZIS as they clearly haven’t changed one damn bit, have they?

MSNBC Panel Members Find ‘Disturbing Level’ of Gay Rights Interest in ‘Targeting People’
By Brad Wilmouth | April 19, 2014 | 16:27

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.” Kim:

Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level of targeting people.

Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich’s firing, exclaimed, “Yes,” to Kim’s view that such talk was “disturbing.”

As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO’s firing: “And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded.”

A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama’s previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: “Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.”

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:

CHRIS HAYES: So here’s the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they’re gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.

But, now, there’s also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can’t get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.

And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?

RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don’t think anybody’s rights were violated.

HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.

KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.

So there’s a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.

CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It’s somehow, it’s how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It’s no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.

HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one’s own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, “I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it’s no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don’t care who the CEO of Mozilla is.” And this shows — that’s what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally “il-liberal.”

HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, “Oh, it’s about the free market.” Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It’s the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don’t want to have to publish our names. They’re afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don’t want to spend my money at, with your company if I don’t approve how you spend that money. I can decide-

HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.

FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that’s the process.

HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-

KIM: Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level-

HAYES: Yes.

KIM: -of targeting people.

FINNEY:  But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you’re on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he’s planning his daughter’s wedding.

I defy you liberals to show me ONE case of a corporate board firing their CEO because he gave money to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign.  Because that never happened.  Only the LEFT is capable of that kind of rabid fascist intolerance.

In the same vein, show me ONE case of “Yes on 8″ supporters viciously targeting their opponents the way the homosexual liberals did.

Who has been caught over and over and over again being rabidly intolerant of allowing people to have free speech?  The left.  Who routinely shouts down speakers if they don’t agree with those speakers to prevent ideas from being presented?  The left.  Who obeys the dog whistle whenever it is blown by chanting slogans rather than engaging in debate?  The left.  Who has been caught over and over again attempting to indoctrinate students in what amount to unhinged political rants in college/university classrooms (hell, this garbage happens all the damn time – here’s another one) and even in public elementary schools?  The left.  Who actually used the IRS as a thug ideological force to punish people with whom they politically disagreed?  The left.  Who systematically suppresses journalists?  The left.  The left is simply and purely intrinsically fascist.

Do you want to know which side routinely “outs” homosexuals publicly?  The left.  You see, certain homosexuals have decided that outing homosexuals is “a moral act, a means to prevent gays from participating in their own oppression.”

That is the essence of who these people are: YOU don’t have any rights; THEY have all the rights.  You have the right to sit down and shut up while they impose their agenda on you.  And if you don’t like it, they’ll come after you with a viciousness and a rabid hate that is beyond stunning.

The thing about the left is that they are pathologically incapable of seeing themselves for what they truly are.  They are your classic projectionists: the more rabidly intolerant they become, the more they project their own viciousness onto their enemies.  And since these people are true fascists, and with true fascists the end always justifies the means, this rabid hate and intolerance that is THEIRS but which they hypocritically project onto their opponents “justifies” them to be more and more evil and use any and every means to attack.

And just like the brutal Nazi stormtrooper thugs who used every tactic to ensure that their opponents were intimidated – if not physically beaten – into silence, the homosexual left is showing that they are the same damn Nazis they were in the 1930s.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 514 other followers