Posts Tagged ‘bomb’

Labor Unions: A Century Of Genuine Evil

October 5, 2010

If you’re like me, you never heard of this evil event that was reported in an Los Angeles Times editorial below.  It has been hidden from you, just as the truth about so much history has been hidden by the teachers and historians who were supposed to teach the truth, but instead have fed us on propaganda and lies.

As terrible, and as evil, as the following event was, which has been deliberately omitted from virtually everyone’s history books, it represents only one of many evil and ugly incidents in the history of labor unions.

The blast that rocked labor: The bombing of the Times Building 100 years ago set off a chain of events that devastated America’s unions.
by Lew Irwin
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Page A27, Los Angeles Times

Shortly after 1 A.M. on Oct. 1, 1910, 100 years ago Friday, a time bomb constructed of 16 sticks of 80% dynamite connected to a cheap windup alarm clock exploded in an alley next to the Los Angeles Times.  It detonated with such violence that for blocks around, people ran panic-stricken into the streets, believing that an intense earthquake had hit the city.

The explosion destroyed the Times building, taking the lives of 20 employees, including the night editor and the principle telegraph operator, and maiming dozens of others.  Two other time bombs – intended to kill Gen. Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher of the newspaper, and Felix J. Zeehandelaar, the head of a Los Angeles business organization – were discovered later that morning hidden in the bushes next to their homes.  Their mechanisms had jammed.

Eventually two brothers, J.B. McNamara, who planted the bombs, and J.J. McNamara, an official of the International Assn. of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers union who ordered the attacks, were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

In it’s day, The Times bombing was equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.  It was called “the crime of the century,” and it remains the deadliest crime to go to trial in California history.  It would lead to investigations, arrests and trials of union leaders across the country who, it turned out, funded hundreds of terrorist bombings at mostly nonunion construction projects between 1907 and 1911.  They included officials of the California Building Trades Council in San Fransisco, the ironworkers union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Indianapolis, the Machinists Union in Syracuse, N.Y., and the Building Trades Council in Detroit.  Hirelings of the union involved in executing the bombings were also brought to trial – 46 members of the ironworkers union alone.  In addition to the McNamaras, who were sentenced in 1911, 39 men were convicted and sent to prison in 1912; five others received suspended sentences.

The testimony during their trials and their convictions devastated the American labor movement, virtually paralyzing it until the New Deal. [...]

The terrorism that gripped America 100 years ago is barely mentioned in California history books today…. The bombing is now regarded as an embarrassment to organized labor, which has never gotten around to an unequivocal denunciation of it.

A 1996 history of the Ironworkers Union says that … “The international officers stretched the limits of zeal in a righteous cause.” [...]

Former President Theodore Roosevelt reacted against those “foolish sentimentalists” who urged that the McNamaras be regarded with sympathy because they were struggling in a war on behalf of their class, pointed out that all of their victims had been “laboring people.”  “Murder,” Roosevelt said succinctly, “is murder.”

“Bomb.”  “Violence.”  “Murder.”  “The equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.”  The “the crime of the century.”  “The deadliest crime to go to trial in California history” to this very day.  Labor unions.  All of those words and phrases go hand in hand together.

A century of evil.  That’s the legacy of labor unions.

Interestingly, the article points out that the American labor movement was virtually paralyzed until the New Deal.  So let’s pick up with the New Deal.  From “Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?“:

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

From violent terrorist bomber murders who committed the crime of the century equivalent of the 9/11 terrorist attack to racists who hurt poor blacks.

Thirty years later, the unions got a second chance.  And they were still genuinely evil.

Let’s also point out that while labor unions were being violent racists in America, they were in the process of being the source of the greatest evil in human history in Europe.  It was the labor unions that formed the core of Lenin’s violent communist movement.  The Marxists started out in 1898 by forming the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.  Just as labor unions formed the core of Hitler’s National Socialist German WORKERS Party.

From a 1935 German magazine:

A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, CommunismAdolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”

“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”

While American labor unions were basking in the light of FDR’s pork barrel political favoritism and doing everything they could to keep poor blacks down, their European counterparts were at work preparing to set the world on fire.

So far, I can’t say I’d be proud to be a member of a labor union.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka recently appeared before an audience of fellow socialist travelers and said:

“…we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.

I Hate the Media points out the scary parallels to the ugly history of the past:

“Re-establish”? Wouldn’t that imply that there had once been popular control over private corporations?

Richard. Mr. Trumka. Sir. Pardon our impertinence, but we believe that what you’re talking about here is National Socialism.

As in Adolf Trumka.

Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, communism, saying:

“Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore.  It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.”

But let’s get back to Richard Trumka.

Of course, Richard Trumka isn’t just our next budding fuhrer; he’s an incredibly violent and evil man.  Here’s the short version of one story about Trumka:

On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.

The short version doesn’t include the fact that Richad Trumka’s union thugs – in addition to shooting a good family man in the head and murdering him – threw rocks at the rescue workers who showed up to try to save Eddie York’s life as he lay dying.

As head of the United Mine Workers, Trumka ordered a nationwide strike against Peabody Coal in 1993. On July 22, a non-union worker, Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and killed as he attempted to pass striking coal workers. Picketers continued to throw rocks after York was shot, preventing his would be rescuers from assisting him.[14]. Trumka and other United Mine Workers officials settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Mr. York’s widow out of court in 1997.

And it was following that vicious display of supremely ugly violence that Richard Trumka delivered his “he got just what he deserved” remark.

The executive summary of a 31-page report titled, “Freedom From Union Violence” states that:

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975.

And that report was dated 1998, meaning that we’ve very likely witnessed a lot of violence since.

That report is filled with separate accounts of violence.

I could go on and on and on reporting incidents of union violence.  But I want an article, not a 10-part collection of books.

So let’s move on to the newest form of labor union violence: economic violence.

How does an unfunded gap of $3.23 TRILLION in public sector union pensions sound to you?

From The Hill:

Businesses and unions planning to meet on possible $3 trillion pension disaster
By Jay Heflin – 09/05/10 09:04 PM ET

Labor groups will be invited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to talk about an alarming shortfall in state employee pension plans that some believe could lead to a new government bailout.

Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president for Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits, told The Hill the total shortfall for state pension funds could run as high as $3 trillion.

That doesn’t count the private sector unions, which are so deep in unfunded pension debt it’s unreal.  SEIU’s unfunded liabilities represent more than 80% of the union’s total assets, for just one example.  And that is just part of a bailout movement that could – gulp – top $100 trillion.

And when the system can’t pay the unions, there will be blood.  We’ll see the kind of violence and outright anarchy that has been gripping Europe in recent months.  Only we’ve got a lot more guns in America.

Labor unions have destroyed every single industry they have ever been allowed to contaminate.  From manufacturing (airline, auto, steel, textile, etc.) to teaching.  And Superman aint coming, because labor unions are the strength-sapping, lethal Kryptonite.

Labor unions have represented genuine evil for more than a century.  And if we don’t vote out the Democrats who use public money to keep their voter-turnout apparatus going in a sick game of political patronage, they will murder this country.

Moral Coward Obama Refuses To Support Decision To A-Bomb Japan

November 16, 2009

The decision to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – as much as the Japanese might disagree – is one of the great no-brainers of history.

Here’s a couple of quick reasons why:

TOKYO – Japanese Second World War leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being “frightened,” a newly released diary reveals.  Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.

“The notes show Tojo kept his died-in-the-wool militarist mentality until the very end,” said Kazufumi Takayama, the archives curator, who confirmed the accuracy of the published excerpts. “They are extremely valuable.”

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

An invasion of Japan would have consumed the lives of as many as 4 million American causalities.

Japan refused to surrender even after the first bomb was dropped, thereby welcoming the second.

Students of World War II history also know that Japan was only a couple of weeks away from launching their own nuclear attack against the United States by means of German uranium sent via U-boat.

Of course, when I say the decision was a “no-brainer,” I exclude moral cowards, who will always find a way to dither, to question, to hide, to demagogue.  What is obvious to anyone else becomes an endless quagmire of indecision to such as these.

The Pentagon was fed up with Obama’s dithering moral cowardice regarding Afghanistan 2 full months ago, for what it’s worth.

Obama Declines To Defend U.S. Bombing Of Hiroshima, Nagasaki

Defending the decision of the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII is not a comfortable thing to do when you’re in Japan.  But if you’re President of the United States, you must do it. Diplomatically, yes.  With sympathy for the civilian victims, yes.  But you must do it.

But when it came time today for Barack Obama to fulfill that fundamental duty, he failed. The very first reporter [from Fuji TV] called on at the joint press conference with PBO and Japanese PM Hatoyama in Tokyo today put the question to Pres. Obama in blunt and explicit terms:

JAPANESE REPORTER: What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Do you think it was the right decision?

Obama took a deep breath, paused . . . and punted.

PBO gave a halting response that utterly failed to answer the question.  The closest he came was to observe that Japan “has a unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’m sure it helps to motivate the Prime Minister’s deep interest in this issue.”

The reporter tried again: “do you believe the US dropping of nuclear weapons on –“

Obama cut him off, choosing to answer an unrelated question on the situation in North Korea.

President Reagan – who famously shared his vision regarding the Cold War as “We win, they lose” – was very different indeed from a dithering and morally weak President who recently said:

OBAMA: I’m always worried about using the word “victory” because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

And, of course, Obama is doing everything he can to ensure that the United States doesn’t have to bear the burden of a “victory” in Afghanistan, or suffer the indignity of a “victory” against an Iran that is determined to develop nuclear weapons of their own on Obama’s watch.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Iran rejected nuclear deal, Obama postponing announcement

Iran has completely rejected a UN-brokered nuclear deal, but US President Barack Obama has postponed the official announcement on Teheran’s refusal due to internal political reasons, Israel Radio quoted a senior western official as saying Saturday.

The deal would see most of the Islamic Republic’s uranium shipped to Russia and France for further processing.

The official reportedly told journalists in Paris that Iran has also refused to resume nuclear talks with the six world powers.

What we desperately need is a president who actually has the courage and common sense to prefer victory over chaos, and to recognize obvious historical facts supporting the use of American force with clarity, rather than with postmodern, blame-America-first political correctness.

Islamist Anti-U.S. Terrorism Rejuvenated Under Obama Weakness

June 4, 2009

Bush kept us safe.  For that he has been unrelentingly demonized by the left.  Those days – other than the ongoing demonization – are gone.  Now we have the Obama administration – which rebranded “the war on terror” as an “overseas contingency operation”; which decided to start referring to “terror attacks” as “man-caused disasters”; which only just today screwed up and leaked nuclear secrets – in charge of keeping America safe.

Even as Obama has sought to have hardcore terrorist Gitmo detainees released to US prisons – which would further radicalize our prison systemfour Muslims (three of whom had converted while in prison) were captured in the act of planting bombs in an FBI sting operation.  While only .06 percent of Americans are Muslims, militant Wahhabist Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US prison system – especially among young African-Americans).

Why worry about terrorists coming to us from Muslim lands when we can grow our very own hardened Islamist terrorists right here?

Yesterday we suffered the first successful domestic terrorist attack (the second if you count the Tiller murder) under the Obama administration.  The Muslim convert who killed one American soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting center offered this account for his actions:

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, also known as Carlos Bledsoe, is charged with capital murder and 16 counts of terroristic acts.

According to the police reports, Muhammad admitted to shooting the victims, and then revealed how and why.

He told police that he put three weapons, including an assault rifle, into his SUV and then drove around until he saw the Recruiting Station and the two soldiers smoking outside the building.

He then pulled into the parking lot in front of the station, stopped his vehicle, and began shooting at the soldiers standing outside, firing several rounds from an SKS assault rifle with the intent of killing them. Muhammad also told officers that he would have killed more soldiers if they had been on the parking lot. Muhammad also told police he was a practicing Muslim, and that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.

The terrorist who contributed to one of Obama’s “man-caused disasters” had maps to several other targets.

But these are just warm-up acts for the bloodletting to follow.  We only need to worry over such attacks when we let a radicalized convict out of one of our prisons.

Yesterday on Fox News Special Report, Amy Kellog in London reported:

“The general manager of al-Arabia says the press tends to treat Obama as a friend of the region, something that could backfire efforts to combat extremism.”

The general manager of al-Arabia then said:

“I have to mention as well – uh, let’s call them, you know, the ‘bad guys’ – that time they feared Bush.  They do not seem to fear Obama right now.  So the psychology of fear does not exist today with Obama so far because they don’t think he will launch a war.  They don’t take his threats seriously.”

“They feared Bush.  They do not seem to fear Obama.  They don’t think he will launch a war.  They don’t take his threats seriously.”

And what happens when Islamist terrorists lose their fear of America and its president?

We have a major al-Qaeda announcement from Osama bin Laden warning America of “revenge on the U.S.”

And we have a terrifying message coming from a major al-Qaeda recruiter, Kuwati professor Abdallah Fahd Abd Al-’Aziz Al-Nafisi.  During his message, he predicted a biological warfare attack “guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour,” and prayed for success of potential attacks “bombing nuclear plants within the US.”

Abdallah Al-Nafisi: Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there.  What a horrifying idea.  9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on.  One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this “confetti” all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real “celebration.”

The WMD is a problem.  The Americans are afraid that the WMDs might fall into the hands of “terrorist” organizations, like Al-Qaeda and others.  There is good reason for the Americans’ fears, because Al-Qaeda used to have in the Herat region… It had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists – backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no.  By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naïve people.  People who follow such things know that Al-Qaeda has laboratories, just like Hizbullah.  Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, in which it produces weapons and sells them. Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, from which it sells weapons to Romania and Hungary.

While Obama drones on about a peace plan that he is indicating to the Muslim world will benefit Palestinians at the expense of Jews, al-Nafisi says:

Allah states in the Koran that the hostility between us and [the Jews] is eternal. So whoever talks about dialogue – cut off his tongue! What dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for dialogue. Allah said that our hostility towards the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on… This contradicts the Koran. Anyone who contradicts the Koran is an infidel. Accusing people of heresy? Yes, I’m all for it. Yes, I support accusing people of heresy.

And he ends his message by saying:

I, Abdallah Fahd Abd Al-’Aziz Al-Nafisi, am inciting you to confront, using any means possible, anyone who speaks out against the resistance. “Any means possible” – get it?

Al-Qaeda knows that the United States is wearing a giant “Kick Me” sign on its southern border.  Given the fact that Mexican peasants can easily cross into the country, how hard could it be for hardened Spanish-speaking Islamist terrorists to find their own path in with four extra pounds of weight?

Read the WorldNetDaily story for more.

Neville Chamberlain – the former prime minister of Great Britain who has come to be universally mocked for his appeasement of Adolf Hitler – was absolutely ruthless in advancing his liberal-socialist domestic agenda.  It was only in his foreign policy and his dealings with dictators that he revealed himself to be pathetically weak and appallingly naive.

The message that Obama promised America was that he would somehow put an end to all the enmity and divisions of the world.  But he hasn’t reduced our Islamist enemies by so much as a single terrorist.  Rather, all he has succeeded in doing is removing their fear of any meaningful American response under a president they rightly believe to be weak.

If Obama Wins, Should Republicans Hope Democrats Win HUGE?

November 2, 2008

The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race.  I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points.  This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide.  Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?”  “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?”  Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama.  I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.

But I’ve got to face reality.  Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right.  I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him).  But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections?  What should we hope for during the course of the next two years?  During an Obama Presidency?  Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster?  Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process?  Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?

You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there.  They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party.  They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence.  They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.

It’s what I always wanted.  At least up to now.  I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief.  I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest.  And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army.  During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!”  I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him.  I prayed for his wisdom and leadership.  Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them.  They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.

But something happened to me.  Maybe I began to stop being proud of my country when Michelle Obama finally STARTED being proud of hers.  Maybe it was when I discovered that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual adviser for 23 years years said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  He called America “the US of KKK A.”  And Democrats didn’t care about this outrage.  Maybe it was when I found out that Barack Obama had partnered with a man who had bombed the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York Police headquarters, who said on 9/11/2001 that he not only didn’t regret setting bombs, he felt he didn’t bomb enough.  Finding out that Obama’s rat bastard pal dedicated a book to Robert Kennedy murderer Sirhan Sirhan sure didn’t help.  I suppose that I feel that if a man like this could actually be elected President of the United States, that there must be something profoundly wrong with the country and with the people who live in it.

I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America.  Or even wish it well.  We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies.  In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed.  I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.

If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA!  THE U.S. OF KKK A!!!  And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”

I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him.  I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.”  They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.

I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.”  Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.

I wonder how many conservatives will criticize me for my new feelings about Obama’s “new America.”  One thing is for certain: No one who votes for Barack Obama can criticize me; you can’t vote for ‘God damn America’ and then criticize me for saying the same thing.  I’ll bring up the last guy you Democrats nominated, and how John Kerry accused his fellow servicemen as a bunch of genocidal war criminalsbefore taking it back – and how he threw away his medals.  I won’t throw away my medals; they remind me of a country I loved, and was once so proud to serve and even shed my blood to defend.  I’ll bring up how Democrat after Democrat after Democrat justified the Iraq War until they cynically and cravenly repudiated that support for sheer political expedience.  Even though nearly 60% of Democratic Senators had voted for that war.  Even though the measure passed by wider margins in both branches of Congress than the 1991 war resolution.  I’ll bring up Rep. Jack Murtha, who accused innocent Marines of murderous war crimes before he accused his own Pennsylvanian voters of being racists.   I’ll bring up Sen. Dick Durbin, who compared U.S. servicemen to Nazis.  I’ll bring up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was so quick to proclaim defeat for American soldiers while they were fighting on the battlefield.  I’ll bring up Democratic Whip James Clyburn, who said that success in Iraq “would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”  I’ll bring up every single sermon that Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years preached, right down to the last hateful word.  Right down to calling the United States “the US of KKK A.”  Hell, I could start bombing buildings like Barack Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers and Democrats couldn’t accuse me of squat without being even bigger even hypocrites than they already are.

But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President.  I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism.  The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.

The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair.  It can happen in two ways:

The US economy – and in fact the world economy – are facing a crisis.  And while leftist media propaganda may be assuring you that Obama will be better for the economy, our investors and our business leaders most assuredly do not agree at all.  “Over 70% of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.”  And the financial market – which is already selling off in expectation of an Obama win – would face a “dramatic sell-off on Wall Street” if Democrats make the huge gains they are anticipated to win.  Wall Street is terrified of an Obama presidency.  Obama’s radicalism and socialistic redistribution policies, his doomed-to-fail massive health care plan, his steadfast refusal to exploit our domestic oil resources in favor of “alternative energy” sources that can’t possibly meet our energy needs, and the fact that his every move will be backed by tax-and-spend liberals hungry for power and a propagandist media – serving as apologists – will all come together to doom our economy.

Obama has promised $4.3 TRILLION in new spending, even as his tax redistribution plan is guaranteed to shrink the tax base as the wealthy shelter their assets.  Where are we going to get all that money?  Democrats believe their messiah can turn water into money.  But the people will ultimately come to see that they are wrong.  And no amount of media propaganda will ultimately be able to hide that reality.

I wonder what will happen when Americans discover that Democrats want to socialize their 401Ks?

The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.

Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship.  Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves.  Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years.  When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.  Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency.  Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too.  That only seems fair.  I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.

The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help.  At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.

We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis.  Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran.  Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.

When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return.  That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks.  But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country.  Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama.  One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.

I believe that if the country wants to hop aboard a freight train that’s going to steam full speed off a cliff, then Republicans – if they’re smart – ought to get as much out of the way as they possibly can and be ready to pick up the pieces after the dust settles.  Vote against everything so its on the official record, but let the Democrats hang themselves.  If Republicans finally decide to be as cynical as Democrats have been for  years, they might even consider doing everything possible behind the scenes to sow havoc and discord both in domestic and international policy, so they can then turn around and blame the Democrats’ “failed policies” just like the Democrats did to them.  You can hardly blame them, once you get past that whole “But that would be un-American!” thing.  After all, that hardly stopped Democrats, and they’ve benefited mightily from doing it.  I mean, you’ve got Democrats agreeing with Republicans on the need to remove Saddam Hussein, only to despicably turn on them the moment it was to their advantage to do so.  You’ve got Charles Rangel comparing the US action in Iraq to the Holocaust; you’ve got Dick Durbin comparing American troops to Nazis;  you’ve got Barack Obama suggesting that our troops have to do more than just air raiding villages and killing civilivans.  You’ve got Democrats accusing innocent Marines of being murdering war criminals; you’ve got Democrats declaring defeat in Iraq while our troops were fighting in the field; you’ve got Democrats acknowledging that good news in Iraq was bad news for Democrats; you’ve got Democrats opposing the surge strategy that brought us to victory; you’ve got Democrats falling all over themselves to support the reasons for going to war against Iraq before they fell all over themselves to attack Republicans for going to war against Iraq.  If the American people approve of and vote for that kind of conduct, why shouldn’t Republicans look at the polls and follow suit?

Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl.  But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen.  The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.

Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil.  God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A.  We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died.  That sort of thing.

Obama Forced To Reveal Mutually Contradictory Positions

July 23, 2008

A July 20 Associated Press story asked the question which answer is obvious: “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” The article begins:

NEW YORK – Television news’ royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week’s overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC’s Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC’s Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a “Saturday Night Live” skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The reality is, “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” is a rhetorical question (a question with such a patently obvious answer there is no point in answering) to any but the most deluded.

But what we are seeing is that there is some evidence that the media – and particularly the three elite network anchors who had been described as “Obama’s three press secretaries” – don’t like being so obviously “in the tank” for Obama. They want to show their viewers that they really aren’t as biased as everyone thinks they are. And that means finally asking Obama a few tough questions instead of merely basking in his magnificence the way they usually do.

Katie CouricSURPRISE! – attempted to pin Obama down on some of his inherent contradictions regarding Iraq.

Obama stuck to the same position he gave at a press conference. Allow me to emphasize certain statements in boldface:

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

So our military gets only “a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence“? And so who gets the real credit for Obama? The Sunni sheiks and the Iraqi government for disarming Shiite militias such as Sadrs!

Does that jive with history? Is it just a coincidence that things were going poorly that Democrats were claiming defeat left and right, and then we had the surge, and then things started going well even as Democrats claimed they weren’t? And our soldiers were just window dressing while Iraq fixed all of its own problems?

I hope you’re not actually as stupid as Barack Obama thinks you are.

President Bush announced the surge strategy on January 7, 2007. 20,000 additional U.S. troops were committed, with the majority – 5 brigades – heading into Baghdad. Within slightly over a month, there were enough American troops to substantially back an Iraqi-led effort to secure the city of Baghdad.

Do you remember Demacrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “The war is lost“? in April of 2007?

Who doesn’t realize that it was General David Petraeus and the surge that John McCain had been advocating all along that turned things around?

Who doesn’t realize that if we hadn’t listened to great men like Petraeus – and ignored trivial fools like Obama – we would have cut and run in abject disgrace from an emboldened terrorist enemy?

According to the New York Times:

When the Anbar tribes first began cooperating, they told the Americans where the extremists were hiding weapons caches, burying bombs, and running safe houses. Then they set up checkpoints and began engaging in gunfights with Qaeda cells in the Ramadi area.

With attacks decreasing against both Americans and Iraqis in Anbar, and large numbers of tribesmen lining up to join local security forces, the American military has begun to try to replicate its success.

A story by the Times clearly shows the bulk of the Sunni fighters signing on to fight the terrorists and insurgents beginning sometime in May 2007, directly coinciding with the surge. 4,000 Marines deployed to Anbar province.

It is simply a lie to claim that the Sunnis began fighting on their own, or that the surge did not massively influence their willingness to fight. To the extent that the Anbar resistance preceded the surge, it was small, it relied greatly upon American soldiers, and it didn’t explode until after the surge.

The same applies with the Shiite efforts. The effort to disarm Shiite militias such as Moktada al Sadrs Mahdi army. A New York Times story appearing on October 11, 2007 begins (again, boldface mine):

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

It wasn’t until the surge took effect – and Shiites began to recognize that they were protecting them – that the Shiite people began to renounce the militias and the Shiite-backed Iraq government had the backing to demand the disarmament of the troublesome militias.

Barack Obama is thus revealed as a demonstrated liar without shame who gives our heroic soldiers – who have been absolutely magnificent – a “fraction of the credit.” I GIVE THEM ALL THE CREDIT!!!

Our soldiers succeeded when cowardly and craven men like Harry Reid and Barack Obama predicted that they would fail, and very likely even rooted for them to fail (You might recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn acknowledging that good news from Iraq was bad news for Democrats; or you might recall Rep. Jack Murtha presuming that Marines were guilty of war crimes and convicting them before the trial which exonerated them).

The soldiers succeeded. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who failed.

Barack Obama gives our soldiers no credit because this man who “never has doubts about his foreign policy” cannot acknowledge he was wrong – no matter how obviously and completely wrong he was.

Liberals claim that Bush was inflexible and would not admit his mistakes? Obama is rigid to about the trillionth power.

Obama’s rigid ability to deny reality emerged again as he went to Israel and Gaza.

He had previosly said:

“Let me be clear,” Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Then as a result of Palestinian anger he said:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

As a direct result of Obama’s complete abandonment of his earlier position, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said of Obama’s reversal:

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

Way to go, Barack. You sure contributed to Mideast peace. Any other issues you want to resolve with your courage, your integrity, your resolve, and your strength of character?

Now, any normal human being would acknowledge that they had changed their position. But not Barack Obama. He is so personally arrogant, so unyielding, so deceitful, and so intellectually dishonest even with himself, that he simply does not have that capacity within him.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again…but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue” that must be decided by negotiation, he said in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

No. You continue to lie. You continue to say things that are the logical contradiction of what you said earlier, and then you continue to deceitfully and disingenuously misrepresent yourself having been consistent all along.

We can also go back to his incredibly foolish campaign promise from last July:

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” Obama answered.  “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”

And his website USED to say:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Now he says:

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, “I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.”

The point is to say, “No. You didn’t say that at all, you lying weasel. Are you such a completely dishonest man that you can so blatantly lie even to yourself? In grammatical terms, those “if…then” constructions are called “conditionals.” The fact is, you have by now applied so many DIFFERENT PRECONDITIONS to your “without preconditions” policy that your original statement is revealed to have been a) foolish beyond belief; and b) a complete lie.

This man is dangerous, and it is nowhere revealed more than in his foreign policy. He is completely incompetent; he is completely untrustworthy; he is completely wrong; and he is completely unable to recognize obvious contradictions.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, let me make a point: Obama claims the surge was wrong because we’ve diverted resources we should have used in Afghanistan to Iraq. And Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to instead exert diplomatic pressure by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Obama believes that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.

Now, if Obama really thought that idea that would have worked in Iraq, why then is he now proposing what clearly amounts to the exact same surge strategy for Afghanistan instead of demanding a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?

Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Obama’s position on the surge has essentially been: “The surge will fail.” Then he said, “It kind of worked, but we still shouldn’t have done it.” And now he says, “The same strategy that I vehemently opposed in Iraq will work in Afghanistan but it was my idea all along.”

I wrote an article titled, “U.S. vs. Nuclear Iran: Russia, China Block Any Resolution – Again,” that establishes the virtually identical similarities between trying to check a possibly weaponized Iraq with the current environment of trying to check a possibly weaponized Iran. By Obama’s philosophy, we can not move to use military power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons until: 1) We are absolutely certain they have them (a belief based on the known intelligence is not enough); 2) United Nations resolutions justifying war; and 3) a military alliance similar in size to that of the Gulf War in 1991. Since NONE of those three conditions are likely to be met, we cannot possibly attack Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. And then we would be dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist belligerent state that is immune to attack (unless you want World War III) and free to attack our interests again and again with impunity.

What would a President Obama do? This is a man who can’t even stand up to his own rhetoric, much less terrorist murders.

Barack Obama is a complete disaster waiting to happen. If we are foolish enough to elect him president, rogue tyrants and totalitarian leaders will recognize Barack Obama’s insipid pandering weakness and immediately begin to exploit him, and the world will be shocked to discover just how empty he truly is.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 516 other followers