Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

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

March 28, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The REAL ‘War On Women’ Party Rears Its Ugly, Mysoginist Head (Um, That’s The Democrat Party, You Know)

July 17, 2013

“War on women.”  That’s what Democrats and liberal feminists said of the Republican Party.  Because the Republican Party didn’t want to pay for liberal activist Sandra Fluke’s birth control.  The fact that Sandra Fluke outright lied about the cost of birth control (she dishonestly and frankly idiotically claimed that it cost $3,000 when in reality it cost $324 to cover the same period) didn’t matter.  Nor did it matter that in fact she easily could have accessed FREE birth control in the form of condoms from numerous sources.  The fact that Sandra Fluke as a Georgetown law school student was willing to pay $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER for her hoity-toity college but felt that birth control for $5 a month at Sam’s Club was too expensive and an outrage for women to have to buy didn’t matter.  The fact that an average Georgetown law school graduate starts out at $165,000 a year and what she was demanding was in fact a subsidy for the wealthy didn’t matter.  And of course it most certainly did not matter that Sandra Fluke literally enrolled in Georgetown – a CATHOLIC university – just so she could be a treacherous fifth column and sue them from within.  All that mattered was that demon-possessed Democrats had a slanderous rhetorical assertion and liberals are the kind of people who would much rather believe slanderous rhetorical accusations than actual reality.

You want to see which party is the real “War on Women” party in terms of the actual reality that every liberal must steadfastly ignore so they can continue to believe all the crap they believe instead?

You guessed it.  The Democrat Party.  It was true last year and it is every bit as true this year.  The Party of Weiner and the Party of Spitzer is the DEMOCRAT Party.  It’s okay to stomp on women.  Just as long as you’re a liberal.

Liberal journalist Nina Burleigh once had this to say about Bill Clinton:

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And of course, Bill Clinton would have happily thrown down the knee pads for Nina so she could serve and service her master.  The only problem was he was too busy receiving just worship from the lips of a young female intern named Monica Lewinsky whose father had donated money to Clinton’s campaign.

Pardon me for editorializing here, but that ugly mindset really encompasses liberalism.  Liberals are people who want the government to step in and do everything for them in exchange for their worship of the state and their vote for the party that seeks more and more and more power for that State.  They want your vote, of course, but a vote and getting down on your knees to give a blowjob is the true manifestation of liberalism’s worship of power and those who hold power.

I think of the utterly warped and frankly demonic and hateful worldview of Nina Burleigh and all the liberal feminists just like her.  I think of how abortion is “pro-woman” any more than it is “pro-child” to murder a child.  Do you know who abortion kills?  Today, there are more than 60 million women “missing” in Asia alone because of sex-selective abortion.   Millions of men in China – more than 24 million – will never have the possibility of having wives because so many women have been murdered via abortion that there is a radical imbalance in the gender populations.  So many girls have been murdered and simply do not exist that it cost ten years’ worth of income to have a wife in that “pro abortion society.”  And no matter what pro-abortion people may tell you, they are very much FOR forced abortions that terrorize and maim hundreds of millions of women.  400 million women have been forced to have abortions against their will in China alone, leaving a bloody path of misery and suicide and suffering OF WOMEN in its wake.  People like Nina Burleigh who want legal abortion are the guarantors of this vile demonic crime against women.  Particularly given the fact that liberal feminists are every bit as “pro-big government” as they are “the right to choose” abortion.  And if a woman should have the right to choose,” then on what basis does the state not have the right to choose?  Particularly in the leftist totalitarian societies where the state has been given the power to “choose” everything else???  And to take that stand because you are “pro-woman” is insane to the point of being demon-possessed.

“Real women” are wives and mothers; they are not single sluts whining about the need for their ultimate Man, their Savior, big government, to provide birth control for them.  And they most certainly aren’t women who murder their babies.  And to drive the point home, “real women” are most definitely NOT women who put down their damn kneepads for Bill Clinton or for any other big government bureaucrat for that matter.

We go back to the father of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, for the genesis of this perverted party.  Wilson acknowledged in Congressional Government that “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  And it was his many statements like that prompted historian Walter McDougall to sum up Woodrow Wilson thus: “If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson, it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”  Wilson argued as president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart the divine will.  Whereas conservatives believed that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the father of the progressive movement exalted in power and then more power, and believed that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side.

Jonah Goldberg summed it up this way:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.

Liberal men receive that worship, and liberal women can’t wait to throw down their kneepads and give it to them in one form or another.

That, for the record, is called “women’s liberation” by liberals.  I call it the lowest form of servitude imaginable.

I know that I would rather die than stand in some line with my “presidential kneepads.”  Which is what separates me from liberals.  I demand a government that stays off my damn back, not one that I should slavishly worship.  And I don’t have to thank my government for getting off my back and allowing me my freedom because the Declaration of Independence of MY founding fathers declares that my government OWES that to me.

I know, I know.  That’s just me.

Anyway, end of digression.  Let’s get back to this realization that if you want to look at the party of true “war on women,” look no further than at the Democrat Party.

Consider this editorial from a liberal in the liberal Los Angeles Times:

Women to L.A. City Hall: Remember us?
Deplorably, as of today is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Since the LA Times staff butchered the grammar so badly, I’ll quote Lindsay Bubar and yes, our heroine Sandra Fluke:

Now, women must once again ask the city’s leaders to “remember the ladies” because, deplorably, there is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Democrats have OWNED Los Angeles for decades.  They have OWNED it.  And just like Obama’s inner circle, no damn chicks are allowed.  Not without the proper knee-attire, anyway.  Democrats in a city that they own don’t have a single woman in office.

And women on the Democrat Party’s actual view of the world frankly ought to throw down their kneepads, get down on their knees, and shut the hell up: because Anthony Weiner says that it is inconsiderate and frankly rude to try to talk when you’re satisfying “The Weiner.”

And, with that, let’s consider the very first Democrat Mayor of San Diego in over 20 years.  And what a misogynist swine he is.  This turd’s own supporters are bringing up these charges.  The young fiance of this old piece of garbage broke up with him citing the fact that Filner “became increasingly abusive toward her and began sending sexually explicit text messages to other women in her presence.”

Frankly, according to the tenants of Bob Filner’s liberalism, I don’t know what Filner did wrong: he was merely demanding what he was entitled to, after all.  You get your welfare check, and he gets his something-something.  And Bob Filner is most certainly pro-abortion and therefore every bit as entitled to the adoration of liberal women like Nina Burleigh as Bill Clinton was.

But again, don’t ask me: ask Bill Clinton and his blowjob servant cum “journalist” Nina Burleigh.  But don’t bother trying to ask the city of Los Angeles or the administration of Barack Obama unless you’re a guy – because they won’t let you in the door.

Don’t tell me that the Republican Party is the party of war on women.  At least not until every single Democrat on earth has been hunted down, anyway.

Update: It turns out that Bob Filner CO-FOUNDED the Democrat Party’s Congressional Progressive Caucus alongside Nancy Pelosi.  This turd is classic, uberliberal through-and-through.

And Democrats knew FULL DAMN WELL about what was going on and the real party of the “war on women” couldn’t have given less of a damn.  Quote:

Former assemblywoman Lori Saldana: San Diego Democrats previously warned about Bob Filner
Past party leaders aware of allegations by women
Posted: 07/13/2013 Last Updated: 3 days ago

SAN DIEGO – Former state assemblywoman Lori Saldana told Team 10 she warned San Diego Democrats about Mayor Bob Filner’s treatment of women.

On Friday, she said she took her concerns directly to the party’s chairman.

I went to the leader, the elected leader of the county party,” Saldana said. “I expressed to him my concerns. Did he take strong enough action to make sure things would improve Apparently not.”

What did the Democrat Party completely not give a flying damn about?  Here’s a partial list:

  • the mayor has a modus operandi, a way of getting women alone and forcibly kissing and touching them
  • Filner grabbed the woman’s breast, putting his hand beneath her bra, and forced his tongue down her throat.
  • Gonzalez described certain moves Filner had that earned names among those who know him, like the “Filner dance” and the “Filner headlock.” The former was the dance they allege Filner did when he kissed a woman who was pulling away; the headlock, an overly friendly way of pulling women close to him so he could isolate them.
  • Gonzales related details from the victim who was in Filner’s employ — he said early on in the mayor’s term, she complimented the mayor, telling him he was doing a good job. The mayor responded that he would do a better job if she gave him a kiss. She laughed it off as a joke, Gonzalez said, but he said she soon became aware that the mayor was serious, continuing to harass her and others both physically and verbally.
  • “There is no circumstance under which it would be appropriate for the mayor to enter into an elevator with my client or any person who he employed and to tell them that they would do a better job on that floor if they worked without their panties on,” but that, Gonzalez said, is precisely what happened.
  • Victim Donna Frye called him “tragically unsafe for any woman to be around.”

Anybody who wants to tell you that the Republican Party has a “war on women” because Republicans believe that FEMALE babies ought to have their right to live are simply evil.  Period.

Update, July 23: I suppose I invoked the demonic little turd by saying his name, didn’t I?  But it turns out that Anthony Weiner is at it again.  Yes, at least a FULL YEAR after getting busted for “sexting” any woman who would lower herself to online sex with a rodent, Weiner got busted again.  This time – under his online name “Carlos Danger” – Weiner promised a young woman a condo and even suggested he could get her a job at liberal “news” source Politico.   The address of the condo is known: 1235 S. Prairie Ave.  Weiner wanted to set her up so he could meet her there for sex.

That is so damn Democrat Weiner – who is staying in the race because he knows that Democrats are moral cockroaches – that he ought to be praised by the Democrat Party.  All Weiner wants is to be able to selfishly exploit a young woman in return for providing her welfare.  THAT IS THE DEMOCRAT WAY.  THAT IS ALL DEMOCRATS STAND FOR.

The fact that it is demonic is entirely besides the point.

Update, July 25: Anthony Weiner says he won’t pull out of the race; like this turd would ever “pull out” of ANYTHING once he’s got his little weiner in it.  This is the story that just keeps showing us the REAL face of the Democrat Party.  We now know the name of ONE (there being about a half a dozen other new women) who came forward: Sydney Leathers.  And we know she’s an uber liberal.  First off, let’s go back and establish the pattern of liberal women showering their liberal government gods with sexual worship.  Remember our “journalist” Nina Burleigh and what she said of her government-as-savior-and-lord god Bill Clinton?

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And I said in this article, published days before the Weiner sexting scandal part TWO broke that was just so damn typical of liberal feminists it wasn’t even funny.  And so we’ve got our case in point example of the day in Sydney Leathers, who said of Anthony Weiner:

“I basically worship the ground you walk on.”

And:

“He’s [Weiner] my hero.”

And, just like Barack Hussein Obama and every OTHER Democrat cockroach who keeps crawling into government life, Leathers now says that Weiner made her “very lofty promises” – and utterly failed to keep them.

I think of our liar-in-chief and all the stinking pile of lies he told just to impose his fascist takeover of the healthcare system: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan; my Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care; my Obamacare won’t increase the deficit; my Obamacare will create millions of jobs.  Liberal women LOVE to be lied to; it’s only the truth and those who tell it that they despise.

It must be wonderful to be a Democrat male.  You get to be worshipped by stupid, morally-depraved women.  You get to get all sorts of “weiner benefits” in exchange for making all kinds of promises that you never have to actually keep.  And that gravy train is going to continue until you either die or until the REAL Messiah returns.  At which time you will burn in hell along with all your stupid floozies who kept voting for you.

If The Presidential Election Was Up To The American Middle Class, Mitt Romney Would DESTROY Obama By 14 Points (55 percent to 41 percent!)

September 25, 2012

Mitt Romney is heavily winning the middle class vote.  Which might just be why Obama is working so hard to destroy the middle class.

Given all the demonization of Mitt Romney as a greedy rich bastard who would attack the middle class by Obama and his roaches and the Democrat Party and all their roaches and the mainstream media (who are pretty much all roaches), this is actually pretty amazing; but Mitt Romney utterly ANNIHILATES Barack Obama with the middle class vote.

The money portions of the following article:

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign. Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign. Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters. We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

[...]

 In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Who speaks for the middle class?  It is Mitt Romney and it is very much NOT Barack Obama.

And that pretty much utterly destroys most of the Obama campaign and Democrat Party and mainstream media talking points (which for the record are pretty much lies).

Republican poll analysis: Romney winning with middle-class families
By: Ed Goeas and Brian Nienaber
September 24, 2012 04:34 AM EDT

In early August, with our Republican analysis of the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, we wrote “… this election will remain close until the final weeks of the campaign.  There will be ups and downs for both campaigns throughout the next 13 weeks, but the basic dynamics that are driving this electorate and framing this election remain well in place.”   Two conventions, and tens of millions of campaign dollars later, we continue to hold that belief.  While there have been dozens of polls released during the past six weeks that have had Mitt Romney up by as much as 4 points and Barack Obama up by as much 8 or 9, those variations have had more to do with sampling variations than with real movement in the campaign.

Yes, there have been gaffes on both sides that have been the focus of both the news media and opposing campaigns, but the dynamics that have been the real drivers of the campaign, the economy and deeply negative feelings about the direction of the country, have not changed.  There have also been negative stories about the internal operations, messaging and strategy of both presidential campaigns.  In August, leading into the Republican convention, there were multiple stories about the Obama campaign operation and internal fights about both message and strategic direction that led one to believe the wheels were coming off.  Now it is the Romney campaign’s turn.

(Also on POLITICO: Sheldon Adelson: Inside the mind of the mega-donor)

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign.  Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign.  Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters.  We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Overall, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points on the ballot (50 percent to 47 percent) – which before we rounded up, is actually a 2.6 point lead and only up a half-a-percentage point from the 2.1 point lead for Obama in our last Battleground poll in early August.  In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent).  Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.  These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward  Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt: Fundraising focus Obama’s fault)

All of this data make clear that Romney has won the strong support of middle-class families and is leading the president on an overwhelming majority of key measurements beyond just the ballot.  In fact, when respondents were asked who, Obama or Romney, would best handle a variety of issues, Romney led on all but one including the economy (+9 percent), foreign policy (+3 percent), spending (+15 percent), taxes (+7 percent), Medicare (+2 percent), and jobs (+10 percent).  Ironically, the one measurement Obama led Romney on was “standing up for the middle class” (+8 Obama), reinforcing that often the Democrats win the message war with the middle class, but not their hearts and souls.

Looking at this presidential election overall, intensity among voters is high with Republicans, Democrats, and now independents, and is at levels more comparable with the final days of a presidential election than six weeks out from Election Day.  In fact, fully 80 percent of voters now say that they are extremely likely to vote.  Even with the past few weeks containing some of the toughest days of earned media for the Romney campaign, and perhaps as a surprise to Washington insiders, Romney continues to win Republicans (Romney by a net +87 percent) by the same margin Obama is winning with Democrats (Obama by a net +88 percent), and is still winning with independents (+2 percent).  Romney has majority support with voters over the age of 45 (+7 percent), with men (+6 percent), with white women (+9 percent), and with married voters (+14 percent).  In addition, Romney has solidified his base.  Support among conservative voters exceeds 70 percent (73 percent), his support among very conservative voters exceeds 80 percent (83 percent), and his support among Republicans exceeds 90 percent (91 percent).  Romney is also receiving a higher level of support among Hispanics (40 percent), which is driven by higher support from Hispanic men.   

(PHOTOS: 13 who won’t quit Mitt)
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake has often made the point that Democratic voters are becoming more secular and Republicans more faith based.  That certainly appears to be holding up in this election.  Digging a little deeper on the presidential ballot, Romney has majority support (51 percent) among Catholics, which in past presidential elections has been one of the most predictive demographic groups of the eventual outcome.  Even further, Romney is a winning majority across all religions amongst those who attend services at least weekly (59 percent) or monthly (52 percent), while Obama is winning among those who attend less frequently, never, or are nonbelievers.

(PHOTOS: Romney through the years)

For most voters, however, this election is still about pocketbook issues.  Fully 66 percent of voters select a pocketbook issue as their top concern.  The Romney camp should feel good going into the three presidential debates knowing he has majority support (Romney 53 percent/Obama 44 percent) from these economically focused voters.

In fact, even with all of the misleading partisan attacks on the proposals from Ryan to reform Medicare, a majority of seniors (61 percent) select a pocketbook issue and not Medicare as their top issue of concern and nearly 6 in 10 seniors (58 percent) are voting for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

In addition to their high level of intensity about casting a ballot, many voters are already notably engaged in the campaign.  A strong majority of voters (60 percent) say they watched both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions.  The ballot among these highly attentive voters is tied with 3 percent undecided.  The conventions took a race that was a statistical tie, and simply drove up the vote intensity of all voters.  At the same time, there are enough undecided and soft voters remaining for either candidate to win. In fact, even at this stage of the campaign, 13 percent of those making a choice on the presidential ballot indicate that they would consider voting for the other candidate.

A significant number of voters report that the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates will be extremely (11 percent) or very (12 percent) important to their vote decision.  (Twenty-six percent of Obama’s supporters currently place this high level of importance on the debates as does 20 percent of Romney supporters.)  This means the debates are one of the best opportunities available for Romney to take votes from Obama.  If Romney can continue to make a solid case about turning around the economy and the direction of the country in contrast to the president’s failed economic policies, these voters will be watching and many of them are currently Obama supporters.

Presidential reelection races are almost always about the incumbent and whether or not they should be given an additional four years in office.  This race looks to be no different.  There is no sign of any good economic news on the horizon and two-thirds of the American electorate is focused on pocketbook issues as their top concern.  Fifty-seven percent of these voters disapprove of the job the president is doing on the economy, 62 percent disapprove in his handling of the budget and federal spending, and 54 percent believe that Romney would be better at job creation. Yes, Romney has the issue advantage with these pocketbook-focused voters, and is winning their support by 53 percent to Obama’s 44 percent.

More important, in this latest set of data in the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, is the fact that Romney is also winning by a strong 14-point margin over Obama with middle-class families, a group of voters that is not only a majority of the American electorate, but is usually seen as the ultimate target group in any presidential election.

Romney has particularly been demonized by the axis of evil (Obama camp, Democrat Party and mainstream media) over his “47%” quote. 

Romney was obviously trying to simplify something that is more complex and committed the sin of oversimplifying.  The Obama who can do no wrong with the mainstream media can get away with a thousand of those, but Romney can count on the media “reminding” voters of that remark at least 20 times a day every single day until the election.  Basically, there are obviously two groups who will vote heavily for Obama: the lazy class and the elite class.

Hollywood is so massively in Obama’s corner you’re going to be seeing desperate appeals supporting ObamaCare even in primetime network dramas.  And what is Hollywood?  It’s a bunch of greedy liberal hypocrites who make buttloads of money while pursuing tax credits for the richest people ( hiring lobbyists to do it, btw) and outsourcing to foreign countries so they can make even MORE money.  Uberliberal Michael Moore is a particularly loathsome specimin of Hollywood hypocrite, for the record.

They’re rich.  They pay taxes (well, some of them do, excluding the ones like Marc Anthony who most fervently support Obama while thinking they’re above paying taxes).  Just like some of Obama’s staff actually stoop to pay the taxes they owe.

And then there are all the lazy little low class bottom feeders who do exactly what Mitt Romney said they do.

And the axis of evil deliberately misrepresented that “47 percent” statement to try to demonize Romney with the middle class.

But apparently a whopping majority of the middle class know full damn well who the malicious deceitful hypocrites Obama, Democrats and their media propagandists are.

There are a lot of despicable people undermining the once great and powerful America.  But by a wide margin – and completely contrary to the false narratives the Democrats and their media allies keep telling us – the middle class are not among them.

That fact makes me feel better about the American people than I have felt for quite a while.

Just yesterday, I documented how pathologically dishonest the mainstream media are in a microcosm with their blatant overestimation of how many people showed up at an Obama event.  That same day I also documented that Obama has destroyed 4 million jobs and gutted labor participation in America.  And if that wasn’t enough, I also documented how truly un-American Obama is with this “Obama States of America flag” garbage.

That’s why NOBODY in the middle class ought to be voting for Obama.

Vile Leftwing Professor Pours Hypocritical Hate On Congressman Paul Ryan For Drinking Glass Of Wine

July 11, 2011

It was just last week that I was able to look at Democrats’ personal behavior toward others and show that they as a species were really quite indistinguishable from cockroaches.

And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.

Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.

It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.

The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite.  I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:

Paul Ryan accuser won’t talk
By:Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:47 AM.

Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at  Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend  with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan  drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the  Capitol.  (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her  husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could  make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.)  Feinberg  confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while  advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid.  But she didn’t stop  there.  Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations,  secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the  “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile  piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he,  Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass.  Ryan’s  explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s  recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of  his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”

Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House  ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists.  But it turned  out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and  not lobbyists.  Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have  violated House rules against accepting gifts in general.  But it turned out  that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the  receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.

Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused  him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund  manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine.  Ryan, by his own account,  drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles.  But the $700  wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to  celebrate her birthday.  “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an  economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out  that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family  making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal,  Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself”  for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and  Medicaid.  Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.

In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political  combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker  and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s  accusations.

On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the  incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan.  First, the photo she snapped  of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own  table, and on that table was a bottle of wine.  (Feinberg told TPM that she  and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”)  A check of the  Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant —  shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80  per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?

I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her  mind.  Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a  bottle?  Or $100 a bottle?  Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own —  which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum  wage.

If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were  involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a  hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on  Medicare and Medicaid?  Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt  for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists?  And finally, did  Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter?  Would it be  appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,  or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar  circumstances?

Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry.  I have no comment on  this.”

After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked  up the tale.  New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally  imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine.  The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in  the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no  evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the  wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400  haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter.  He answered  questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else.  When  asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with  Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a  person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had  a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just  decided to cross a line.  Paul is more than happy to have a debate and  understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong  way to do that.”

It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign.  The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):

 Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?

Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president.  John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune.  But guess how much taxes she pays?  She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family.  Did she HAVE to do that?  Oh, no.  She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.”  SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.

How about John Kerry himself?  Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht.  Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand.  And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax.  But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.

And, according to garden variety self-righteous liberal hypocrite Susan Feinberg, THIS behavior is just fine.  It’s that Ryan guy who was actually himself rather surprised at how much it costs to have dinner with rich friends (I’ve experienced that myself when I looked at a tab from a restaurant a date or a friend have suggested in the past) who is evil.

A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.

I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant.  But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy.  To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

July 2, 2011

I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country.  Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up.  Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades.  A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s  political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation,  primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from  Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

  • When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
  • It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
  • It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence.  Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one.  Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.

It’s rather interesting, actually.  I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War.  It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians.  It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats.  But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense.  Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen!  Where can see sign up for that?”

Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society.  A couple of very recent examples:

Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

[...]

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

And let’s not forget Fareed Zakaria, who recently said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:

President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.

In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”

Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.

If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.

When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.

Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.

And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it.  Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery?  Liberal activist judges:

Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.

And we can go back well before that, too.  We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who warned us of the horror of judicial activism:

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

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

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

Democrats don’t love America.  They haven’t for a long time.  For my entire life, in fact.

America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us.  Thomas Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I think of Jefferson’s words when I hear the union mobs that shout down others and riot while mindlessly chanting, “THIS is what Democracy looks like!” (See also here).

And Democrats are at the core of this anti-American garbage.  See here.  And here.  And here. And here.  And hereDemocrats were completely at home voting for a president who believes:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country.  Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.

Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats.  You hate it.  You’ve hated it for a long time.  That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)  And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said – is in fact demonic and evil.  And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party.  Please.

Update, July 2: Someone sent me the link to this excellent piece by Ellis Washington which raises some of the same issues I raise above.  It’s worth a read.

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

June 24, 2011

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Obama Jackbooted Blackshirt Fascist Thugs Alert

June 21, 2011

I’ve explained why I call Obama a fascist at great length.  And of course that article could actually have been a whole lot longer than it was (here’s a VERY recent addition, for instance).

Take this, for example:

June 20, 2011
TSA Now Storming Public Places 8,000 Times a Year
By Tara Servatius

Americans must decide if, in the name of homeland security, they are willing to allow TSA operatives to storm public places in their communities with no warning, pat them down, and search their bags.  And they better decide quickly.

Bus travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow.

A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.

The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.

The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14.  They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.

All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the “civilian national security force” President Obama called for on the campaign trail “that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as the military.

The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA’s largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency’s power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.

In a massive flex of muscle most people didn’t know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and “multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.”

When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to “take the TSA to the next level,” building it into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”

What few people realize is how far Pistole has already come in his quest. This is apparently what that next level looks like. More than 300 law enforcement and military personnel swept through a 100-mile stretch of the Ohio Valley alone, examining the area’s industrial infrastructure, the Charleston Gazette reported.

Federal air marshals, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the Office of Homeland Security and two dozen other federal, state and local agencies teamed up to scour the state’s roads, bridges, water supply and transit centers under the TSA’s leadership.

What is remarkable about these security swarms is that they don’t just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well, everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources.

The TSA had received no specific threats about the Tampa bus station before the April sweep, reporters were told.

They were there “to sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to if there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here,” said Gary Milano with the Department of Homeland Security in an ABC News Action television report. “This way us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment’s notice.”

Federal immigration officials from Customs and Border Patrol swept the station with the TSA, looking for “immigration violations, threats to national security” and “bulk cash smuggling.” (How the bulk cash smuggling investigation related to national security was never explained.)

“We’ll be back,” Milano told reporters. “We won’t say when we’ll be back. This way the bad guys are on notice we’ll be back.”

The TSA gave the same vague answers when asked about the three-state sweep this week. That sweep wasn’t in response to any specific security threat, either.

The purpose was to “have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here,” Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia told the Gazette. “It can be a deterrent.”

It might be — if Americans are willing to live this way.

Tara Servatius is a radio talk show host. Follow her @TaraServatius and on Facebook.

It has ALWAYS been under liberals and progressives that America has degenerated into the depths of a police state.  Go back and see all the fascist garbage that Woodrow Wilson beqeathed us with, for example.  Consider FDR putting the Japanese into camps and even LYING to the Supreme Court to justify doing so.

Or perhaps you prefer to stay modern: consider Barack Obama’s confiscating General Motors from the legitimate bondholders so he could hand it over to his union cronies.  Or consider Obama denouncing George Bush as violating the Constitution in an Iran War he never even got in -

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

- prior to ripping up the Constitution and then urinating on it to get America into Libya and Yemen.

Liberals are hypocrites.  Hypocrisy is the liberals’ quintessential essence.  If you took the hypocrisy out of the liberal, you could not have liberalism.  You certainly couldn’t have Nancy Pelosi.  Oh, or John Kerry.  Or Charlie Rangel.  Or Al Gore.  Or Barack Obama.  Or Joe Biden.  Or Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Notice how these are pretty much all their top-level people; the rank-and-file march in goose-step behind them.  Democrats are the kind of people who demonize Republicans left and right for taking actions that are necessary in the face of direct threats.  And then they do far worse than the Republicans EVER did, and “It’s not fascism when WE do it.”

Barack Obama is of course the poster boy for the biggest hypocrite who ever lived.  Think of him demonizing Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan before keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting us in THREE MORE SHOOTING WARS to boot (Pakistan, Libya and Yemen).  Think of Obama on the Patriot Act.  Think of Obama on rendition.  Think of Obama on Gitmo.  Think of Obama on domestic eavesdropping.  Think of Obama on the surge strategy.  Think of Obama on the debt ceiling.  Think of Obama on transparency.  Think of Obama constantly assuring us of all the shovel-ready jobs to sell his massive stimulus boondoggle and then joking that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected” when the evidence that he’d lied was beyond overwhelming.  Think of Obama assuring the American people that if you like your health care plan you can keep it in the face of the new Price Waterhouse study that shows HALF of all employers will dump their employees into ObamaCare.  Think of Obama on damn near EVERYTHING.

Liberals are people who say one thing and do another.   They are people who are capable of endless self-righteous selective outrage that dries up when THEY’RE running things.

This is the same reason why the world’s worst human rights abusers routinely get to sit on the human rights council at the überleft United Nations and then lecture the rest of us on “human rights.”

Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all his wars?  Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all of his secrecy and his lies?  It was all over the place (and all over the front pages of the mainstream media) throughout the years of Bush derangement syndrome.  Remember how they were out in force every single day in front of the televesion cameras?  Where are all the Cindy Sheehands and the Code Pinks and the coverage of them NOW???

Where is all the outrage over our civil liberties as Obama’s thugs and goons fondle our junk???

Try to sort through the Democrats’ basic premise: the party that is trying to grow the size of goverment more and more and put government in charge of more and more of our lives ISN’T fascist; while the party that is trying to reduce the size and scope and power of government ARE the fascists.

Democrats are FINE with fascists and fascism, as long as the fascists are UNION fascists.

Why You Should Ask A Democrat To Fill Your Tank At Your Next Fill Up

March 9, 2011

As we speak, in terms of the national average price for gasoline, it will cost you about seventy bucks to fill a 20 gallon tank.

And in the People’s Republic of California – which taxes the hell out of gasoline just like they’re taxing the hell out of everything else - it’s actually a fair amount worse.  Just in case you needed more proof that Democrats and sky-high gasoline prices lovingly walk hand-in-hand.

When George Bush was president – even though Democrats were in control of both the House and the Senate – high gas prices were “Bush’s fault.”  It happened during his watch, and that was all the Democrats and their mainstream media intellectual soulmates needed.  And of course it doesn’t matter how lousy things are under Obama’s watch, because the Bush presidency is like the original sin to liberals; it extends backward and forward into eternity, so that all things evil can be attributed to it.  Basically that is because government is Democrat’s god, and Bush was a heretic who defiled the only god with whom they have to do.

It didn’t matter that polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly were on the Republicans’ side when they said, “Drill baby, drill.”

It didn’t matter that after George Bush ended a ban on drilling, gasoline prices in the US began to dip IMMEDIATELY.

You see, in the words of Nancy Pelosi, who ruled as Speaker of the House:

 “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Harry Reid was uninterested in your being able to afford to drive to work; he was out to save you from yourselves:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

Now contrast this with other Obama quotes, which puts his goals into much better perspective:

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

And the result of shutting down plants that produce half our electricity in Obama’s own words:

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 gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

 John Harwood asked then-Senator Obama, “Could the high prices help us?”  And Obama responded:

OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that, ehh, this is such a shock t’American pocketbooks is not a good thing. Uh, but if we take some steps right now t’, uh, help people make the adjustment – first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.

What Obama would have said if he wasn’t a total idiot and a disgrace to the presidency is, “Of COURSE high gas prices won’t hurt us!  That would kill our economy!  Just what kind of idiot are you for even asking?!?!?”

Obama didn’t say that because he thinks high gas prices actually will help America.  That’s just the kind of incompetent disgrace to the American presidency that he is.

Fossil fuels are bad.  Using fossil fuels are bad.  Inexpensive energy is bad (at least as long as the price doesn’t rise too soon at any one time and make Americans react like frogs placed in boiling water) because it encourages Americans to keep using cheap energy when they should be using the expensive and inefficient energy sources that Democrats want to force them to use.  Which means being able to afford driving to work or heating your home is bad.

Nancy Pelosi’s failed policy, Harry Reid’s failed policy and Barack Obama’s failed policy are off-limits in the media, however.  You really don’t hear any stories on that stuff.  Our media “gatekeepers” have slammed the gates shut on that angle.

Last year – and that was before the crisis in Libya and before the “evil” Republicans took over the House of Representatives after two years of abject Obama failure to govern, I pointed out that gasoline prices had actually skyrocketed on Obama’s watch.  And dang oh boy hooeeeh they’ve skyrocketed since.  Which is to say that the fact of the matter is that the crisis in Libya or in the Middle East really doesn’t have anything to do with this.  It’s the fool we had in office a year ago when prices were skyrocketing who is the same fool we’ve got now that is the “crisis.”

A couple weeks ago I wrote this:

The headlines now -

Crisis in Libya Raises Fears of Skyrocketing Oil Prices Causing Pain at the Pump

- match what Obama was saying his policy was all along.

Obama has said that higher prices for oil are good.  He just wanted to spread out the pain over a longer period of time.

Obama’s appointments reflect his determination to drive up oil prices and therefore force the American people against their will to embrace his radical leftist energy agenda.  Take Obama’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who has stated on the record that he wanted to“figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  And at the time he said those words, gasoline prices were close to $8 a gallon.

[And the only reason our gasoline prices aren't $8 a gallon is because there are still more socialists in Europe than there are here.]

Electicity?  Obama was perfectly fine if the cost of electricity skyrocketed.  In fact he said under his policies prices would “necessarily skyrocket.”

These people are getting exactly what they want.  And by “exactly what they want,” I mean the destruction of the American economy so a purely socialist system can be erected in the ashes.

Obama and his handpicked energy secretary are getting exactly what they want, and exactly what Obama said he would do if elected.  The same Democrats who demonically demonized Bush for high oil prices have all along wanted the price of oil to “necessarily skyrocket” so that automakers will be forced to manufacture little clown cars and the American people will be forced to buy those clown cars.

As Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel infamously put it:

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

And Democrats want to grab hold of the very crisis they created and seize control of our energy in a way that will make us “green.”  Dirt poor, of course, but “green.”

It’s part of the Democrats’ overall strategy, which so far is working brilliantly.

They want to say, “Oil is too expensive and too unstable.”  We’ve got to spend hunderds and hundreds of billions on an utterly stupid agenda such as high speed rail, solar panels, wind, etcetera.  And we’ve ultimately got to take cars and the freedom that comes with mobility away from the people so that we can better control and shape them into what we want them to be.

What Democrat John Dingell said of ObamaCare equally applies to energy policy:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

We’ve got them in their own words.  We’ve got them telling us that they WANT high gas prices and expensive energy.  We’ve got them doing everything they can to prevent any and all American drilling. 

And yet Democrats agreed with this agenda and voted for these people and put them into power.

Democrats want seven dollar a gallon and higher gasoline prices?  Why not let them have it right now.  Isn’t that only appropriate?

And with national gasoline prices at the halfway point, it seems like the perfect solution:

EVERY SINGLE TIME A DEMOCRAT FILLS HIS OR HER TANK, THEY SHOULD FILL A REPUBLICAN’S TANK AT THEIR EXPENSE.

It’s a win-win.  Republicans get the inexpensive oil they want to fuel their cars and businesses, and Democrats get to go the way of the Dodo bird all the faster – which is exactly what they want for the rest of America.  And by extension, every single Democrat should pay the highest tax rates on every single Obama tax hikes.  They want it for others; let them pay it themselves.

So tell you what, Democrats.  And I mean every single one of you.  Fill our tanks, which will bring your costs to the minimum price of what Obama’s handpicked energy secretary said was “the goal.”

Or just shut the hell up and get the hell out of our lives, you hypocrites.

Libyans Facing Down Dictator Gaddafi Are Seriously Missing George Bush

March 9, 2011

As to the question of this sign:

The answer of the Libyans who are trying to free themselves from a murderous dictator thug named Muammar Gaddafi is, “Hell yes we do!”

In this case, one Bush is as good as another.  Both men were far more morally courageous than our current Coward-in-Chief who is casually putting his feet up on the Oval Office furniture.

George Herbert Walker Bush famously said, “This will not stand.  This will not stand, this aggressiona against Kuwait,” when informed that Saddam Hussein had just brutally invaded that tiny country.  And it didn’t.  Saddam Hussein had the fourth largest military in the world at the time; but it sure didn’t after we cut them down to size.  Barack Obama, in contrast, didn’t say a word criticizing Muammar Gaddafi for over a week while he sent first a boat too small, then a ferry that couldn’t handle rough water, while hundreds of Americans literally thought they would be killed.  Because the commander in chief of the most powerful navy in the history of the world did not want to risk provoking Gaddafi – even though several other nations had sent their own warships to save their people.  And after a lengthy period in which Obama refused to directly criticize Gaddafi for his murder of his own people, Obama has since looked at the polls and started making all manner of provocative threats that he has no intention of backing up with action.

Even the most evenhanded accounts are affirming that Obama is undermining American leadership.

BREGA, Libya (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi’s forces struck at rebel control of oil export hubs in Libya’s east for a second day on Thursday as Arab states weighed a plan to end turmoil Washington said could make the nation “a giant Somalia.”

A leader of the uprising against Gaddafi’s 41-year-old rule said he would reject any proposal for talks with Gaddafi to end the conflict in the world’s 12th largest oil exporting nation.

In The Hague, International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Gaddafi and members of his inner circle could be investigated for alleged crimes committed against civilians by security forces since the uprising broke out in mid-February.

Italy said it was preparing for a potential mass exodus of migrants escaping turmoil in North Africa after a rise in flows of illegal immigrants from Tunisia, the initial destination for tens of thousands who have fled violence in Libya.

Save The Children and Medecins Sans Frontieres said they were struggling to get medicines and care to Libya’s needy, with gunmen blocking roads and civilians too scared to seek help.

Witnesses said a warplane bombed the eastern oil terminal town of Brega, a day after troops loyal to Gaddafi launched a ground and air attack on the town that was repulsed by rebels spearheading a popular revolt against his four-decade-old rule.

The rebels, armed with rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns and tanks, called on Wednesday for U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries it said were fighting for Gaddafi.

Opposition activists called for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya’s deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

“Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

But perhaps mindful of a warning by Gaddafi that foreign intervention could cause “another Vietnam,” Western officials expressed caution about any sort of military involvement including the imposition of a no-fly zone.

I began with a question.  Might as well throw in another one:

Libya: Just how pathetic is Barack Obama?
**Posted by Phineas

The British have dispatched the Royal Navy and their SAS –their elite Special Air Service– to evacuate their citizens from Libya:

The SAS was ordered into Libya on Thursday to oversee the evacuation of hundreds of British nationals after the Government’s response to the crisis came in for widespread criticism.

Nearly 500 Britons were successfully repatriated throughout the day after three RAF Hercules transport aircraft and a Royal Navy frigate were pressed into action.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that special forces were on the ground in Tripoli to ensure the evacuation of all British nationals went smoothly.

SAS officers offered support and advice to private security firms drafted in to rescue more than 170 oil workers stranded in remote desert compounds.

Last night the frigate HMS Cumberland set sail from Benghazi with 200 passengers on board, many of them British.

Rescue efforts were still under way last night but the Government insisted that it was close to getting everybody out.

That is how the government of a world power is supposed to take care of its people!

So, what did President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, Commander in Chief of the mightiest military the world has ever seen, do? Dispatch a carrier battle group with Marines to rescue our people? Drop in Special Forces to secure an evacuation zone? Declare a no-fly zone and crack a few sonic booms over Tripoli as a warning to Qaddafi?

Nope. The 45th President of the United States, successor in office to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Reagan, and all the rest… rented a ferry:

Right now, in Libya, there are hundreds of Americans waiting for evacuation … by ferry.

Seriously. The State Department has chartered a ferry to take the hundreds of waiting Americans to Malta. But rough seas have delayed the ferry’s departure until Friday.

A ferry. We have the biggest navy in the world and all that wimp can do is rent a ferry, as if this were some excursion in the bay instead of an evacuation in the middle of a civil war.

Others offered earlier the reasonable argument that Obama wasn’t doing more because he didn’t want to do something that might set Qaddafi off to take revenge on Americans. But that obviously isn’t a concern if the Brits feel they can send in the SAS…

Yet we rent a ferry.

Unbelievable.

Mr. President… Barry… Stop it. Just stop. You’re embarrassing us.

UPDATE: After three days, the ferry has finally left the dock in Tripoli and the Americans are out. Maybe next time we should ask London to do it for us.

This doesn’t adequately deal with Obama’s incompetence.  Before sending the stupid ferry, Obama had actually initially sent a boat that was much too small.  It would actually be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

The Americans were waiting for the ferry because – unlike the British warships – it couldn’t handle heavy seas.  The hope of America rested in a ferry that could sink with a big wave because appeasing coward Hussein didn’t want to appear threatening.  And rather than demanding that if a single American were killed Libya would be bombed until the stone ages looked like Futurama, Obama actually pleaded for permission to evacuate threatened American citizens.

And WHY has Obama acted this pathetically and this weakly?

Read this for the answer to that question.  Basically, Obama actually has more in common with Gaddafi ideologically than practically anyone else.

In a story by CBS titled, “Libya rebels beg for no-fly as bombings persist,” we have these words:

In a firsthand look at why Libya’s rebels are begging for a no-fly zone, CBS News was first on the scene after a bombing. People ignored the danger and raced to show the damage.”He’s hitting his own people with bombs,” one man said through a translator. “Young children. He’s killing them.”

CBS News was en route to the front line when a government warplane dropped two bombs on a road leading there. The shrapnel from those bombs was still warm when CBS News arrived at the blast site.

Near the craters was the wreckage of a pickup truck. A family with three children was in it when Qaddafi’s air force struck. Two of the children died. 

The survivors were slashed by shrapnel. The circling warplanes made for a very jumpy day on the front line.

The rebels have had trouble on the ground as well, their advance slowed by better-armed government forces counterattacking to defend Qaddafi’s home turf in the west.

Well, whether it’s the Sunni world fearing the Shiite Iranian nuclear bomb, or whether it’s Muslims across the Middle East yearning from freedom from tyrants, go knock on another door. 

The Muslim world wanted a weak American president, and now it’s got one.

This same Muammar Gaddafi watched George W. Bush take Saddam Hussein out, and he gave America the keys to his nuclear arsenal because he didn’t want to be the next dictator to be deposed.  Now he sneers at us while sending his jets to obliterate unarmed civilians from the air.

According to liberals – the quintessential moral idiots – that is actually proof that the U.S.  has regained the prestige it lost: because we are weaker and less feared in the world than we’ve ever been since Jimmy Carter.

I miss Bush, yes.  I miss a guy who did what he said and said what he did.  Verus Obama.  For example, just today, the weakling is abandoning yet another key campaign pledge.

The smell of weakness really stinks.  And whether we look at Russia, or at Iran, or at Egypt, or at Libya, or at China,  or at North Korea, or at the Sudan, it really reeks of stink at the White House these days.

A Nobel For Wikileaks? Nobel Prize Worth About A Cup Of Horse Crap These Days

March 4, 2011

Jimmy Carter got one (maybe it was for abandoning a key US ally in the Shah and inviting in the Ayatolloahs?).  Al Gore got one for being a global warming propagandist.  Barack Obama got one for being nothing but a slick-talking socialist.

Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War that had plagued the world for nearly fifty years, and who turned around an economy that was on its way down the toilet, didn’t get one.

So clearly being an ideological partisan liberal is a prerequisite for “winning” a Nobel Prize.

Murderer Yassar Arafat got one.  So maybe being a terrorist or at least being someone who is good at destabilizing world peace is a prerequisite, too.

And, of course, one of the few people who actually deserve the award was languishing in a Chinese prison while the Chinese who were crushing the human spirit were sipping champagne with Barry Hussein in the Obama White House.  So I guess hypocrisy and moral cowardice are probably criterions, also.

The background for giving that dissident – Liu Xiaobo – the Nobel Prize, is itself rather revealing.  Basically, in giving it to Obama for doing nothing beyond being a leftist, the Nobel committee felt pressured to give the 2010 award to somebody who actually deserved it.  If this was a Pee Wee Baseball umpiring deal, the dirty umpire would make sure his kid’s team won every single game but the one where league officials came to monitor his calls.

All that said, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would seem to be a perfect choice for the award.

A cup full of horse crap stuffed in his face would be a pretty good choice, too.

As Hot Air points out:

There’s also the complicity of Wikileaks in possible torture and death, but who cares about that? Wikileaks callously released the names and whereabouts of Afghan informants helping US troops drive out the Taliban — a truly corrupt, murderous, terrorist regime — putting not only the lives of the informants in danger, but also the lives of their families. (Even Amnesty International was disgusted by this.) Julian Assange doctored a video of an Apache shooting insurgents in Baghdad, calling it collateral murder, but his little act of exposure in Afghanistan could lead to real collateral murder. The “courage” of the Wikileaks document drop also put the lives of US citizens and troops in danger, but hey, maybe that’s why they’re being nominated.

Julian Assange also admitted that Wikileaks was responsible for a Kenyan massacre that followed one of their document drops, but who cares? The Kenyans were informed before they were slaughtered. I’m sure that, were they alive, they would totally say it was worth it.

Even the flagship of liberalism The New York Times acknowledged that Assange and Wikileaks altered video to falsely demonize the US military:

By the time of the meetings in London, WikiLeaks had already acquired a measure of international fame or, depending on your point of view, notoriety. Shortly before I got the call from The Guardian, The New Yorker published a rich and colorful profile of Assange, by Raffi Khatchadourian, who had embedded with the group. WikiLeaks’s biggest coup to that point was the release, last April, of video footage taken from one of two U.S. helicopters involved in firing down on a crowd and a building in Baghdad in 2007, killing at least 18 people. While some of the people in the video were armed, others gave no indication of menace; two were in fact journalists for the news agency Reuters. The video, with its soundtrack of callous banter, was horrifying to watch and was an embarrassment to the U.S. military. But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” (See the edited and non-edited videos here.)

Too bad those Reuters journalists decided to pal around with armed terrorists.  And too bad that Wikileaks released what was clearly propaganda that edited that little detail out of their Nobel-Prize-winning effort.

But propaganda is FINE with the political left, as long as it’s propaganda that demonizes conservatives, Republicans, America or the US military.  And just as is the case of Al Gore, the fact that Julian Assange is a documented propagandist who falsifies stories really doesn’t much matter in whether or not he should get a big fat award.

The New York Times, which of course helped Assange get his America-undermining pile of secrets to the world, was rather petty in its treatment of Assange.  After all, they were the arrogant elitists, and Assange wasn’t even a “real journalist.”  So after benefitting from his story, they turned on him like cockroaches eating their own:

On the fourth day of the London meeting, Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. “He’s tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,” Schmitt wrote to me later. “He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”

So maybe really lousy personal hygiene habits are desirable for winning a Nobel Prize, too.

John Stossel pointed something out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.  O’Reilly mentioned all the awards Stossel had won as a journalist, including 19 Emmys and 5 awards for excellence by the National Press Club.  But John Stossel noted that he wouldn’t be winning any more such awards.  Because he went to Fox News.  And the field of journalism is largely comprised of radical leftwing ideologues who are simply far too biased to recognize that the same great journalist who won all those awards is still the same great journalist doing the same great work.  But the field of American journalism doesn’t care about that; as far as these ideologue propagandists are concerned, John Stossel is persona non grata.  It’s just the way the roll.

And frankly, John Stossel is a better journalist than he’s ever been, because he cares more about the truth than he cares about playing these sick people’s game to win their stupid awards for leftwing bias.

The only reason the Nobel Prize award gets any coverage at all any more is because it is clearly lagely a far leftist award, and the media that gives us “the news” are a bunch of far leftists who think their fellow leftists (and only fellow leftists, mind you) deserve accolades.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers