Posts Tagged ‘illegal immigration’

What A Difference A Hypocrite – Actually Just The Whole Hypocrite Democrat Party – Can Make When It Comes To Shutting Down The Government

December 12, 2014

Last year, Obama and the entire Democrat Party came unglued over Republican obstructionism – and literally anarchy and even hostage-taking and terrorism – because the Republicans were prepared to vote against the Democrat Party agenda and risk a government shutdown.

I mean, do you remember this crap out of Obama’s White House a year ago?

White House compares GOP to terrorists as government shutdown nears
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 26, 2013

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Thursday compared Republican lawmakers to suicide bombers as the showdown over a possible government shutdown intensified.

“We are for cutting spending, we are for reforming our tax code, we are for reforming entitlements,” Mr. Pfeiffer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “But what we are not for is negotiating with people who have a bomb strapped to their chest.”

Here was Obama:

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning, everybody.  At midnight last night, for the first time in 17 years, Republicans in Congress chose to shut down the federal government.  Let me be more specific:  One faction, of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government, shut down major parts of the government — all because they didn’t like one law.

This Republican shutdown did not have to happen

Last night Democrats in the House did absolutely everything they coul to shut down the government.

But in a world and in a political party that despises truth, such facts are irrelevant.

And of course the mainstream media – being the NAZIS they are – duly drooled out the Democrat Party talking points in lieu of the actual news.

But what a difference a year makes.  And now where are all the cockroach “journalists” who had horrible labels for Republicans because they were acting like Democrats acted just last night???

They’re hiding under the refrigerator, of course.  BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE ROACHES.

Elizabeth Warren was against government shutdowns before she was for them
By Doug Powers  •  December 11, 2014 02:56 PM

Last year, Elizabeth Warren tomahawked those in the GOP “Anarchy Gang” for bringing the government to the point of a shutdown:

Warren telling GOPers last year that “this democracy has already rejected your views” is an overdose of retro-irony considering the results of last month’s election. But anyway, fast forward to this week:

Congressional Democrats objected on Wednesday to controversial financial and political campaign provisions tucked into a $1.1 trillion U.S. spending bill, keeping the risk of a government shutdown alive.

The complaints from House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats clouded the chances for passage of the funding bill as a midnight Thursday deadline drew near.
[…]
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a staunch advocate for tougher regulation of Wall Street, called for Democrats to withhold support from the bill due to the derivatives provision, which would effectively strike down a portion of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted in the wake of a financial crisis fueled partly by complex mortgage derivatives.

Shutdowns are now … whatever the socialist hypocrite opposite of “anarchy” is:

So now the Democrats are calling Republicans “blackmailers.”

Nancy Pelosi: This is ‘blackmail’
By Lauren French
| 12/11/14 2:31 PM EST
| Updated 12/11/14 9:13 PM EST

Nancy Pelosi is “disappointed” in Barack Obama for backing a bill she described as a form of “blackmail” on the part of Republicans.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a pathologically unhinged lying hypocrite.

So now voting to pass a damn budget is “blackmail” when a year ago it was the essence of patriotism and virtue.  And to vote to shut down the damn government is the essence of patriotism and virtue, when a year ago it was the essence of treason and the heart of right-wing racist darkness.

This abject, despicable display of rabid hypocrisy is nothing new.  It’s par for the course from the party that decreed “elections have consequences.”  Unless they lose said election.  This is par for the course from the party that supported the Iraq War and voted for it only to treasonously betray their very own votes the moment the political winds changed.  58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the Iraq War Resolution, including Joe Biden (D-DE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Only to turn on the American troops they themselves had voted to send to war.  This is par for the course for the party that was fully briefed on waterboarding with NO OBJECTIONSAND OH, YES THEY WERE BRIEFED - only to later lie about it and disown the truth the way the disowned the CIA officers whose “crime” was to follow the laws as the laws were at a very dark and frightening time when 3,000 innocent Americans had just been viciously murdered and no one knew whether another massive attack was imminent.  Now they put America at risk in a “report” that amounts to a giant whine in which the informed professional officials like Obama’s own handpicked CIA Directors Leon Panetta and John Brennan directly refute.  Just imagine what would have happened to their $40 million hit job if they’d actually bothered to interview the professionals who WEREN’T Obama political appointees, given what even the political appointees say.

This is par for the course from the party whose fascist president bitches at Bush for waterboarding three vicious terrorists when this aforementioned fascist bitchy president has murdered more American citizens without one scintilla of due process than Bush waterboarded terrorists.  Meanwhile, Obama’s drone strike victims number in the THOUSANDS with scores of innocent women and children numbered with the guilty.  And this Nazi dares to stand in judgment of a period of time when the New York Times was reporting that al-Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.  You sanctimonious tube of slime.

Democrats are officially outraged that the people tasked with protecting America would aggressively interrogate people who saw the heads off of children.  I can’t even begin to describe how much Democrats outrage me.

You want to talk about “betrayal of American values,” Democrat?  I’ve got an idea for you; bring to light what Obama is doing TODAY rather than what Bush did to keep the nation safe ten damn years ago.   Expose what Obama did when he covered-up his fiasco in Benghazi with lies that made a grotesque mockery of our national security; help us expose Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target his political opponents; help us expose the cynical lies that were behind the passage of ObamaCare.  Expose Obama’s violation of the separation of powers as Obama himself assured us he would be committing if he issued the executive order on amnesty for illegals that he treasonously went ahead and issued anyway.  Do that and then maybe you’d have a shred of credibility – because you sure don’t have any now.  You want to make America “transparent”???  Fine; just help us expose the wrongs of the LEAST TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT IN HISTORY even according to many doctrinaire liberals.

Democrats don’t want to talk about ANY of the MYRIAD disgraces of American values perpetuated by Obama.  And their rabid protection of the most criminally opaque administration in American history proves the don’t give a flaming damn about “transparency.”

Every day in every way, Democrats are liars and hypocrites.

 

Why Liberals Are Modern NAZIS: The Death Of Thought And The Demise Of America Through Mindless Emotional ‘Liberal’ Outrage

December 5, 2014

As we speak, I am watching riots.  I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence.  All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been?  The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot?  I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted?  And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race.  It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Interestingly, “liberalism” is about as “liberal” as “ISIS” is “religious.”  Classical liberalism held to the following values:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

That’s from Princeton.  A strikingly similar definition pins it even better:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

… It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal.  I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual.  Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty.  Because rights without duties is moral chaos.  And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy,  they want the rule of law and they want private property rights.  The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left?  We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him.  That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people).  Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

  • “Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

  • “Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

  • I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ‘em, but that was my opinion. ”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

  • “Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

There were people who saw or claimed they saw something different.  But here was their problem according to the Washington Post:

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,”  McCulloch said.

The New York Times acknowledges:

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence.  Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON.  Just no freaking way.  Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

In short, most citizens agree with something Charles Barkley said:

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race.  It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Rolling Stone set off a firestorm – which they breathlessly reported on after creating aforementioned firestorm – when it ran the following story.  I want you to note that the disclaimer was just added today as Rolling Stone all but refuted their own “reporting”:

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA
Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely | November 19, 2014

TO OUR READERS:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

What we find when we begin to examine the “victim’s” story is that there WAS no frat party the night she claimed there was a party, that there is no staircase in the house in refutation of her account, and numerous other details prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this story was a complete and utter lie perpetuated by truly vile, depraved, wicked “liberal” fascist Nazis.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative.  This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.”  Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts.  Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny.  And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized.  Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside.  As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right.  Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on  forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies.  Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars.  The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again.  But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Let’s remember this, also.  Let’s remember how a liberal fellow traveler, Meghan Daum, described the leftist mindset:

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
SHARELINE
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.”  Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name.  But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with.  It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil.  And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson.  I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting.  All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting.  So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force.  And of course there was rioting.  And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted?  ZERO.  And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset.  And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage.  But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism.  And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare?  Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

Two minutes is all you need to utterly destroy ObamaCare:

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple.  It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

It doesn’t matter that Obama himself personally refuted his own actions on at least 22 separate occasions.

That’s nothing more than a fact.  It’s nothing more than the truth.  And both are totally irrelevant to “liberals” today.

I’m watching another liberal protest going on now as leftist mindlessly chant, “We can’t breathe!” over and over and over and over again.

What they ought to be chanting is “We can’t think.”

They WON’T think.

Obama Willing To Negotiate With Terrorist Nuke Wannabe Iran Forever But No Such Deal For GOP Who Just Massively Won Elections

November 24, 2014

Consider what I’m saying here in light of the fact that a primary ObamaCare architect has now been caught repeatedly – and I mean over and over and over again – pointing out that the operating thesis of the Obama administration is that the American people are stupid and that Obama’s fascist thugs had to lie to them and manipulate them with lies in order to pass ObamaCare.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the fact that we now have the smoking gun backing up everything that reporter Sharyl Atkisson claimed when she said the Obama thug White House was out to suppress her and target her and intimidate her in a manner that comes right out of fascism rather than a free society.  We now know that a senior Eric Holder aid contacted CBS to suppress Sharyl Atkisson.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the FACT that the Obama administration is THE most fascist and THE most dangerous rogue regime in American history, bar none.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it?  They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

As for the man who revealed all the Gruber remarks?  He tried to give the story to the media, but strange thing, nobody in the press bothered to call him back.

And the crickets are still a’ chirping as the media basically continues to ignore the story that reveals that ObamaCare was in FACT the heart of darkness.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case.  And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist.  They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it.  And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines.  For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

In July 2014, you had this article title to say everything: “Iran Nuclear Talks Deadline Looms With Little Angst About Extension.”

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst?  Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously.  They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless.  And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

You might want to read my previous article, which interacts with a surprising admission of the fiasco of Obama’s negotiation strategy, titled, “Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.”  In that article I stated:

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen?  Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement.  So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

The Republican Party seized control of the Senate, won more House Seats than they have held since FDR was poisoning America during World War II, taken such an overwhelming majority of governorships its beyond a joke and dominated state houses (see also here) after Obama said “make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.”

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election.  In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

And so the Republicans who just won shocking majorities and can finally escape the tyrannous, fascist hell of Harry Reid -

In reality, Harry Reid has now blocked more US Senators from offering any amendments to legislation more often than EVERY OTHER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE UNITED STATES COMBINED.  TIMES TWO.

- will get exactly ZERO-POINT-ZERO SECONDS to formulate an immigration policy with their new control that the American people gave them.

Even the New York Times has reported on Harry Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control.”

There are at least 352 Republican House-passed bills that are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk because Democrats are the REAL obstructionists as they played naked cynical politics in vain effort to protect their weaker members from taking votes that would have exposed them to the American people.

What does the fascist propaganda press do?  Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House.  Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants.  But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.”  So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARS of absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants.  He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran.  But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people.  So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle.  When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated.  Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.”  Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

 

Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism

July 30, 2014

It’s a funny thing, liberals and Jesus.

On the one hand, they loudly and shrilly denounce conservatives from talking about religion and most certainly for actually trying to make their religion part of public policy in any way, shape or form.

“How DARE you?!?!” they declare with über self-righteous indignation and moral outrage.  “The separation of church and state is the foundation of our democracy!!!”

Only that’s an outright lie, or course, as is easily proven by reading the words of our founding fathers – including our very greatest founding father who was the father of our country:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

I have a lengthy volume of quotes in the article I link to above proving that “separation of church and state” was not a value our founding fathers cherished.  What modern progressive liberals wanted is most clearly seen in the near-contemporaneous events of a very different worldview that emerged in the French Revolution and ended in “the Reign of Terror” as a truly ugly and tragic spirit of atheism became a toxic, murderous cancer across France.

But what is most interesting about liberals isn’t merely their hatred of the morality of religion and their determination to suppress and exterminate religion by essentially banning it from government and from culture.

It is the amazing hypocrisy that they immediately show when they believe they can twist, pervert, distort religion to their side.

As an example, let’s consider what liberals – and I mean the liberals who are most toxic in their rants against the “Christian right” – are doing to subvert Jesus into their political ideology.

I came across on the editorial page of the überleftist Los Angeles Times a cartoon by the liberal cartoonist Jimmy Margurilis one such example:

Who Would Jesus Deport

Well, I suppose I’d like to ask Jimmy Margulies – since the opinion of Jesus is clearly so important to him – who Jesus would TAX?  Who would Jesus regulate?  Who would Jesus oppress with government bureaucracy?  Who would Jesus, for that matter, sentence to prison on Margulies’ deeply flawed understanding?  If Jesus wouldn’t deport anyone, He wouldn’t imprison anyone either, would He?  He’d just forgive them and let them go scott free to torture and rape and murder and oppress the rest of us.   That’s the Jesus the left loves: the benign Jesus who morally stood for NOTHING but “tolerance.”

Here’s another liberal telling us we should be a theocracy:

“Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America,'” tweeted King Tuesday before adding: “Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren’t in your back yard, isn’t it?” — Stephen King

It turns out that Christian groups – the very people Stephen King is most demonizing – are doing by far and away the MOST work to help these people who are flooding across the border.  And they rightly asked the secular humanist progressive liberal turd, “What are YOU doing to help these people???”

But here Stephen King is quoting the Bible for us, quoting the Jesus who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  NO MAN comes to the Father except through ME.”  The same Jesus also said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”  In fact, Jesus said, “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”  And oops, Stephen, that includes the parts about homosexuality being an abomination and a detestable act and the like.  And oops, that includes abortion and the systematic murder of more babies than the total number of dead – civilian and military alike on both sides alike – of the bloodiest and most murderous war in the history of the human race.

Liberals believe in the separation of church and state.  Oh, until it suits their purpose NOT to believe in the separation of church and state.  To put it more accurately, liberals believe in the separation of church and state for Republicans and conservatives.

Which is why it is always amazing to hear a liberal try to tell you that we should open our arms, surrender our borders, and allow every single “refugee” to come flooding into our country because it’s in the Bible.  Where, number one, it is NOT in the Bible, and number two, even if it WERE, it would fundamentally and profoundly contradict your precious “separation of church and state” to do it anyway.

If Stephen King and Jimmy Margulies and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want a Judeo-Christian theocracy, fine.  Let them say so.  Let them stand for the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers and forced worship of Christ.  But that’s not what they want, is it?  No.  They want a liberal progressive, secular humanist salad bar where THEY and ONLY THEY get to cherry pick the highly selective parts of the Bible they want to follow after splitting those parts out of their context and warping them.

See, I could actually LIVE in a world where Jesus was taken seriously and obeyed.  It’s LIBERALS who would be violently revolting.  Because liberals are people who are so toxic to Jesus that they literally put Him in a jar of urine and funded it as “art.”

I ask you, liberal, to produce for me ONE Bible verse that says it is secular government – and not the church’s and not God’s people’s – role to provide welfare.  I’m just going to state it categorically until you do, that your worldview is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

When the disciples came to Jesus because there was a crowd of 5,000 men (probably a good 15,000 people) who had nothing to eat, do you know what Jesus did NOT tell them to do?  He didn’t tell them to go to King Herod or to Governor Pilate for a government welfare program to feed the poor.  He said YOU feed them.  And after a little humming and hawing the disciples finally did the right thing: they did their best to put some food together and came to Jesus and asked HIM to bless it.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8, we find that the people, in wanting to be like all the other nations with a human king and a human big government, were rejecting GOD.  If you don’t believe me, why don’t you read 1 Samuel 8:7 for yourself?  And God warns the people, saying over and over again, when you have your big government king, HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL APPOINT FOR HIMSELF… HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL TAKE… (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:14).   HE WILL TAKE (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:15).  HE WILL TAKE (and exploit what he takes for his political and ideological projects according to 1 Samuel 8:16).  HE WILL TAKE … and you will become HIS servants.

And God will not answer you because you made GOVERNMENT your God and your master.

And that is exactly what liberals have done and exactly what liberals want.

Unless, that is, in their twisted and perverted way, they think they can twist and pervert Jesus into their socialist elf.

It’s actually true that the Bible tells us not to harm the sojourner in your land.

But let’s see if that’s an all-encompassing and all-inclusive edict that should apply to illegal immigrants who break our laws to enter our country and consume our resources like locusts when they arrive.  Let’s see what God had to say to Israel about how to treat the Jebusite, the Hittite, the Canaanite, the Philistine, etc:

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.  But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. — Deuteronomy 20:16-18

I wonder if liberals are going to quote that passage to me when it comes with how to deal with illegal immigrants???

Oh, wait, I DON’T wonder.  Because liberals are the worst kind of self-serving, dishonest HYPOCRITES who despise the Bible in any kind of actual, legitimate CONTEXT.

God commanded Israel to drive out or destroy these peoples because they were absolutely wicked and depraved.  God knew they would corrupt His people with their vile ways.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.  And history proves that Israel collapsed spiritually and morally before they collapsed politically because they failed to carry out God’s command.

God was incredibly patient with these people in their wickedness.  In Genesis 15:6, God gave Abraham the land these wicked peoples inhabited.  But first Israel would remain in Egypt for four hundred years.  Why?  God explained, ” In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”  When these peoples reached their “full measure” of wickedness, it was time for Israel to come in and take what God had given them.

And America is in a very similar situation as millions of illegal immigrants pour in who do NOT love America, who do NOT want to assimilate, who have NO love for our Constitution, our founding fathers or our ways.  And they are subverting everything this nation used to stand for just as the above “immigrants” subverted everything that God intended for Old Testament Israel to stand for.

I state for the factual record that there are a lot more verses like that one regarding “immigrants” in the Bible than there are the kind the liberals cite as categorical commands to allow illegal immigrants to come in and take over our country as Democrats exploit them to “fundamentally transform” America.

And how did Obama instruct the people the liberals demand we let in?

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

But I’m sure that leftist propagandist Jimmy Margulies would fully agree that Jesus would instruct His followers to “punish your enemies.”  And of course Jesus would use the IRS as a political weapon to harass, intimidate, dismantle and persecute – and yes, “punish” – His political opponents, wouldn’t He???

Let me assure you of something: if Hispanic illegal immigrants voted Republican, you would see the rabid, poison-dripping FANGS of Democrats come out in a spirit of rage and hate unlike nothing you’ve ever seen on the faces of Republicans as they went completely poop-flinging nuts over the invasion of our border.

I attend a church that has an English and Hispanic congregation.  And I regularly take part in ministry to Hispanics, quite a few of which are here illegally.  As a true Christian, I DON’T hate illegal immigrants.  I realize as a moral human being that if I were a poor Mexican or Central American living in a completely failed state the way these people are, I would come to America too – either legally or illegally.  I recognize that for many illegal immigrants, work is a good thing that they are grateful for.  And that they send a lot of the money they earn home to their families.  These are virtuous things.  What I rabidly despise is a cynical and dishonest liberal ideology that wants to politically benefit from these poor people’s misery and ignorance.  I blame the left for its hostility to America as they seek to cynically grab further political advantages by exploiting these people.  Liberals are like drunken braggarts in a bar, buying drinks for everyone in order to be popular and then refusing to pay the tab when the bill comes.  America cannot afford to continue living so wildly and wickedly beyond our means.  We are going to completely economically and socially collapse because of the vile wickedness of Democrats.  And then you will see suffering as you have never seen before – suffering that Democrats forced upon the America that they destroyed.

I believe, therefore, that we ought to treat the illegal immigrants who are coming here as human beings.  And that we should protect our nation, protect our borders, protect our culture, protect our way of life by controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

And, like the Christians that Stephen King demonizes, I’ve actually put both my time and my money where my mouth is.

Liberals don’t want to follow God or His ways.  They HATE and DESPISE God and His ways.  Instead, they want to REPLACE God with their human government and they want to replace God’s ways with the ways of “political correctness” that they can shape and distort and control by first banning God from our discourse and then replacing God’s ways with their ways in the vacuum that they created with their “separation of church and state.”

If you actually follow Jesus and His Word and regard both as your moral authority, fine, you go ahead and quote Jesus and quote the Bible.  But when I know and YOU know that you really despise both Jesus and the Word of God, THEN DON’T YOU DARE DISHONOR CHRIST BY SUBVERTING HIS TEACHING WITH YOUR WICKED IDEOLOGY THAT IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM ABANDONS HIM.

I tell you what, liberal.  Since what you really want is more big government, instead of quoting the Jesus whom you clearly don’t follow, why don’t you quote the sources that actually represent your real belief system?  Quote me fellow adherents and proponents of your monster-sized (and frankly monstrous) government system.  Quote me Chairman Mao, quote me Joseph Stalin, quote me Adolf Hitler, quote me Kim Jong-Il on illegal immigration.  But, oh, that’s right: these people EXTERMINATED immigrants they didn’t like.  You’d be completely and utterly long, but at least you’d have the virtue of integrity.

But instead what you do is falsely masquerade behind an artificial Jesus when we both damn well know you don’t follow Jesus and never will.  There’d be nearly 57 million more babies born to grow up and come to the feet of Jesus if you believed Him, just for starters.

What liberals really want isn’t Christ, but the Antichrist.  They want the ultimate big government tyrant who will viciously persecute the people of God and impose the complete socialist takeover of the world in the economic system known as the “mark of the beast” such that no one can buy or sell ANYTHING without government approval.  THAT’S the “Christ” liberals want.

Jesus told us in the last days prior to “the Democrat Jesus” – the Antichrist – coming, people would come in His name claiming to represent Him.

And in the warped, dishonest left, that’s what we’re seeing.

Which is how we can know the beast is coming.

 

 

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

January 31, 2013

There aren’t a lot of laws in economic theory.  But one of them is called “the law of supply and demand.”  Basically, the more abundant something is, the less valuable it becomes.  If you increase the supply of something, you reduce the demand for that something accordingly.

So somebody’s got a brilliant idea: let’s glut our economy with low-skilled immigrants who will be competing with low-skilled Americans for increasingly scarce low-skilled jobs.  It will be great.  Trust your messiah.

Fools believe this, just as fools believed that Bush was inciting the Middle East and an Obama presidency would usher in a reign of peace (actual history alert: the Middle East is in greater turmoil and greater risk of complete meltdown than it has EVER been under ANYBODY).  Fools believe this, just as they believed that under Obama, average Americans would never have to pay more taxes:

Obama Claims Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Workers Will Strengthen the Middle Class
January 29, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Could it be that when Obama was leafing through the thesaurus looking for synonyms for “Destroy”, “Smash”, “Utterly Eradicate” and “Eliminate Beyond Any Trace of Recognition”, he found himself with the antonyms rather than the synonyms?

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here.  Many of them have been here for years.  And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Obama is confusing Mexican illegal aliens with Cotton Incorporated. They didn’t just break the rules. They broke the law.

They’re not contributing members. They take away jobs from Americans, leech off the social benefits system and commit a number of crimes besides the whole “illegal entry” deal. Jails tend to be full of illegal aliens for a reason.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living.  Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay.  And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy.  Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer.   They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules.  And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

Obama’s solution to employers hiring people under the table for low wages is to legalize 11 million illegal aliens. Which will open up positions for more illegals to come and work under the table, while the newly legal illegal aliens end up eventually going on unemployment once they get their green cards because there’s no work for them. And then we’ll legalize the new illegal aliens because etc…

How does dumping 11 million aliens into the economy, on the social system and into the job markets strengthen the middle class?

It doesn’t. It destroys it.

There’s a lot of talk about a system that will prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. Obama has been in office for four years, if he genuinely supported such a system, there was plenty of time for it. Ditto for the Republicans. These proposals have been made and sabotaged and then linked to amnesty as a “comprehensive” package.

That’s a scam. There will be amnesty and no enforcement. And Obama is refusing to even tie amnesty to enforcement as a prerequisite. Not that such an agreement would change anything.

The shadow economy is never going to come into the light, because businesses on both sides of the aisle benefit from it. So do politicians on the left side of the aisle.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act.  We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now.  That’s what we need.

That is what Obama needs. It’s what his political allies want. It’s what the left wants. It’s what some billionaires want. The middle class needs this like it needs more tax hikes and more unemployment.

But this time, action must follow.  (Applause.)  We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate.  We’ve been debating this a very long time.  So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.  As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform.

Because the problem with our country is that we “debate” too many things instead of just passing bills to find out what’s in them.

It’s funny though that Obama’s ideas appear to be the same Gang of 8 ideas, aside from the trigger. Even the rhetoric is a carbon copy of what we’ve been hearing from the pitchmen selling this on the conservative side.

But it wouldn’t be an Obama speech without some whacks at America as an illegitimate colonial state.

It’s really important for us to remember our history.  Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else.  Somebody brought you.

You didn’t build that. You settled it. Now step aside and let the indigenous people of Mexico settle it.

Realize that China is a beautiful model for Democrats.  They get to have their communist cake and eat it, too.  They get to create a world in which the elite liberal “haves” get to prosper from their dictatorial regime and the “have nots” get to suck on the tit of welfare until the complete economic collapse comes.  Theres something in the modern Democrat Party for everybody – except people who want the chance to experience freedom and prosperity by the sweat of their own brow.

If Obama gets these people legalized, they will vote for him.  And they will vote to fund their stays by redistributing the wealth of more and more Americans.  Because if they’re entitled to break the law and live here, they’re every bit as entitled to enjoy the same slavish welfare state that other Obama voters enjoy at the expense of Someone Else’s Money.

Get ready for the Upside-Down-U-Shaped economy as we burn in the hell we voted for.  Because Obama also promised us that he would lead America to growth rather than to a negative GDP and the lowest consumer confidence index in over a year.

And you’d better damn well leave room in the food line ahead of you: because there are going to be 11 million more people looking for their free Obama money whom Democrats need to woo to complete their takeover of the republic.

Supreme Court AGAIN Poised To Rule That ‘Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief’ Obama Is A Fascist Thug

April 26, 2012

First ObamaCare and now Arizona law S.B. 1070.

The otherwise bizarre way Obama demonized the Supreme Court AFTER that court had taken it’s vote strongly suggests that Obama had been tipped off as to the outcome – which even most liberals predicted would go against Obama following the disastrous showing by the Obama administration’s attempt to defend its fascist takeover of the health care system - is itself a tipoff as to how the SCOTUS will rule.  Because why would Obama demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court if it is going to rule in his favor???

Obama’s attack against the Supreme Court of the United States follows his attack against the United States Congress.  And when a president attacks and demonizes the two separate branches that are co-equal with him according to the United States Constitution, that president is a fascist.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals forcibly rubbed Obama’s nose in his own fecal matter.  And very deservedly so.

Obama has been slapped down before for his fascist Constitution-defying power-grabs.  And we’d better hope he gets slapped down again for his fascist takeovers.  Because what he’s dong is frightening to anyone who loves liberty.

Obama has ALREADY BEEN SMACKED by the Supreme Court regarding his fascist-takeover attempt in Arizona.

Now we’re seeing Obama – the “constitutional scholar – on the verge of getting slapped hard in the face yet again because of his inability to understand that HE IS NOT A DICTATOR.

Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 4/25/12

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.

The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.

Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.

Even Sotomayor may very well rule against Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted Verilli to say, “It is not an effort to preempt federal law, it is an effort to enforce the law.” Roberts added that even if Arizona detains an undocumented immigrant “It’s still [the federal government’s] decision” who to deport.

Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia sided almost entirely with Arizona and ventured to an extreme where not even the state of Arizona seemed uninterested in spending much time. Scalia argued in court that the states not only have the right to enforce federal immigration law but also have the right to wholly close their borders to undocumented immigrants.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was the most sympathetic to the government’s claims, seemed unconvinced. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” she said, as Verrilli attempted to explain why it’s okay for states and the federal government to cooperate when the federal government takes the initiative but not when a state moves to mandate their cops to do so.

“Putting aside the argument that systemic cooperation is wrong,” adding, “you can see it’s not selling well,” Sotomayor asked Verilli to explain “what’s left?”

Verrilli did not have a great deal to offer.

Obama has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the United States Congress.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Supreme Court.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the states.  He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give one flying damn about the Constitution.

I’ve written about the Arizona law a number of times before (from newest to oldest):

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

Mexico Says Their Citizens Returning Home Are A Burden: How Were They Not A Burden To America?

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

Based on the oral arguments, it looks like I was right and the “Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief” was überfascist wrong.

Mexican-‘Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

June 28, 2011

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

***
In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

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

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

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

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damnSeriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.

Napalitano Travels To Afghanistan To Make Its Border As Secure As America’s

January 3, 2011

Afghanistan is in trouble.  Fools are descending upon their country to give them advice.

Asking Janet Napolitano – or ANYBODY from the Obama administration – for advice on securing a border is rather like asking Tiger Woods for marital advice.

Napolitano Visit Aimed at Beefing Up Afghan Border Security, Customs

By Mike Levine
Published December 31, 2010
| FoxNews.com

KABUL, Afghanistan — During an unannounced New Year’s Eve visit to Afghanistan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to the country’s mountainous border region near Pakistan to see first-hand her department’s efforts in the war effort there.

“Seeing is worth a thousand words,” Napolitano said after the tour, to which Fox News was granted exclusive access. “This all involves safety and security in this part of the world. And that is something that has direct connection as well to the United States.”

She described her department’s role in war-torn Afghanistan as a “complement” to the military operations there.

Her agency has about two dozen officials in Afghanistan, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, and Border Patrol agents. Many are training Afghan security forces to manage their country’s borders.

Poor Afghanistan.  They really don’t have any chance at all, do they?

The only thing worse than the blind leading the blind are the fools leading the fools.

The Obama administration’s approach to securing a border entails, first of all, doing nothing whatsoever to actually secure the border at all.  Because, obviously, doing something like securing a border is racist.  The second step in Obama border non-security involves carefully placing signs in border states announcing the surrender of national sovereignty, and advising citizens to keep out so the illegal immigrants can conduct their business without being disturbed by gringos who stupidly care about enforcing their country’s laws:

The third step involves vigorously attacking Arizona or any other state that actually wants to have any kind of meaningful security from the illegal immigrant invasion.  And, oh, you can add additional steps, such as bogus eggheaded liberal pseudo-scientific studies to show that the invasion across America’s border is actually a good thing for the United States.

You know, apart from the fact that the above ridiculous idea is complete and unadulterated bullcrap when you consider even MEXICO acknowledges that the very same immigrants are a burden when they return to their own country.

Oh, it also wouldn’t be hard to simply change “illegal immigrant” to “terrorist.”  Or, as Janet Napolitano and her boss Barry Hussein prefer to call them, “advocates of man-caused disaster.”

And, of course, the final step of the Obama administration’s border non-security is to demonize anyone and everything that in any way seeks to actually make the border more secure.

If you want to see the “theories” of border security that Janet Napolitano will be bringing from the Obama administration, see here, or here.

It’s like a sick joke that just keeps getter sicker and sicker.

Like I said, poor Afghanistan.

New Obama ICE Plan Refuses To Deport Illegals Without ‘Serious’ Criminal Record

September 2, 2010

There was a time in this fair land, back when there was something called “common sense” and “basic moral reasoning” when “illegal immigrant” meant one had broken the law.  There was a time when saying “criminal illegal alien” amounted to a tautology, the needless repetition of an idea.

But in today’s Bizarro Obama universe, there are non-criminal illegals.

Just listen to the new rules:

The memo directs ICE attorneys to check cases of detained illegal immigrants for any “serious” or “adverse” factors weighing against dismissal, including criminal convictions, fraud, national security and public safety considerations.

“If no investigations … or serious adverse factors exist, the offices of chief counsel should promptly move to dismiss proceedings,” the memo reads. “Once the Field Office Director is notified, the FOD must release the alien.”

If the illegal immigrants continually streaming in from Mexico voted Republican, Obama would be doing everything imaginable – including breaking the law – to keep them out.  Instead, on the one hand, Obama is allowing illegal aliens into the country to curry favor with the Hispanic vote, even as he helps blue states from counting the votes of our soldiers overseas to suppress their overwhelmingly conservative vote.

Bizarro, just bizarro.

New Immigration Policy to Halt Some Illegal Immigrant Deportations
Published August 27, 2010
FoxNews.com

ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton, seen here, wrote the Aug. 20 memo to Peter Vincent, principal legal adviser and head of the agency’s removal operations.

Federal authorities have issued a new policy aimed at stopping deportation proceedings for some illegal immigrants, according to a memo issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The memo, which ICE released on Aug. 20, could affect up to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married or related to a U.S. citizen or a legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf. Illegal immigrants with criminal convictions will not qualify under the plan. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton wrote the memo to Peter Vincent, principal legal adviser and head of the agency’s removal operations.

The memo directs ICE attorneys to check cases of detained illegal immigrants for any “serious” or “adverse” factors weighing against dismissal, including criminal convictions, fraud, national security and public safety considerations.

“If no investigations … or serious adverse factors exist, the offices of chief counsel should promptly move to dismiss proceedings,” the memo reads. “Once the Field Office Director is notified, the FOD must release the alien.”

The change in policy could affect thousands of the estimated 17,000 pending removal cases. According to ICE data, nearly 40,000 immigrants obtained U.S residency status due to sponsorship of relatives who were legal residents in fiscal year 2009. By comparison, more than 393,000 illegal immigrants were deported during that same span.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, likened the change to a “free pass” for illegal immigrants, a characterization federal authorities denied.

“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” Grassley told The New York Times. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”

A Department of Homeland Security official told Fox News that the new policy was designed in July 2009 to improve docket efficiency.

Richard Rocha, ICE’s deputy press secretary, said the agency remains focused on removing foreign nationals who have criminal convictions.

“This administration is committed to smart, effective immigration reform, prioritizing the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security,” Rocha said in a statement. “In 2010 to date, ICE has removed more than 150,000 convicted criminals — a record number.

“ICE is not engaged in a ‘backdoor’ amnesty and has placed more people in immigration proceedings this year than ever before.  ICE has implemented a new policy to expedite the removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security by ensuring these cases are heard.”

“Improve docket efficiency”?  Hey, I have an idea: let’s refuse to deport the illegal immigrants guilty of terrible violent crimes.  That would “improve docket efficiency” even MORE.

Don’t worry.  That’s coming next.

Oops.  Too late.  It’s already here right now.

The patchwork array of sanctuary cities around the country is leaving dangerous criminal illegal aliens on America’s streets.

Local municipalities in these sanctuary cities prevent their officials from reporting illegals—even those with criminal records—to Immigrations and Customs enforcement (ICE), and it is costing American lives.

Obama wasn’t content to personally and publicly demonize Arizona as a racist state.  He wasn’t content to invite Mexican President Calderon to the Capital to demonize Arizona as a racist state.  He wasn’t even content to sue Arizona for a law identical to the U.S. law (while ignoring all of those sanctuary cities which specifically break U.S. law).  No, he proceeded to bring Arizona before the United Nations Human Rights Council.

But don’t worry.  Justice will be done at the Human Rights Council, where highly repressive regimes as China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Vietnam have served.  Not to mention Zimbabwe, Algeria and Pakistan.

In 2003, Bush confronted a UN Human Rights Commission which at the time consisted of Libya, China, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Vietnam and Russia.  That’s the kind of human rights champions we’ve got.

Currently, Iran is on the UN panel for women’s rights.  Because Iran gives such great rights to women, after all.

Except for THIS woman, of course.  Okay, and maybe this one.

Obama threw a state of the union to the wolves.  And hoped the vicious international big government totalitarian regimes would tear Arizona a new one.  Because that’s just the kind of guy this man who cozied up to a Venezuelan dictator thug and literally bowed down before the king of Saudi Arabia (one of the nastiest purveyors of human rights abuses on the planet) truly is.

The Arizona border is totally out of control.  The Obama administration – which refuses to lift a finger to help the state even as it prevents it from being allowed to do anything to help itself – put up signs warning US citizens that swaths of Arizona were basically no longer safe for Americas.  It was rather restricted for use by violent criminal illegal aliens.


Boy, I hope all these drug and human smugglers Obama gave Arizona to have well-known criminal records.  Because otherwise Obama invites them to stay as long as they like.

Soon we’re going to be able to “deport” Democrats from office.  They’re the ones who made travesties like this possible.

Racist Murderer Laments He Didn’t Kill More White People

August 14, 2010

We’ve got the New Black Panthers and their leaders urging a race war and the killing of white babies:

“I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.”

We’ve got the Obama Administration dismissing charges of voter intimidation against men who brought weapons and issued racist threats against voters.  We’ve got the Obama Administration demanding, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.” We’ve got We’ve got the New York Slimes’ pathetic retraction admitting that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that black congressmen were racially insulted or spat upon (see also here, and then take a look at the retraction here).  Which of course begs the question why these congressmen lied and maliciously and despicably claimed that they were the victims of a racist incident that in fact never occurred.

And now we’ve got a racist black thief becoming a racist murderer.

One wonders when the NAACP and the surrounding liberal establishment will quit calling the Tea Party racist and actually deal with the actual racists.

Probably never, but one wonders.

From the AP:

By STEPHEN SINGER and MARK SCOLFORO, Associated Press Thu Aug 5, 7:58 pm ET

HARTFORD, Conn. – A black man who went on a shooting rampage at a beer distributor calmly told a 911 operator that it was “a racist place” and that he “handled the problem” but wished he had shot more people.

Omar Thornton called 911 after shooting 10 co-workers — eight fatally — on Tuesday morning at Hartford Distributors Inc. He introduced himself as “the shooter over in Manchester” and said he was hiding in the building, but he would not say where.

“You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up,” he said, his voice steady. “This place is a racist place. They’re treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people.”

Connecticut State Police released the audio of the four-minute 911 call on Thursday, the day company and union officials rebutted suggestions that the company had ignored Thornton’s complaints of racism.

Thornton, 34, went on his rampage moments after he was forced to resign when confronted with video evidence that he had been stealing and reselling beer.

The 911 call confirmed suggestions from his relatives and girlfriend that he believed he was avenging racist treatment in the workplace.

Hartford Distributors president Ross Hollander said there was no record to support claims of “racial insensitivity” made through the company’s anti-harassment policy, the union grievance process or state and federal agencies.

“Nonetheless, these ugly allegations have been raised and the company will cooperate with any investigation,” Hollander said.

The union said 14 of 69 dock workers, or 20 percent, were racial minorities — four black, nine Hispanic, one Asian.

The idea that Thornton’s motive may not have been retaliation for losing his job has not sat well with many of the people who knew the victims and have firsthand knowledge of the environment inside the enormous distribution center in Manchester.

“Everybody just thinks this race card is such a wrong thing,” said Michael Cirigliano, whose slain brother, Bryan, was Thornton’s union representative at the disciplinary meeting and the president of the local union.

Michael Cirigliano also spent three decades working at the warehouse before he retired two years ago.

“The Hispanics and the blacks were telling me they’ve never seen anything they’re accusing the company of in the bathrooms or anywhere else at HDI,” he said. “It’s never been separated white, black, Asian. It’s never been like that.”

He said the company had increased its hiring of minorities in recent years.

“They’ve been bringing in more and more minority people to fill the positions,” Cirigliano said. “You could almost go as far as that’s reverse discrimination. They were hiring the groups to balance the workplace, because that’s what we are in America, there’s a balance.”

Anthony Napolitano, the son-in-law of victim Victor James, 60, of Windsor, said James treated everyone equally, regardless of race or religion.

Truck driver David Zylberman, a 34-year employee of the company, said that the racism claims “pissed me off because they were good people.”

I suppose you could argue that the three lying Black Caucus congressmen were actually virtuous.  I mean, sure they lied and maliciously tried to manufacture a race incident.  But at least they didn’t follow up their lies with homicides.

Slimeball murderer Omar Thornton – who manufactured claims of racism to conceal the fact that he was a thief who was literally caught on video stealing – wasn’t so “virtuous.”

After his shooting spree, he said, “I killed the five racists.”

We have had a rash of mainstream media propagandists and Democrat politicians demonizing the Tea Party for inciting violence.  Even though all the actual violence has been committed by the left.

Barack Obama promised he would be the post-racial president who would heal the divide.  Instead he has fanned racist flames that this country hasn’t seen in fifty years.  Which shouldn’t surprise anyone who is aware of the racist church that he was a member of for more than twenty years.  Obama has played the race card against Bill Clinton.  He has played the race card against a white police officer.  He has played the race card against an entire state of the union (Arizona).

Who is actually inciting racist violence?  And which race is responding with violence?

“You’re going to have to kill some crackers!  You’re going to have to kill some of their babies!”

“I killed the five racists!”

And, of course, Hispanic violence is now pretty much a matter of routine.

And here’s a DIFFERENT violent protest:

A Hispanic protester threatened the murder of white Americans with axes and shovels.  Because apparently the out-of-control Arizona border is not out-of-control enough for her.

Meanwhile, at event after event, Tea Parties rally peacefully and then pick up their own garbage.

This is where our society had degenerated into: if we try to prevent illegal immigrants from taking root and taking over our country, we’re racist.  If we try to fire a black man caught red-handed on video tape stealing from us, we’re racist.  If we try to refute race-baiting black congressmen from falsely accusing us of spitting on them, we’re racist.

It’s long past time we exposed the actual racists for who and what they are.

If you want racists; if you want incitements to violence; if you want ACTUAL violence; you turn your head and look at the Democrat Party.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers