Posts Tagged ‘Eisenhower’

Do You Want To Be A Hunter And Killer Or Do You Want To Be A Hider And Cowerer? (It’s Moot: Obama Has Chosen For You)

October 22, 2014

As I write, Muslim terrorists have attacked the Canadian Parliament buildings in Ottowa with multiple shooting locations.

Canada is rightly calling this a terrorist attack.  Had it happened in the United States – even if the killers had beheaded their victims all the while screaming to Allah in Arabic – it would have been declared “workplace violence.”  That is simply factually true, given that it has already happened and the most dishonest administration in the history of the republic has already repeatedly lied about the dozens of terrorist attacks in the United States since Obama took power.

That’s the power of a president who assured us over and over again that the Benghazi attack that resulted in the first murder of a United States ambassador since the failed Carter years in 1979 was the result of an American-made youtube video rather than a terrorist attack.  That’s been the pattern over and over again, as it was recently when the first American citizen EVER to be beheaded in the United States was murdered by a Muslim screaming praises to Allah in Arabic after erecting a shrine to ISIS on Facebook.  It was true when a Muslim major with business cards that said he was a “soldier of Allah” shot to death 13 soldiers as he shouted “Allahu Akbar!”   It’s been true over and over again.

Obama is a denier of reality.  When the President of Libya came out and refuted Obama and pointed out that the attack on the US compound in Benghazi was “a preplanned act of terrorism,” Obama just kept repeating his lies.   And here we are today as the Prime Minister of Canada describes the attack on the Canadian Parliament as a terrorist act, and Obama just keeps denying.

If denying reality is the pathway to success, Barack Obama is the most successful “leader” who ever “led from behind.”

Barack Obama has been caught telling more lies to more people on video than any human being in the entire history of planet earth bar none.  So when he claimed in order to get re-elected that he had defeated terrorism, he was true to his form.  Oh, I could prove my case with nothing more than the 37 documented times Barack Obama lied to the American people about the effect of his ObamaCare.  But Obama the liar goes FAR beyond ObamaCare: take immigration.  Obama deliberately misled the public by artificially inflating his so-called “record deportations” by including categories that had NEVER been included by ANY administration.  So over and over again, the liar-in-chief was taking credit for something that was a lie and which he KNEW was a lie in order to deflect legitimate Republican criticism over Obama’s protection of our borders (and actual lack thereof).  In reality, Obama was doing such a piss-poor job of securing our border that his administration was literally letting out criminal illegal immigrant murderers and rapists.  And then of course lied about it:

New records contradict the Obama administration’s assurances to Congress and the public that the 2,200 people it freed from immigration jails last year to save money had only minor criminal records.

The records, obtained by USA TODAY, show immigration officials released some undocumented immigrants who had faced far more serious criminal charges, including people charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide.

Barack Obama lies about EVERYTHING.  He is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without integrity and without virtue of any kind other than a virtue of evil in which every feeling, every thought, every action line up to advance evil.  He is a truly wicked man.  Which means he is the perfect leader of the party of wickedness in America.

Obama has all of his spinners declaring that we’re “succeeding” against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  While all of the generals and everybody who isn’t a Kool-Aid-sipping ideologue is acknowledging that Obama’s “strategy” – to the extent that a compilage of Obama’s contradictory statements can be called “a strategy” – is failing.  Even the leftist Washington Post admits that Obama is failing against this rapidly growing terrorist army.   And one of the expert military analysts consulted by the left-leaning PBS says:

“…overall, ISIS continues to act like a Pac-Man in the video game, gobbling up territory in Syria and in Iraq.”

Yeah, we’re “succeeding.”  As long as we all understand that “succeeding” is a synonym for “surrendering.”

We’ve got American residents and even American citizens streaming to Syria to fight for the ISIS Beheaders.  Because ISIS is the coolest soccer team in the world right now and all the kids want to wear its jersey.

People in Western societies like America are instructed to hide and cower if they are attacked.  Because Democrats would rather Americans be mowed down by crazed psychos than allow one law-abiding citizen to have the right to defend himself or herself.  While Islam is preaching to its believers to hunt and kill.

And the American sheople and the sheople of all Western so-called democracies are losing.

And it’s hard to blame kids for wanting to be on the winning side versus Obama’s side.

The other thing that’s going on is that Western societies stand for NOTHING today.

Oh, I suppose you could argue that we stand for the right to murder your baby and for the right to bend over and submit to being sodomized.

But that’s about as successful as Obama’s strategy against ISIS.  I mean, hell, our birthrate is plummeting given the fact that we’ve murdered sixty million of our own children and given the fact that homosexual sodomy is a very piss-poor way to reproduce while the Muslim birthrate is SKYROCKETING.

They are mothers and fathers who are willing to send their sons to fight; we are a nation of queers cowering and hiding all the while demanding that the only way to deal with terrorism is to bear our throats to the scimitar rather than fight like the damn MEN that we aren’t and haven’t been.

They have a theology and they’ve got Allah; we’ve got political correctness and we’ve got Obama.  And we’re far more like sheep than human beings as a result.

I remember the last time we actually got to win a damn war.  We had a general who proudly used the term “Crusade.”  Brave men went on a Crusade and they faced a deadly and virulent enemy and a deadly and virulent ideology.  And they triumphed in their Crusade against evil.

Today we’ve got a president and we’ve got a political party in power that demonizes the very notion of such a Crusade.  And thanks to Democrats and their pathology we haven’t been allowed to win another war since.  World War II – that last “Crusade” of ours – was the last time we had the courage to declare a war and the last time we actually won a war.

Today we’re governed by secular humanist liberals who are terrified of using that term because they live in holy terror of Islam.  Because Islam and Allah is stronger and more powerful than anything that secular humanist liberalism stands for or ever did stand for.  And liberals – Democrats – know that if they dare provoke Islam they will have to bow down before and submit to Allah.  Because Allah is mightier than Obama.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be that way.  America could hunt down every Democrat with dogs and then return to its roots in the God of the Bible and the Crusade.  We could recognize the truth, stand up and fight for ideals and principles that are truly sacred rather than sodomy and abortion and government-as-God-socialism.  And we could prevail in such a struggle.

We used to be a people who could stand up with courage and conviction in the name of God and fight and defeat those who would impose evil on us.  Now only our enemies can do that.

And that is why Islam will win and America will lose.

I’m talking about transcendent values, something that is greater than the citizen (well, given that Democrats have proudly flooded America with illegal immigrants who piss on our culture and on the nation our founding fathers created, I suppose the word “citizen” is as meaningless as our “values.”).  They have a system – demonic as it is – that actually describes a genuine afterlife and something worth serving and fighting for and dying for.  We have Obama and abortion and sodomy.  And the end of all of these is death.

Liberals will continue to deny that Islam presents a crisis.  Denial has been Obama’s strategy from the outset: first deny there’s a problem, then deny that he’s responsible for the problem he denied.  Until that problem has metastasized.  And then try to change the subject and distract the sheople with a different bright and shiny object.

When 100 million American liberals stand up and shout, “I’m going to stand up and I’m going to fight and die for the glory that is Obama!” I’ll be proven wrong.

But in fact I’m going to be proven right.  Because liberalism is the gutless ideology of cowards and weak people who love death and will receive the death that they love.  It is in the liberals’ love of death that they find common ground with the Muslim terrorists who also love death.  And ultimately both of these will receive what they love.

Liberals have murdered more than sixty million innocent human beings as they have chopped up and hacked to death and murdered with acid the most innocent human beings of all.  They have shown far more viciousness and contempt for human life than has ISIS.  And they have done so on a far more vast scale.  At least up to now; because ISIS is gearing up and we can only wait and see if they can top liberalism’s tally of vicious death of human life.

The Muslim’s desire to give their children a better life is greater and more powerful and even more righteous than Democrats’ desire to murder their children.

Our society has decayed to the point that there is nothing truly worth fighting and sacrificing for.  And that is why we will ultimately surrender and bow down.

And that is why the beast described in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel will come exactly as God foretold to the “perilous times” of the last days as we have become the very despicable people that God warned about.

The beast is coming.  You literally voted for the Antichrist to come when you voted for Obama.  The Bible declares that he will seem to have all the answers, but that he will literally be the devil in masquerade.  Liberals will vote for him because he will be the ultimate tyrant representing the ultimate big government Utopia.  You want a world without Jesus Christ and you will get it.  And before it’s all said and done, you will get the literal hell on earth that you so richly deserve.

You might as well start getting ready for it.  Because your only alternative at this point is to get on your knees before God and confess that you are a sinner and that you desperately need a Savior – the only true Savior of the world Jesus Christ – and receive the perfect life He lived in place of your sinful life and the perfect sacrificial death that He died in your place as your sinless substitute.  And receive His Holy Spirit.

But liberals are truly wicked people and they would much rather bow down before Allah or any other demonic tyranny than bow down before the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Because that is their nature.

Ultimately liberals WILL bow down before Jesus – because EVERY knee will ultimately bow down before Him – but not until AFTER it is too late.

 

 

 

The Moral Idiocy Of Obama’s Attitude Toward The Five Taliban Generals: Meet Five ‘Old Men’ Who Won World War II

June 9, 2014

I have been amazed – as I always am when I listen to liberals endlessly recycle stupid, morally idiotic arguments from other liberals – about the meme that the five Taliban generals Obama released to return to killing Americans are somehow “old men” who are “out of the loop” and therefore no threat to the United States.

First of all, allow me to point out that the Defense Department experts Obama himself consulted ALL warned against the trade, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban”:

Senior military officials had advised President Obama not to make the Taliban-for-Bergdahl trade, a senior Defense official told Fox News, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban.”

The claim adds to the picture that is emerging about the tense internal debate over whether to proceed with freeing five hardened Taliban leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Sources told Fox News earlier this week that the Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the swap, after such an exchange was first floated several years ago.

The Defense official, in explaining internal military opposition to the exchange, said many in the military considered Bergdahl to be a traitor — a reference to allegations that he deliberately abandoned his post in 2009.

What we keep being told is that these five Taliban four-star generals are all “old men” who are therefore “has beens.”  How old are they?

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa was born in 1967.  He’s 47 years old.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was likewise born in 1967.

Mullah Norullah Noori was born in 1967 and is the apparently popular-with-terrorist-generals age of 47.

Abdul Haq Wasiq was born in 1958, making him a really old fifty-six years old.  Clearly the grandpa of the group of war criminal terrorist murderers.

Mohammad Nabi Omari was born in 1968, making him the baby of the group.  He is 46 years old.

Wow.  These guys were old.  I mean, really, really old, right?  WAY to old to be effective generals, Obama and his cockroach minions assure us.

And yes, these five were an incredibly high price to pay.

Let’s compare them to OUR old “has been” men who defeated the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.

Meet five men who were ALL older than the OLDEST of the Taliban generals who were released:

Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower, born October 14, 1890: Dwight D. Esienhower was fifty-five years old when he accepted Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender after leading the Allies to complete victory.  Not bad for an old man who had last fired a shot at the enemy in anger during World War I.

George S. Patton, born November 11, 1885: at the time World War II ended, this particular old, washed-up old man was sixty years old.  He was regarded by the Nazis – somehow in site of his dotage – as the Allies’ very best attacking general.  He was used as bait for the D-Day invasion, as the Germans simply refused to believe that America would sideline its greatest warrior.  And then he ultimately drove a tank division right up Hitler’s whazoo at the Battle of the Bulge when he led the greatest armored counterattack in the entire history of warfare to relieve the critically important garrison at Bastogne.

It’s actually kind of interesting: the man the Nazis considered our very best general also happened to be our very OLDEST general in the European theater.

Omar Bradley, born February 12, 1893: Bradley was fifty-two years old when he got through kicking Adolf Hitler’s ass.

Douglas MacArthur, born 26 January 1880: which makes “the god of war” 65 years-old when he defeated Imperial Japan and brought an end to World War II.  Not bad for such a ridiculously old man.

Again, fascinating: our “god of war” who was our most brilliant military strategist in the Pacific was also our very oldest general in that theater.

Raymond A. Spruance, born July 3, 1886 was fifty-nine years old when he defeated Japan and with MacArthur was most responsible for winning World War II in the Pacific.

So just in case anybody happens to be stupid enough to believe the liberal’s utter bullcrap, guess what: YOU CAN BE OLD AND BE AN AWESOME, AWESOME GENERAL WHO WINS WARS AND DEFEATS ENEMIES, DUMBASS.

And anybody who has the brainlessness to believe that if you’d put these men away for a dozen years and then released them that they’d be of no use to America in the war has to be considered beneath the level of drooling moron.

These five terrorist generals are the very best the enemy had that were in our custody.  Obama - in his desperation for a “photo-op” - literally allowed our enemies to ask for these five BY NAME.  And now they are free to kill Americans for years and years to come.

It turns out that far more important than the trigger pullers who actually fight wars are the old men who know how to recruit, organize, , fund, train and lead the trigger pullers.  And Barack Obama just let the five best generals the Taliban had go free for one low-ranking traitorous deserter turd.

This isn’t a question of whether Obama had the right to do it.  According to the law he signed, he didn’t, HE BROKE THE LAW.  But consider that a president has the “right” to pardon anyone he wants.  So now imagine a president pardoned every single one of the millions of vicious criminals who are in our jails – every murderer, every rapist, every gang member – and put them back on the street to return to their lives of oppressing good people.

What would your response to such an insane act be?

Impeach that worthless president’s ass, that’s what.

The lies straight out of hell that have characterized this whole miserable presidency are amazing.  The same Susan Rice who went to every major Sunday morning political show and lied to the American people as per her master’s instructions did it again when she told us that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.”  Do you know what an absolute outrage that is?  Do you understand that this administration has literally slandered every single member of Bergdahl’s platoon that did NOT desert and describe themselves as being “ashamed to be an American” and later tell us that they were warriors for Islam.

In practically the same breath she told another lie straight out of the devil’s mouth: she claimed that Bergdahl “was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”  And no, these demon-possessed liars who want to warp bad people into good people and good people into bad people have so turned their backs on the truth and so turned their backs on justice and so turned their backs on America that it is unreal: Bowe Bergdahl is – and this according to every single member of his platoon or company who have spoken out in any way – an American DESERTER who abandoned his post and his brothers and intentionally sought out the enemy.  That’s what he is.

The Obama administration just told a plain lie about why they refused to notify Congress AS THE LAW REQUIRES OBAMA TO DO.  Obama claimed that it was because Bergdahl was so sick he was just about to die.  Which became a blatantly obvious lie when the turd got out of a truck and walked just fine to the helicopter that took him away.  And the American physicians at the overseas base pronounced him healthy.  Oh, and the “evidence” that Bergdahl was “at death’s door” was contained in a proof-of-life video that Obama had for several months and therefore he had plenty of time to notify Congress as the law requires.  But being Obama, Obama just switched lies.  And explained that, oh, he’d forgotten until just now: there had been a threat to execute Bergdahl if any word got out about the trade.  Only such threat does not exist in any intelligence report.  And since Congress had been notified about the Osama bin Laden raid, they could clearly be trusted to handle this.  Oh, and the only people who should not be trusted with secrets actually turn out to be Obama and his entire administration rather than Congress.

Keep in mind that this is an administration that just blew the cover of its top CIA official in Afghanistan - and they’ve got the elephant balls to point fingers about “leaks”?

It’s this simple: Obama was desperate and determined to get the Veterans Administration scandal that proved the deadly incompetence of socialized medicine once and for all out of the headlines.  And so he came up with the idea of trading a probable traitor for five generals who will kill tens of thousands of people with many of those being Americans.

Obama’s presidency is a disgrace.

You watch that video that the terrorists took of the Bergdahl exchange and you see that it was a masterpiece of propaganda that frankly just shows America for the cowardly disgrace that it is under Obama.  The terrorists are clearly in charge; they’ve got the guns and the US troops sent to pick up the trash (that’s Bergdahl) are weaponless.  Who are the strong?  They are.  Who are the weak?  We are.  They shake the hands of the terrorists, legitimizing them and showing again who is in control (they are) and who is the beggar (that’s us).  They shaved Bergdahl’s beard and figuratively disgraced all Americans as unmanly just like Obama is decidedly unmanly.  They tell Bergdahl not to come back or else they’ll kill him in a warning that is clearly for the entire cowardly United States of America.  And then the whole sorry group of Americans climbs into a helicopter and flies away, a la the last helicopter out of Saigon in the Vietnam War as we bailed out in disgrace.

You must understand: ALL of these things are true about America under Obama.  That’s why an emboldened Putin is seizing territory just like Hitler and Stalin did to launch the world into WWII.  And that’s why Obama is having to go to Asia and to Europe to desperately try to reassure panicking allies who realized they bet on the wrong horse that – all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding – you can count on Obama’s “God damn America” to protect you.  But when you’re constantly having to verbally assert that you’re not weak, it’s only because YOU ARE WEAK.

I’ve been saying this for years: Obama is the worst of Neville Chamberlain, who was an absolute dictator in tyrannously imposing his domestic agenda while being a totally weak little boy in the face of threats such as Hitler.  If Obama treated America’s enemies the way he treats Republicans, he would have emptied America’s nuclear arsenal in strikes by now.

And then of course there’s the jubilant video of the five terrorist generals being welcomed as heroes in Qatar, where they’ll be virtually entirely free to do whatever they want as they live in luxury.  Brothers in arms coming home to heroic welcome, and hey, little Muslim boy, wouldn’t YOU like to be this cool?  Just be a terrorist!  I have no question that the five Taliban four-star generals can and probably already ARE directing more deadly actions against America over the phone, over the Internet, over Skype, etc.

On our end, of course, we had Obama who spiked the football as if he’d actually done something WONDERFUL rather than evil for trading a deserter and probable collaborator for five enemy generals while the war against us still rages.  He has Bergdahl’s father come on so he can praise Allah for the release of his son.  I can only suspect that Obama wanted Allah’s name to be praised but was too much of a coward to do it himself and so did it by proxy.

America has become such a pathetic joke under this president.

I don’t have any doubt at all that Bergdahl – who said he was ashamed to be an American BEFORE he removed his uniform and deserted his unit to collaborate with the enemy – has created a lot more Americans who are ashamed to be Americans.  Because any country that would have a disgrace like Obama lead them and any country that would trade five top generals for one collaborating deserter is a place to be ashamed of, indeed.

If Glenn Beck Hijacked Martin Luther King, Then Martin Luther King Hijacked Abraham Lincoln

August 28, 2010

A pretty good (certainly not completely objective, but by today’s horrendous standards of objectivity pretty good) article by Mary C. Curtis sets up the dilemma of Glenn Beck’s “8/28″ rally at the Lincoln Memorial:

Glenn Beck Rally in D.C. Saturday: Honoring MLK’s Legacy — or Hijacking It?

Forty-seven years ago today, hundreds of thousands of Americans joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and witnessed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech, which summed up the hopes of generations.

Today, crowds are repeating that trek – by bus, train, car and plane — to the nation’s capital, with their own hopes and dreams about what America should stand for.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin — two conservative stars known more for their divisive political views than for their King-like stands for social justice — will lead Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally to pay tribute “to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

At the same time, the National Action Network plans a “Reclaim the Dream” rally in Washington to honor King and the civil rights movement in its own way. Its leader, the Rev. Al Sharpton, acknowledges Beck’s right to rally, but not his claim to a part of King’s legacy.

One thing all sides and Glenn Beck himself can agree on: Beck is not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nevertheless, when Beck and Palin speak to a crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, just like that day in 1963, the symbolism will be unmistakable.

Cindy Spyker, who is driving a group of 10 from Charlotte, N.C, has been to Washington before, for the 9/12 taxpayer rally last year and the protest of the health care reform bill. A member of CAUTION (Common Americans United to Inspire Our Nation), she said Beck is “one of the very few people willing to say what needs to be said, whether people like it or not. America was created on Christian-Judeo values.” The country has “turned away from faith,” she said, and “has to get back to principles like honor.” Spyker, 51, said of today’s rally: “Of course, it’s not so much the civil rights thing. What he’s trying to get across — content of character — is not about what we look like. It’s about who we are and how do we conduct ourselves, especially when people aren’t watching.”

Marette Parker will be taking a bus from Charlotte to a different Washington destination. Parker, 42, who is organizing a North Carolina chapter of National Action Network, is attending the group’s rally, starting at Dunbar High School and followed by a march to the site of the proposed King Memorial, which she said is “long overdue.”

Parker said that if King were alive today, he would “be proud that times have changed,” but would be saddened by problems that still exist. “We all have to come together as a community,” she said, “to mentor and motivate our young people.” She thinks Beck’s rally is “trying to hijack this particular day and steal media coverage,” she said. “We can’t let this happen.”

On his radio show Wednesday, Beck said: “I know that people are going to hammer me because they’re going to say, ‘It’s no Martin Luther King speech.’ Of course it’s not Martin Luther King. You think I’m Martin Luther King?” He said he has prepared only a few talking points so he doesn’t get in the way of “the spirit.” Though he has said the date wasn’t chosen with the anniversary in mind, when he found out he called the coincidence “divine providence.”
Whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Beck said on his show in June. “Not only is the event non-political, we have continuously encouraged those attending to avoid bringing political signs, political flyers, ‘I heart the RNC’ T-shirts and other similar partisan paraphernalia. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about politics. This isn’t one of them.”

Like I said, Mary Curtis did fine.  Her only display of bias is her describing Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as harboring “divisive political views” without characterizing Al Sharpton the same way.  Because I can guarantee you that conservatives find Sharpton’s views every iota as divisive as liberals find Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s.  But I can live with that.

What I can’t live with is the notion that Glenn Beck has “hijacked” Martin Luther King, whether he intended to make the great civil rights leader a major part of his event or not.

So-called black “civil rights leaders” are arguing that Glenn Beck has no right to hold his August 28 event in front of the Lincoln Memorial because that hearkens us to Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech.  And that hijacks the legacy of Martin Luther King – who was black.

But if that’s the case, then Martin Luther King himself was hijacking the legacy of Abraham Lincoln – who was white.  Glenn Beck hit that one out of the park.

For those lefties who argue that Glenn Beck should be banned from “hijacking” King not because of race, but because of ideas, then conservatives can argue that King STILL hijacked Lincoln.  Because Abraham Lincoln didn’t stand for the radical race-based crap that the left argues that Martin Luther King epitomized.

The greatness of both Lincoln and King was that they transcended their race and became moral heroes of every people of every color and even every creed.

And like it or not, Glenn Beck has as much right to appeal to Martin Luther King as any black person does.  And it’s frankly racist to argue otherwise.

And speaking of racism, how would blacks have reacted had whites staged a counter-event to compete with, say, Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March?  You don’t think there would have been cries of outrage?  Yet that’s basically what Al Sharpton did today.

One of the interesting issues underlying this debate about “hijacking” comes from the most famous lines in King’s speech:

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

For the most part, that last line almost seems to be an embarrassment of the pseudo civil rights movement of today.  Maybe Martin Luther King said it, but he didn’t really mean it.  And conservatives are determined to hold the civil rights movement accountable to that standard.

As the pro-liberal and pro-Democrat so-called “civil rights leaders” denounce Glenn Beck and conservatives, which side is guilty of refusing to make “the color of their skin” the primary issue?

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white Republican politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

It’s not simply that liberals aren’t advancing a color-blind society; it’s that all they see is color, and they rabidly fixate on color and use color as an ideological weapon in every single imaginable way they can.

And, yeah, for the record, I’m just as sick of this crap now as I was back then.

One of the things that made Martin Luther King a transcendent figure was the fact that he straddled more than just a far left ideology.  He reached out and touched ALL people of ALL races.  Frankly, if he didn’t do so, he really isn’t all that great of a figure.

Some of what King said touched white people.  That was why his movement was ultimately so successful.  And why shouldn’t the white Americans who changed their views because of that movement be banned from it now?

The so-called “civil rights leaders” of today don’t want America to know how profoundly racist the Democrat Party has been throughout its history.  And they certainly don’t want you to know how rabidly racist and even rabidly anti-Martin Luther King the “spiritual mentor” of Barack Obama was.

But here’s a quote from Jeremiah Wright:

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

And why does Jeremiah Wright – Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for more than twenty years – so despise Martin Luther King?  Because Martin Luther King wanted racial equality, and an emphasis on individual character.  Whereas so-called “civil rights leaders” like Jeremiah Wright want the emphasis to be on race-based preferential treatment apart from personal character.

But at least Jeremiah Wright – bigot that he is – had the integrity to honestly represent Martin Luther King’s primary message.  In that, he is far more honest than men like Al Sharpton, who dance around it with racial rhetoric, but never land on the heart of King’s message.  Sharpton will give equality with one finger, and then immediately take it away with the other hand.

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, as was his father before him.  And the fact of the matter is that:

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Not many people today – black or white – know that we would have had a powerful Civil Rights Act in 1957, but that Lyndon Baines Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and other Democrats opposed it.  The mainstream media propagandists have really done their job well.

Nor do they know that the often-lauded 1964 Civil Rights Act was largely the result of Republicans’ efforts and support:

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Liberals have fought long and hard for racial quotas and preferential treatment for blacks.  But the greatest civil rights leader of all was fundamentally opposed to them.

Let’s listen to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and greatest of all champions of civil rights, has to say:

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So, as a Republican, exactly why is it that I should be banned for life from honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King, and why can’t I explain what aspect of his message won my support?

Al Sharpton and those who decry Glenn Beck as “hijacking” Martin Luther King are profoundly wrong for insinuating that nothing Martin Luther King preached supported the Republicans’ message.  Especially when King himself was a Republican when he was teaching those things; and especially when it was Republicans who were hearing his message and responding to the changes he urged on America.

And for the record, given the fact that Glenn Beck specifically focused on honoring our heroic troops and the tremendous Special Operations Warrior Foundation (go here to donate), it’s all the more despicable that demagogic ideologues such as Al Sharpton would demonize it.

I’ll guarantee you whose side our SEALs Delta Force, and other Special Operations warriors are on, whose children will be provided for if they fall fighting for this nation because of Glenn Beck’s event today.  Beck raised more than $5 million today.

Update, August 30: Al Sharpton said this about Glenn Beck:

They want to disgrace this day and we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away,” said Revered Al Sharpton. He and other civil rights leaders staged a separate rally nearby to mark the dream speech anniversary.

A day for “us.”  Black people.  And specifically, only black people who think like Al Sharpton.

The only racist bigot who “disgraced this day” was Al Sharpton and those who think like him.

Obama: Don’t Forget To Prosecute Nancy Pelosi For Waterboarding

April 25, 2009

The Obama administration completely reversed itself within the span of a day over its decision to throw the Bush administration officials to the dogs over their decisions in trying to keep this country safe following 9/11.

He went from:

April 20: (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

To:

April 21: President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

And that is clearly the result of George Soros, Moveon.org, and the radical left.

Which fully qualifies this as a political witch hunt.  Obama had previously indicated he wanted to “look forward rather than backward.”  His mind was changed for him by leftwing ideologues.

The left have always been cowards who said one thing when it was convenient or expedient, only to denounce the very positions they once held the moment it became convenient or expedient to do so.  For instance, prominent Democrats fell all over themselves to appear tough on Iraq, on Saddam Hussein, and on their demand that the United States eliminate the WMD threat his regime posed.  Fortunately, a number of these statements have been preserved and collected (see Snopes.com; Truthorfiction.com; and Freedomagenda.com for a few examples).  And then THESE VERY SAME DEMOCRATS proceeded to attack President Bush for making the very same statements and pursuing the very same policies they themselves had made and demanded.  They claimed that Bush was a liar when THEY themselves were the liars.  And the mainstream media allowed them to get away with their cowardice, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

And now they are at it again.

Nancy Pelosi says she was never informed about the harsh interrogation techniques that she and her fellow Democrats are now demonizing:

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using “enhanced” interrogation techniques

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we’re not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

The problem is that she is a flat-out liar.  From a 2007 Washington post story entitled, “Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say“:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

And, just as before, Democrats changed their spots the moment it became convenient for them to do so:

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

And Nancy Pelosi is a leader in the field of supporting something until she opposed it.  Following 9/11, there was a real fear that we would be hit again, and thousands – perhaps millions – more Americans could die.  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi supported these necessary measures.  And now she’s demagoguing the people who put the protective measures she supported in place.

Let me provide a few specific examples, using the examples of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi – who have placed themselves at the forefront of the attempt to demonize the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Hillary Clinton: who mockingly said that she didn’t find Dick Cheney “a reliable source of information,” and who “came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar” in saying that accepting General David Petraeus’ report required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisers plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment.  Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.  And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard.  You are either with America in our time of need or you are not. — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate, September 12, 2001

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, September 13, 2001

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it.

Nancy Pelosi:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There’s no question about that.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on “Meet The Press”
November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  …  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

Allow me to introduce one more official, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for the sake of displaying naked Democratic chutzpah:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” — Sen. Harry Reid, April 18, 2007

And, of course, the surge strategy was the VERY THING that brought us success in Iraq.

Harry Reid was in favor of winning that war before he was in favor of surrendering.  And then he blamed Bush.

Cowards.

Hypocrites.

Demoagogues.

Incoming President Eisenhower didn’t prosecute FDR officials for war crimes.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for interring Japanese-Americans in camps.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for firebombing Dresden.  Nor did he prosecute Truman for firebombing Tokyo or for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian-populated targets.

Nixon didn’t prosecute Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for his role in getting the United States into Vietnam.  Nor did he prosecute Lyndon Baines Johnson for his own massive role in perpetuating the Vietnam War.

Right now Obama has released more photographs of events that occurred at Abu Ghraib to further incriminate and attack Bush.  But Bush is no more responsible for Abu Ghraib than Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the Mai Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968.

President George W. Bush – whose administration is now being criminalized for being Republican – did not criminally prosecute Bill Clinton or Clinton officials for their massive expansion of the “extraordinary rendition” program.  If Democrats want to prosecute people for writing memos, how about prosecuting the people who wrote this one?  And let’s not forget that Bill Clinton should likewise be prosecuted for his decision to launch missiles at what turned out to be an aspirin factory while attempting to distract the country in “wag the dog” manner during the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a naked political hit job.  And prosecuting the opposition power after an election – besides having never before been done in American history – will guarantee that this country ends up as just another banana republic.

If anyone is going to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for crimes, just make sure that Bill Clinton and his officials along with Nancy Pelosi are standing in the dock with them.

The last thing that needs to be said is this: If Barack Obama goes ahead with this political attack, and prosecutes Bush officials while ignoring the CIA personnel who actually COMMITTED the acts of (so-called) “torture,” then let him also write a letter of apology to every SS Nazi who was prosecuted for HIS role in war crimes in spite of the fact that “they were just following orders.”  Let him state that the Nuremburg defense is alive and well under his administration.  And let him categorically state that he will allow millions of Americans to die in a terrorist attack rather than cause a single terrorist any physical discomfort.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers