Posts Tagged ‘Governor’

Isn’t It Amazing How Hypocrite Democrats Indict Rick Perry For ‘Abusing Power’ While Demonizing Republicans If They Dare To Impeach Obama?

August 21, 2014

This is the “face of integrity” – at least to a Demonic Bureaucrat (i.e., a Democrat):

Face of Integrity_Spit Guard

Rosemary Lehmberg has more “public integrity” than any other Democrat, apparently, which is why she couldn’t lose her position as head of the “Public Integrity Unit” that was created to politically persecute Republicans.  the above photo is of “Ms. Integrity” being arrested for having a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit.  She is wearing a spit mask and wearing restraints because, yep, she’s spitting, snarling, clawing, obnoxious drunk.

Consider the following video:

The Democrat District Attorney for THE most liberal county in Texas and in fact one of the most rabidly liberal counties in the entire nation had to be restrained after trying to scratch an officer.  She had to be placed in a spit mask.

Her name is Rosemary Lehmberg.  And she had a blood alcohol limit three times the legal limit.  The full video – taken because she was so uncooperative – shows her kicking the door of her holding room and screaming.  She had to be strapped down and wheeled to where they drew her blood for the test.  At one point, she mocks shooting a gun at a jailer.  That’s a violent threat, I believe.

Ms. Integrity says this to the officers:

“I am not doing this. If you want to take me to jail, take me to jail, okay. And you’re going to ruin my career, and that’s fine,” she laughs sardonically. “But I’m not drunk. … I don’t think you smell alcohol and, um, I haven’t erratically drive sic.”

“I’m not drunk,” Ms. Integrity says.  “I don’t [HIC] think you [HIC] smell alcohol,” says Ms. Integrity who later tested with her BAC three times the legal limit.  “I haven’t erratically drive,” Ms. Integrity says after endangering the lives of God knows how many innocent people on the damn road.

If you’re a Democrat, THAT is actually “public integrity” to you.

You demon-possessed bureaucrats – that’s what Democrats are – are amazing.

Cockroaches call one another “Democrat” as their lowest insult.  Because it truly is about as low as any species can get.

There was this exchange at one point:

Did you call Greg? (Sheriff)
I’m not drunk?
You’re treating me like a criminal.
I had two glasses of wine.
I wasn’t driving erratically.
Do you know who I am?
You’re ruining my career.
Officer: Have you been diagnosed with bi-polar?

The above link has most of the comments being provided well before the current shenanigan to indict Perry.  Comment after comment expresses amazement that she hasn’t resigned yet.  Many of them were dated “2009.”  And she STILL hasn’t resigned.

She is on video trying to use her position to intimidate the police into releasing her (“Do you know who I am?”).  And they’re indicting Governor Perry for abusing HIS power???

One of the things I find most amazing is that this DRUNK and OUT-OF-CONTROL woman is actually more sober than the Democrat Party.  She KNEW her career should have been OVER even when she was crap-faced drunk; not so the Democrat Party – which is owned lock stock and barrel by Satan and knows nothing that the devil doesn’t WANT them to know.

Travis County is the county that rabidly and criminally used the legal system to destroy the career of Tom DeLay.  He was ultimately cleared of ALL wrongdoing.  Not that that matters to the rabid left.  They were hoping for the same thing here as they tried to take down a leading GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Barack Obama has literally stated that he is above the law on mulitiple occasions.  As to the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Obama declared that he was above that law and would not follow it.  Just as he has done on multiple occasions with illegal immigration.

Obama HIMSELF has admitted that what he has done since is lawless and unconstitutional and frankly fascist:

        Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause.  I share your concerns and I understand them.  And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.

Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.  (Applause.)  And believe me, right now dealing with Congress –

AUDIENCE:  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!

THE PRESIDENT:  Believe me — believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.  (Laughter.)  I promise you. Not just on immigration reform.  (Laughter.)  But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Change it!

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s not how our democracy functions.  That’s not how our Constitution is written.

Here’s another example:

 MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

In the same town hall Obama had previously stated:

America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.

But then Obama proceeded to ultimately decide that he DID have a choice, that he WASN’T obligated to enforce the law.

One of Obama’s MANY criminal violations of the law was his imposition by executive order of the DREAM Act that even his own Democrat-controlled SENATE didn’t pass.  He just imposed it by dictate.  Barack Obama is an unconstitutional, lawless, fascist thug BY HIS OWN WORDS.

Charles Krauthammer in the pages of the Washington Post rightly called what Obama did AFTER those words “naked lawlessness.”

The law is crystal clear.  Obama’s violation of the law is crystal clear (see also here).

Obama is a criminally lawless thug who has RELEASED 68,000 criminally convicted illegal immigrants to prey on American society again and again.

Democrats accuse Republicans of being “obstructionists,” utterly and rabidly ignoring the 357 bills that the GOP House passed that are all sitting on Harry Reid’s desk.

Barack Obama and Democrats are liars without shame.

The people who support this fascist monster Obama’s myriad abuses of power had the chutzpah-hypocrisy to indict the governor of Texas.

Rick Perry had absolutely every right in the world to do what he did.  Unlike our Fascist-in-Chief.  The law is clearly on Governor Perry’s side.   He clearly has the right to use his veto power.  The only issue is that the demon-possessed Democrats in Travis County don’t like it.  They claim he’s using “political coercion.”  And they’re using WHAT exactly????

Democrats snarl that Rick Perry was being somehow partisan when he insisted that a public official in charge of a “public integrity unit” ought to at least HAVE some “public integrity.”

Republicans should cite this as a classic example of how impeaching Obama is no more “partisan” or “political” than what the Democrats do fifty times every day by breakfast time.

 

A Warning To The Republican Party Establishment RE: Trying To Force ‘Moderates’ On Conservatives

May 24, 2014

As a California conservative, politics are almost invariably less than “happy.”

A conservative trying to be happy in the People’s Republic of California is rather like like trying to be “Happy” in Iran; we just don’t get to be.

Even when the people vote our way, some fascist liberal judge dictates that the will of the people WILL NOT be respected.  As an example, TWICE now, with Proposition 22 and again with Proposition 8, a judge has overturned the clear will of the people and acted like an ayatollah.  Progressive liberal activists exploited the donor lists as well as their own innate fascism to pursue a vendetta of political thuggery against Prop 8 donors.  And of course we just saw that hard-core leftist fascism demonstrated again when a CEO who had helped build a major company was destroyed because he foolishly thought he had a right to donate to political issues that he believed in (and see here).

So, yeah, as a California conservative, I know that things will rarely ever work out the way I want them to.

And therefore, I’m willing – eager even – to compromise if I can at least have some of my core priorities maintained.

But that won’t happen in California.  Or California would stop being California, wouldn’t it?

We’ve got our primaries coming up and there are two candidates for governor on the ballot to oppose Democrat Jerry Brown in November.

One of them is – by most media accounts – a rabid nutjob who is a racist, who hates immigrants and who has an unnatural love of gunsThe other one is a “moderate” who celebrates homosexual marriage and the right of women to kill their babies with those children’s fathers being denied any rights to their children whatsoever.

Turnout in June is expected to be far older, more white and more conservative than the overall California electorate, posing additional challenges for moderate candidates like Kashkari, who supports gay marriage and abortion rights.

Concern over Donnelly’s emergence prompted businessman Bill Bloomfield to put $142,000 into an independent expenditure campaign for Kashkari. Bloomfield quit the GOP in 2011 over what he saw as extremist views.

So do I vote for the whackjob conservative or the baby-murdering sodomite worshiper?  Decisions, decisions.

I’m not a fan of Donnelly.  I think he’s an inferior candidate at best.  But at least I don’t have to participate in two of the most grievous sins in order to vote for the guy.

It’s not exactly a happy pace to be.  So Iran doesn’t have to worry about my “Happy” video.  There will be no Snoopy dancing for conservatives in California.

Do you know why California is going to have a truly disastrous “wrath of God” style earthquake soon?  Because it will deserve it.  We’re already experiencing the wrath of God in the form of devastating drought.

Let me tell you who I am going to vote for in the primary, California Republican Party.  I’m going to vote for the guy who ISN’T a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.

There are a lot of hills that as a conservative I’m not willing to die on.  I’m willing, for instance, to support a candidate who favors immigration policies that I would rather not see implemented.  Because I would just like to have somebody who represents me at least a little bit on the issues I most care about.

But I will NOT violate my conscience.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are directly, personally responsible for the murder of more than 55 million innocent human beings since 1973.  I’m just not.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are defying God to impose His wrath according to Romans Chapter One.  I’m just not.

That is why I am NOT going to cast my vote for Neel Kashkari.  I am not going to vote for him now in the primary and I am not going to vote for him if he is the candidate in November.  I am not going to be put in a position where I am saying, “Hmm.  This baby-murdering sodomite worshiper isn’t quite as bad as this baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.”

I’ve been amazed at Neel Kashkari’s ads.  He keeps calling himself a “conservative.”  Like that means ANYTHING when a guy like him is saying it.  And his ads keep announcing “I’m not a politician.”  Nope – you are just desperate to BECOME one.  But you’ve already sold your soul.

I understand that Donnelly doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning.  Because California has BECOME hell and will soon surely burn in hell due to it’s wrath-of-God drought as it collapses into the ocean due to its wrath-of-God earthquake.

The funny thing is that in spite of ALL the big money going to Kashkari, Donnelly is STILL well ahead of the leftist “moderate” RINO in the polls.  So it doesn’t look like Kashkari has much of a chance of winning, either, does it?

I’m just writing this to the so-called “moderates” who want to expand the Republican Party base.  There are issues you can “expand” on and there are issues you can’t and hope to keep voters like me WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO GO OUT AND VOTE.  The Republican Party platform very clearly states that the Republican Party is pro-life – which means anti-abortion – and pro-marriage – which means anti-homosexual marriage.  Don’t betray the foundation of the party to “reach out” to people who will ultimately end up voting for the other side, anyway.

Abortion and the perversion of marriage are my two hills to die on.  And that is going to remain true even as I watch the American people and the people of California become increasingly wicked in these last days just as the Bible warned me would happen.

DO NOT THINK THAT I (OR CONSERVATIVES LIKE ME) WILL BE WILLING TO PUT ASIDE MY CONSCIENCE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY JUST BECAUSE THERE IS AN ‘R’ IN PARENTHESES AFTER HIS OR HER NAME.  THAT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If Neel Kashari wins, I will leave my ballot blank for governor.  And that’s a promise from a guy who truly is NOT a politician.

 

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

May 7, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the way Goldberg responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that not true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Remember This When Democrats Try To Morph Gov. Rick Perry Into A Clone Of George W. Bush

July 1, 2011

The Wall Street Journal has already reported that their inside sources say that Governor Rick Perry of Texas will run for president this year.  And I hope he does.  His record of having created 38% of all the jobs in the entire NATION since Obama’s “recovery” began will make this proven leader a very compelling candidate.

He will immediately head to the top of my list if he runs.  And nothing would make me more exited than to see him select Michelle Bachmann for his VP.

That said, I’ve already heard how the Democrat Party and the mainstream media intend to attack Perry and Bachmann.  In both cases, they will do everything they can to link these two candidates to other favorite liberal bogeymen.

For Michelle Bachmann, why, she’s just like Sarah Palin.  They’ve already tried to use the EXACT same narrative to demean her.  Like Palin, Bachmann is “Barbie with fangs.”

For Rick Perry, why, he’s from Texas.  And isn’t that the same state that George W. Bush came from?  And therefore isn’t Rick Perry just another George Bush?  And of course the American people are tired of having their presidents come from Texas.

As ridiculous and factually wrong as this line of “reasoning” is, it appears to be the Democrats’ primary campaign against Perry.

I said “factually wrong” because it is just plain factually wrong.  Not that that ever stopped Democrats before.

The LA Times sub-title says, “despite obvious similararities”  in its comparison of Perry and Bush.  Let’s look at how much they manage to back up these “similarities.”  In the entire half page article, this was the sum total of “differences”: “The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms.”  AND THAT’S IT.  Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

The rest of the article is ALL difference, and it’s what makes all the difference.  So with that said, see what completely different men these two truly are:

Rick Perry has a history of acrimony with George W. Bush
As he considers a presidential run, some have tried to tie the Texas governor to his predecessor. Despite obvious similarities, their considerable differences have left a lingering hostility between the two men.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
June 30, 2011

Reporting from Austin, Texas— Rick Perry was in Iowa three years ago, talking up a favored candidate, when the subject turned to George W. Bush, the president and a fellow Republican who preceded Perry as Texas governor.

Bush, or “George,” as Perry called him, was no fiscal conservative — “never was” — and his work on tort reform, a subject dear to Republican hearts, paled next to Perry’s achievements, the governor said.

“I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99,” Perry went on, elaborately ticking the years off on his fingers, “George Bush was spending money!”

Those are fighting words among Republicans — especially Texas Republicans, who pride themselves on their stinginess — and even more so to Bush loyalists who, years later, still simmer over Perry’s off-the-cuff remarks. (How dare he slap the president like that, the Bush faithful fume, and refer to the leader of the free world as George!)

If Perry runs for president, his critics hope to tie him to Bush and those who delivered the self-assured Texan from Austin to the Oval Office.

“Is America ready for a president who was George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, who was George W. Bush’s successor as governor … and who, like George W. Bush, was also a Karl Rove puppet?” taunts Garry South, a Democratic consultant, referring to Bush’s strategist.

But that jibe ignores what has been, at best, a cool relationship between Bush and Perry, and a lingering hostility between their top political advisors.

The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms. But the two come from starkly different backgrounds, approach politics in utterly different fashions and even draw their support from different parts of the GOP. It is the difference, said a campaign consultant who has worked with both, between Yale and Texas A&M, between Phillips Academy Andover and Paint Creek High School.

To a certain upper crust of Republican, “Perry is the low-rent country cousin” who lacks Bush’s prep-school polish, said R.G. Ratcliffe, a longtime student of Texas politics who is writing a book about Perry. “They see him as a hick and are embarrassed having someone like that as governor.”

Privately, the former president has spoken of his successor as a political lightweight and someone not all that bright. Perry scoffs behind closed doors at Bush’s privileged background and popularity among country-club Republicans, suggesting the New England native is a faux Texan.

Perry’s story is the kind of up-by-his-bootstraps saga that Bush might have scripted for himself, had he been able.

He grew up in West Texas, in a farm town so small it literally was not on the state map until Perry, as governor, put it there. Life was austere; Perry was 6 before the family had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear Perry wore to college.

He graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in animal science, joined the Air Force, then returned to farming. On a whim he ran for state Legislature in 1984, as a Democrat, and won.

In 1990, under Rove’s tutelage, Perry switched parties and was elected agriculture commissioner. Eight years later, Perry ran for lieutenant governor. By then, Rove was working for Bush; the conflict between their political camps grew out of that year’s races.

Bush had been elected governor in 1994, and was already eyeing a run for president. Facing a weak opponent, he wanted to win reelection overwhelmingly and lift his numbers among blacks and Latinos to show crossover appeal. Perry faced the state’s popular Democratic controller, John Sharp, and had a much tougher time. The Bush and Perry teams squabbled over polling, voter targeting and the hard-edged tone of Perry’s campaign.

In the end, Bush won by 1.4 million votes. Perry scratched out victory by fewer than 70,000. Afterward, there were harsh words; today Rove and Dave Carney, a top Perry strategist, are bitter foes.

Perry took over as governor when Bush resigned to become president. (He did nothing to improve relations by hastening the Bush family’s exit from their living quarters.)

Both men hewed to the tenets of Texas Republicanism: low taxes, small government and limited regulation. But Bush prided himself on his ability to work with Democrats, while Perry took a much more partisan approach.

Bush also showed a greater willingness to spend on programs, especially education, with potential long-term benefits. Perry, by contrast, has cut billions from public education to help balance the state budget.

The governor has little use for the philosophy Bush dubbed “compassionate conservatism.” At a recent foray to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, he told a cheering crowd that conservatives should “stand up” and “stop apologizing” for their beliefs.

Perry has long been a favorite of Christian conservatives, embracing their issues with a zeal Bush lacked. He also has strong support in the “tea party” movement; Perry was at a local rally in 2009 when he broached the prospect of his state seceding from the union, a statement he later disavowed.

More recently, Perry used an emergency session of the Legislature to push for tighter restrictions on abortion and legislation to criminalize aggressive airport searches. The pat-down bill died Wednesday.

To supporters, Perry’s move demonstrated a fealty to fundamental principles, not least reining in what they consider the overly obtrusive federal government. To critics, including some in the Bush camp, it was another case of showmanship triumphing over substance.

For all of that, however, Carney said accounts of a Bush-Perry spat are overblown.

“They’re different people, bringing different experiences and philosophies to the process,” Carney said. “But they’re not at odds. That’s a silly, overblown urban myth that’s developed a life of its own.”

But last year’s gubernatorial contest was telling. Perry was bidding for an unprecedented third term. His opponent, in an unusual primary challenge, was U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Rove served as a Hutchison advisor, along with other Bush loyalists. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Hutchison. (George W. Bush stayed neutral.) Even so, Perry came from far behind and not only beat Hutchison, but did so overwhelmingly.

Carney insists there are no hard feelings. If Perry decides to run for president, he said, he will not focus on his Republican rivals or the governor he followed in office.

“[President] Obama is the person we’re trying to defeat,” Carney said. “That’s what Republicans are looking for.”

Since I believe that Gov. Perry WILL run, and since I believe we’ve already seen the “Bush III” attack that will be used against him, it seemed to me that this article would be worth preserving.  I have learned from hard experience that liberal newspapers have a bizarre tendency to conveniently purge their archives of stories like this one.

Perry and Bush not only have gigantic differences between them, not only do they come from completely different set of key supporters, not only do they have vastly different visions of what it means to be “conservative,” but Perry’s clear disdain for many of Bush’s policies would make a comparison of the two completely off limits if either the Democrat Party or the mainstream media that serve as the propagandists for the Democrat Party were honest.  Only, of course, they aren’t honest, are they?

If Perry enters the race, you can bet that we’ll start seeing him “morphed” into George W. Bush.  Becuase George W. Bush is the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of the Democrat Party.  Democrats keep saying that George Bush was the one who drove the economy into a ditch.  And so, if Rick Perry is George Bush, he’ll do the same thing.  The fact that that is completely wrong, and the fact that Rick Perry has created 40% of the ENTIRE NATION’S new jobs, won’t matter to these lying demagogues.

Just remember they will be abject liars when they do it.  And that even the liberal Los Angeles Times recognized that it would be a lie in the body of its story about the so-called “similarities.”

One of the things that I’ve found about mainstream media is that they often WILL report a story that favors a conservative.  The major difference is that, when it favors the conservaitve, they will cover it once and drop it.  And that story just goes away.  But if if HURTS conservatives or favors liberals, they will run such stories again and again and again.

Don’t forget what the Los Angeles Times said about Rick Perry being a completely different candidate than George W. Bush.

Birth Certificate Ball In Barry Hussein’s Court

March 31, 2011

The way the following ABC article depicts this, it is a huge Donald Trump screw-up in which he demands Obama’s birth certificate only to fail to be able to produce his own until the media correctly pointed out his error.

I actually think it was a stroke of genius: Donald Trump was confronted by a media which couldn’t wait to buy whatever Obama produced.  They pointed out, “That’s not legitimate!”  And then Donald Trump was able to produce his official certificate of birth.

Now it’s your turn to do the same, Barry H.  Do what Trump did: show us your actual long form birth certificate like the media demanded that Donald Trump do.  And which Donald Trump DID.

It’s no big deal at all – if you’ve actually got one.

Take Two: Donald Trump Releases Official Birth Certificate
March 29, 2011 1:11 PM

ABC News Michael Falcone reports:

Donald Trump learned the hard way this week that if you’re going to call on the president to release his official birth certificate, you’d better do the same.

Trump, who has been putting pressure on Obama lately to make public his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, decided to set a good example and release his own on Monday. Only problem was, the document that Trump provided to the conservative Website Newsmax wasn’t his actual birth certificate, but rather a  “hospital certificate of birth.”

On Tuesday, Trump, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2012, sought to correct the oversight, providing a copy of his official birth certificate issued by the New York City Department of Health to ABC News.
Ht_trump_birth_certificate_2_jp_110329_main (1)

See a larger version HERE.

It shows that “Donald John Trump” was born June 14, 1946 in Jamaica Hospital in Queens.It lists his father as Fred C. Trump and his mother as Mary Mac Leod. The date of the report is listed as June 14, 1946.

The image came with an accompanying memo from a member of Trump’s staff. 

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. “One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

(Click Here to see a photo of Donald Trump’s hospital certificate of birth, obtained by the Newsmax on Monday.)

Trump has been turning up the volume on his calls for Obama, who has been the target of allegations that he was not born in the United States by so-called “birthers,” to release his official birth certificate.

“This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News on Monday. “I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it’s turning out to be a very big deal because people now are calling me from all over saying please don’t give up on this issue.”

The Obama campaign released a “certification of live birth,” which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one, in 2008.

Let’s take that last paragraph first: “The Obama campaign released a ‘certification of live birth,’ which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one…”

Read the following and tell me:

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time.[citation needed] Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration.”

In other words, the short form is NOT an actual birth certificate; it is rather just a piece of paper that says that somebody somewhere says that an actual birth certificate exists.  That is a rather major difference when the existence of said actual birth certificate is in doubt.

Pardon my metaphors, but there is a joke that bears repeating here:

Q: How do you say “f**k you” in Bureaucratese?

A: “Trust me.”

Now add to the fact that the short form is nothing more than a statement that the long form surely exists somewhere this fact:

Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president’s re-election chances
Posted: January 18, 2011
8:05 pm Eastern

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.

“If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama’s birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president,” he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby’s birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama’s birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

Abercrombie is a liberal Democrat.  He has every interest – and he admits he has that interest – in finding that record if it exists.

The problem is that it doesn’t seem to exist.  And Abercrombie officially gave up on his windmill-tilting knight’s errand.

Here’s documented proof from Puerto Rico that birth certificates are relatively easy to falsify.  The difference amounts to the fact that at least these Puerto Ricans like Sonia Aguilera actually HAD birth certificates, bogus as many of them were.  Obama’s got squat.

Liberals have pointed to a birth announcement in a newspaper as proof that Obama had to be born in the United States.  But that is beyond easy to falsify.  Here it is: “Obama’s mother called her grandparents from Kenya to announce that she has just given birth to a son named Barack Hussein Obama.  Her parents, in turn, call the newspaper and place a birth announcement in the Hawaii paper.  Bingo, proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

We don’t have any actual record that Obama’s birth certificate existed in 1961.  But there is reliable evidence that telephones existed back then.

What is funny is that the Nigerian millionaire email scammers have more documentation backing up their scams than Obama does backing up his:

Quite often, the Nigerian Scam email will contain legitimate information concerning a real political dissident’s death or imprisonment. This may be enough verification for a skeptical recipient. The second part of the classic Nigerian Scam begins when a recipient agrees to send confidential financial information to the sender in order to receive the money. From this point on, the Nigerian Scam artist will either use this private information to clean out the victim’s entire bank account or send a fake cashier‘s check as a partial payment.

But that is no longer the only question.  There is the separate but clearly related matter of Obama’s Social Security Number:

Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation
Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

“Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

“It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

And all you need to pass of a massive hoax like this is two liberal states – and these are two of the most liberal states in the nation – and a press that flew thousands of miles to Anchorage to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage but which utterly refused to go next door to look at Obama in Chicago.  And that is precisely what we have.

For the record, Democrats argued that John McCain did not qualify for the presidency of the United States because he had not been born in the United States.  That was set to rest when John McCain produced his birth certificate.  John McCain was born in a US military hospital (US territory) in the Panama Canal Zone area in 1936 to an American father (a US Navy officer) and to an American mother.

I am doing nothing more than Democrats did in demanding Obama’s birth certificate.  The differences are significant: we KNOW that Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen, and we further KNOW that Obama has not produced a birth certificate.

At this point, I do not believe that Obama is qualified to be president either in regard to his complete lack of experience, or in regard to his dangerous un-American socialist agenda, OR IN REGARD TO HIS BIRTH.

Abercrombie put it well:

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

I agree with the liberal Democrat Governor of Hawaii who had every interest and all the necessary power to find Obama’s actual birth certificate if it existed.  Yet we DO have these “political implications.”  Because Obama won’t – or more likely CAN’T – produce his birth certificate.

At this time, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Barack Obama as the lawful president of the United States until he resolve these very legitimate questions.

Produce or resign.

Somebody, somewhere, please get this Post Turtle out of the American people’s White House.

Liberal Ian Murphy Who punked Wiscosin Gov. Scott Walker Is A Vile Punk Himself

February 25, 2011

You’ve undoubtedly heard about liberal Ian Murphy “punking” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a prank phone call.  Even though Walker didn’t say anything that was truly embarrassing in a conversation he thought he was having with a powerful supporter, you’d think by listening to the mainstream media coverage that liberalsim just hit a grand slam home run.

The worst shot Murphy got was in suggesting to Walker – posing as conservative donor David Koch – that he infiltrate the crowd.  And Walker said, “We thought of that,” before saying that Republicans had NOT done it.

I’m thinking, “What’s wrong with infiltrating the crowd?”  Ian Murphy doesn’t seem to think infiltrating is wrong; that’s precisely what he did with his phone call.  And liberals don’t seem to mind infiltrating tea party crowds.  It is a documented fact that they did precisely that.  So why would it be such a terrible thing if Republicans do what Democrats already did?  Other than the fact that Democrats are vile hypocrites, of course?

I remember when conservative activists actually caught ACORN and then later Planned Parenthood literally trying to help pimps who prostituted underage girls.  And all Democrats could muster outrage over was that the calls had been recorded in possible violation of the law.  Now a liberal does the same thing – and gets no dirt at all, unlike the moral filth that conservatives caught liberals in the act doing – and Murphy becomes a hero of the communist people just for trying.  But, oh well.  Democrats are wicked people, and you can’t expect anything more than wickedness from them.

CNN, ever the blatant propagandists that they always have been, called Ian Murphy “the most intriguing person of the day.”  MSNBC also had him on there network as an honored and esteemed guest.  He’s just that kind of wonderful guy.  He’s a hero for punking a governor who is the current subject of a torrent of leftwing hate.

Here’s the liberal hero of the hour’s words about soldiers.  My apologies in advance for the profanity.  But I’ve got to show his words.  And he’s a liberal, so he’s a vile, degenerate cockroach.  What else do you expect from such people?

FUCK THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion


By Ian Murphy

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?

The ranting article goes on.  But I don’t have enough barf bags to post it all.  You can read the filfth in its entirety here.

Now, we’ve got a question: who’s the hero in this?  Walker or Murphy???

Democrats are the sort of degenerate rat filth who think the piece of slime who wrote an article titled, “Fuck the Troops” is a hero.  Which is why they make me sick.

And it’s a good example of why Democras are the kind of rabid rats who have to be destroyed. 

We have to stand up in Wisconsin and anywhere else liberals want to fight.  Because they are genuinely evil. 

Like I’ve been saying: Obama gave us “God damn America.”  And God will damn America like you’ve never seen if “Fuck the Troops” wins out over Governor Walker.

Kansas City Throat Slashing Liberal: Media Continues To Cover Up Leftist Violence

January 25, 2011

Surveys show that 40% of Americans characterize themselves as “conservatives” versus only 19% who call themselves “liberal.”

If the media were even remotely objective in their news coverage, no Democrat would ever get elected.  Even San Fransisco would reject vile liberals as vile.

But the media isn’t objective.  And they haven’t been since long before Walter Cronkite in his guise as “the most trusted man in America” somehow forgot to disclose that he was in reality a full-fledged tinfoil-hat-wearing liberal loon.

You’re never going to get the unvarnished truth from the media: either they lay on coat after coat of varnish until they create the message they want, or they just sit on a story altogether when no amount of varnish can cover up the facts.

Case in point: in the sensitive political climate following the Tucson, Arizona shootings, the media bent over backwards to keep the story of a throat-slashing leftist maniac out of the news.

Via The Gateway Pundit:

Far Left Activist Slashes Throat of Man He Mistakes For Governor – Media Silent
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 22, 2011, 11:29 AM

Casey Brezik – a leftist slasher you’ve never heard about.

22-year-old Casey Brezik, a far left student at Metropolitan Community College — Penn Vally, thought he had stabbed the governor in Kansas City and was disappointed when he learned that the victim was actually the school’s dean of instruction, Al Dimmit Jr.

Ed Driscoll reported:

Ever hear of Casey Brezik? Neither did I, until now. At the American Thinker explains how a story that doesn’t fit the accepted MSM template doesn’t bubble up to the national news:

In September 2010 Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was scheduled to speak at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas City.

At some point, wearing black clothes and a bullet-proof vest, 22 year-old Casey Brezik bolted out of a classroom, knife in hand, and slashed the throat of a dean. As he would later admit, he confused the dean with Nixon.

The story never left Kansas City. It is not hard to understand why. Knives lack the political sex appeal of guns, and even Keith Olbermann would have had a hard time turning Brezik into a Tea Partier.

Indeed, Brezik seems to have inhaled just about every noxious vapor in the left-wing miasma: environmental extremism, radical Islam, anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism and Christophobia, among others.

In his “About Me” box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism” and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

September of last year.  And the media sat on it all this time.  You would have thought such an event would have been important for the sake of balance while the media was falsely demonizing the right for the Tucson shootings.  You know, “Let’s not go too far blaming the right for hate.  Don’t forget that only a few months ago a leftist attempted to slash the throat of the governor in Missouri.”

But nope.  They just let that little detail pass by, while they piled on unmercifully and demonically on top of a completely innocent Sarah Palin.

If there had been even the tiniest thread of a connection between Casey Brezik and the rightwing, the news media would have been all over this like flies on horse crap.  But given the fact that this thug is as leftist as, well, his hero Che Guevara, all you hear is the sound of the crickets.

It is simply amazing how dishonest and treacherous the mainstream media truly is on a constant basis.

Listen To Mark Levin Utterly Destory Gloria Allred Over Her Despicable Exploitation Of Her Illegal Client

October 2, 2010

Two things come out of this radio interview of Gloria Allred by Mark Levin:

1) The peculiar form of mental retardation that is endemic in even the most brilliant liberals.  Listen to Gloria Allred repeatedly use every form of rhetorical jujitsu in order to make herself some kind of offended victim instead of just answering the damn question.  It is simply amazing, and frankly demented, how a liberal can go on a program and talk and talk and talk all the while complaining that she isn’t being allowed to talk.

Add to that the fact that Gloria Allred bizarrely becomes self-righteously indignant and refuses to use the term “illegal alien” even though Mark Levin spoke as a lawyer himself and was using “illegal alien” as a recognized legal term, which any lawyer worth cat feces would recognize.

2) The fact that Gloria Allred deliberately put this woman, who is, yes, AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, in direct legal jeopardy just so that Gloria Allred can pursue an ideological vendetta against a candidate for governor.

Now, two things should happen.

1) Gloria Allred’s client should be criminally prosecuted because of her fraudulent criminal falsification of documents in order to illegally obtain a job.  Then, after serving time in jail, she should be deported as a criminal illegal alien.  And why should these things happen?  Because Gloria Allred revealed the criminal activities of her client just to political attack a Republican candidate for governor.  Had Gloria Allred NOT revealed the criminal activities of her client, her client would have been able to get another $23-an-hour housekeeping position.

2) Gloria Allred should be disbarred for exploiting a client rather than representing that client’s best legal interest.  As attorney Mark Levin points out:

“When you represent a client, you have to make sure you are not exposing that client in other ways.  So I’m asking you: are you aware that your client forged or falsified a Social Security document?  Yes or no.”  Levin goes on to say, “I am accusing you of putting your client in legal jeopardy.  How do you respond?”

Gloria Allred “responds” by saying, “You know, even though my client is a housekeeper, and some people don’t respect a housekeeper, I happen to respect housekeepers.”

At this point, Levin impatiently says: “Aren’t you swell.  Now answer my question.”

Gloria Allred stupidly says, “I’m answering your question” [which she clearly isn't].

Levin now explodes:

“You put your client in legal jeopardy!  I don’t need a lecture from a liberal about housekeepers!  I asked you about your client, and the legal jeopardy that your client is in now.”

And Allred proceeds to go on yet another morally insane lecture in which she self-righteously presents herself as standing up for the truth, and how Mark Levin – who is practically screaming for Gloria Allred to stop grandstanding and provide the facts – is afraid of the facts.  She mentions that her client – who was paid an incredible $23 an hour to do a menial job – was not reimbursed for all of her travel expenses.

Levin asks, “So you are aware that she falsified and forged a Social Security document.”

Allred pathetically says, “You want to attack a housekeeper.  You don’t want to deal with…”

Levin interrupts the – excuse my language – lower-lip-high bullshit.  And says:

“No, no.  I want to deal with YOU.  I want to deal with you as a fellow member of the Bar.  My question: 42 United States Code 408A18.  It’s a federal felony to forge or falsify a Social Security document.  And you’re telling me that your client came forward and said, “Okay.  Expose me to possible deportation.  Expose me to up to five years in prison,  I want my travel money?”

And Allred again self-righteously and pompously states that she would never tell anyone the conversation she had with her client.  Because it’s attorney-client privilege.  Which Gloria Allred apparently interprets as being allowed to destroy her client’s life at will and use her client’s destruction to advance liberal political partisan politics.

Levin says:

“It is absurd for you to say that you filed a complaint because she didn’t get reimbursed for her travel or what have you.  Yesterday, as a matter of fact, you filed it.  And you and the immigration attorney have exposed your client in my humble opinion to very, very serious matters which could cost her her liberty.  And your answer is that I don’t like housekeepers!  It’s you who apparently don’t like housekeepers.”

Gloria Allred repeatedly states that Mark Levin is afraid of the facts, and doesn’t want to deal with the facts – even though Levin is determined to get to them, and even though Allred is equally determined to whine about anything and everything BUT the facts.

And Gloria Allred refuses to disclose whether she is being paid by a third party – say, for example, the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign.

And what are the facts?  Other than the fact that Gloria Allred would be willing to watch her client get tortured and then burned alive if her screams and her ashes would help keep a Republican from being elected governor?

Meg Whitman relied on an employment agency that guaranteed to her that the housekeeper they sent was in the country legally.  She has a copy of Nicandra Diaz Santillan’s Social Security card and her California Driver’s license – which both indicate that Santillan was a legal resident.

In other words, it wasn’t that Whitman didn’t bother to check her housekeeper’s legal status: it was that she CLEARLY DID CHECK HER HOUSEKEEPER’S LEGAL STATUS, and an examination of the official state documentation provided by Santillan showed that Santillan was in fact legal.

So who is the criminal here?  It most certainly was not Meg Whitman; it was CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN Nicandra Diaz Santillan.  It was Santillan who committed felonies by using fraud to criminally obtain official government documents.

In exposing these facts about her client, Gloria Allred is all but guaranteeing that said client will be criminally prosecuted for multiple felonies, and then deported as a CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.

And why does Gloria Allred destroy her client’s future?  Because she thought she had a “gotcha” document in the form of a letter sent by the Social Security Administration.  The letter was allegedly signed by gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s husband (Dr. Griffith Harsh), who had written on the letter, “Nicky (i.e., ILLEGAL ALIEN Nicandra Diaz Santillan who had criminally falsified her documents to get the job in the Whitman household), please look into this.”  And given the letter to the ILLEGAL ALIEN housekeeper.  And, of course, “Nicky” (did I mention she’s a criminal illegal alien) sat on the letter.  Until giving it to Gloria Allred.

Now, why does Meg Whitman’s husband write, “Nicky, please look into this”?  Because he was duped by a criminal.  He had no idea that this housekeeper had criminally falsified documents including a bogus Social Security Number in order to get the job which she had held for three years prior to the letter.

The letter, which Gloria Allred says proves that Meg Whitman knew she was employing an ILLEGAL ALIEN, in fact only proves that Meg Whitman’s HUSBAND (i.e. NOT Meg Whitman) was in fact ignorant that “Nicky” was an ILLEGAL ALIEN.  There is absolutely no evidence that Meg Whitman had ever seen the letter, or that her husband had informed her about it.

Which is to say husband Dr. Griffith Harsh assumed it was a minor paperwork issue BECAUSE HE TRUSTED A CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO HAD SWINDLED THE COUPLE.

Here’s what Dr. Harsh says:

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would’ve scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages,” he said. “Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.’

Harsh also wrote: “The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky’s legal status and I certainly don’t recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency. When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately.”

So much for the “smoking gun.”  It actually proves that the Dr. Harsh and Meg Whitman did NOT know that their housekeeper was in fact an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Apparently, the heart of Gloria Allred’s case is that Meg Whitman should have known that all Hispanics are liars and criminals.  And even if a Hispanic has come from a legitimate employment agency, and even if that Hispanic has documents, that Meg Whitman should have realized that simply to be Hispanic is to be both a liar and a criminal.

So everyone should immediately fire any Hispanic under employment.  Because having documents means nothing.  You know that “those kind” will criminally produce fraudulent documents and then lie about it.

Liberals don’t give a leaping damn about Hispanics.  They would destroy them in a heartbeat if they voted Republican.  Just as Gloria Allred will destroy Nicandra Diaz Santillan in order to illegitimately demonize Meg Whitman.

And, as I’ve said over and over again, the quintessential element of a liberal is massive hypocrisy.  The same liberals who have done everything they can to cynically aggrandize themselves to criminal illegal aliens – including making it impossible to verify their illegal status – are now trying to crucify a Republican political candidate for not being able to do what liberals have spent years trying to keep them from doing.  All the while condemning as racist anyone even trying to do it to begin with.

I will always wonder how liberals’ heads don’t simply explode from trying to contain all the massive contradictions.

As a final note, if the media were even remotely fair in its coverage of this Glorai Allred political stunt, they would be asking the other gubernatorial candidate a question: given that Jerry Brown is the California Attorney General, why hasn’t he arrested Nicandra Diaz Santillan?

Gov. Candidate ‘MoonBeam’ Brown Has A Plan Guaranteed To Save California; But You Have To Elect Him To Find Out What It Is

September 13, 2010

I have a secret plan to save the planet.  And if you give me all your money, I’ll tell you what it is.

That’s basically Jerry Brown’s current campaign platform, in a very nutty nutshell.

Are Californians crazy enough to buy that?  Judging from the fact that Obama won California by the biggest margin in history, yeah, they are.

We ARE the state that has all the moral-moron movie-star meatheads telling us how we should vote, after all.

Zen and art of political machine maintenance
Debra J. Saunders
San Francisco Chronicle September 12, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010

Jerry Brown has a secret plan to balance the state budget. When the state attorney general and Democratic gubernatorial nominee recently visited The Chronicle’s editorial board, he brought with him a large three-ring binder with his ideas on how to bring state spending back into the black. But he wouldn’t tell us what was in the book.

I asked him what he, as governor, would do that state employee labor unions, which are spending millions to get him elected, won’t like. He answered, “Well, I’m certainly not going to tell you now.”

And: “I’m not going to reveal my negotiating strategy now. I’m going to try to push everybody together.”

Also: “The next governor has to be an honest broker, somebody that people feel is being straight and is talking to them in a real way.  I think I can do that.”

This is talking in a real way? Trying to figure out what Brown means is like trying to decipher the Da Vinci Code.

When Editorial Page Editor John Diaz asked what tough calls Brown was willing to make, he answered, “There’s only a process that will lead us to where we’re going.”

When Diaz asked how Brown might want to change Proposition 13, Brown said he had no plans to change Prop. 13 in his notebook. But: “The way I would put it is, everything is on the table and everyone’s at the table.”

Brown is the first candidate for governor in memory who is running for office on no platform so that he can be elected with no mandate.

This has to remind you of the perennially-eyes-widened-in-surprise House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s breathless and braindead statement regarding ObamaCare:

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Well, we’ve got ObamaCare now, and we’re starting to find out what’s in it.

What do the American people think?  And what were they thinking the entire time Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Democrats in Congress, and President Barry Hussein were ramming it down our throats?

From Rasmussen, September 6, 2010:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the law, with 45% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, including 30% who are Strongly Opposed.

A majority has favored repeal of the legislation every single week since Congress passed the health care bill in March. Support for repeal has ranged from a low of 52% to a high of 63%.

We never liked it.  We never wanted it.  But SURPRISE!!!  And tag, you’re it.  Maybe Sarah Palin is wrong about the death panels, even though it looks like there are at least 160 of them contained in the 2400 page monstrosity.  But that would only be because ObamaCare will be more like the famously creepy short story The Lottery than a simple death panel.

We’re hearing more and more godawful details of ObamaCare now, you know, that thing that Democrats had to pass so we could find out what’s in it.  And now it’s so obvious that the thing is not only bad, but evil, that not one single Democrat in more than 230 national races is acknowledging that he or she voted for it.

Now, the people didn’t get to actually vote for ObamaCare.  If they’d had that choice, we’d be still be dancing around the embers of its burning ceremony now.  Instead, it was rammed down our throats by Democrats, who arrogantly predicted that those who voted against their vile takeover of the health care system would be hurt in November.

But now the people finally get the chance to say who’s going to be hurt in November.

I hope the citizens of California won’t be as dumb as they’ve been in the past.

This ad by Meg Whitman might well be the dagger through the undead heart of Jerry Brown’s hopes for further ruining the state of California:

Go away, Jerry.  Go away mad, but go away.  We don’t need more Democrat mystery meat.

Poll: If You Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, You’re A Leftwing Loon

April 27, 2010

From Rasmussen:

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status
Monday, April 26, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

I wonder how many likely voters favor the president of the United States playing racially-prejudiced identity politics as he demagogues the Arizona law and other issues:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

As for you white and Asian males, just shut the hell up.  You SUCK!!!

Still, 60% of Americans.  Who would have guessed that 3/5ths of America was composed of white and Asian males?

Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of the country would cheer Obama even if he were to lead us down to the level of Kim Jong Il and North Korea.

But pretty much everybody else supports Arizona and its illegal immigration policy against Obama and the federal government.

Update, April 29:

Let’s see, a few days ago seven police officers were murdered in Juarez, Mexico.  Just yesterday, eight men were shot in the back and killed outside a nightclub in Juarez, MexicoFifteen people were murdered in 11 hours in Juarez.  And at least 300 people were murdered just this month in that hellhole.

In Pinal County, Arizona, a sheriff’s deputy was shot with an AK-47 by a group of illegal immigrants and left for dead.  And that just today.

This is the kind of crap that is going on every single day in Mexico.  But liberals demand that Arizona and other border states just grin and bear it.

Also, when Janet Napolitano was governor of Arizona, she “implored Congress to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.” Governor Napolitano also demanded that the federal government pay her state $350 million every year for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant Mexican nationals.  She said that the cost of doing the federal government’s job “could pay for all-day kindergarten for every 5-year-old in the state.”  But now she’s part of the Obama administration, part of the problem, and suddenly everything is just fine.

Let me say this again: If you think Arizona is “racist” for trying to deal with a nightmarish problem that the federal government is utterly failing to even begin to TRY to deal with, you are a leftwing loon.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers